Kill the CEOs!

Insurance companies take a large risk that their income from premiums will exceed the amount they pay out to doctors, hospitals, and other medical providers for their services. They lower their risks by denying coverage as often as possible.

In most of the civilized world, healthcare systems provide coverage for whatever the doctor orders. In many countries, there is no charge for healthcare at the point of use or minimal copays. Our Medicare plan for older Americans is remarkably similar to what is available for everyone in most counties.

It is common knowledge that the healthcare system in the U.S. is broken. OECD ranks us last in healthcare availability and outcomes.[i] Millions of people can’t afford medical care except in emergency rooms. Millions of people can’t afford health insurance. Our life expectancy is 76.4 years compared to 80.4 years for OECD countries. Our infant mortality ranks thirty-third out of thirty-eight countries. We have the highest levels of diabetes. We spend twice as much on healthcare than any other OECD country and have worse results. There is plenty of blame to go around. Prescription drugs are expensive, and hospitals are costly and getting more expensive as hedge funds buy them up and reduce staff and departments to increase profits. Too often the U.S. healthcare system isn’t so much about healthcare as it is about profit. So let’s shoot the CEOs?

Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was shot in the back while walking to an investor information meeting. The assailant evidently believed that shooting a CEO would improve healthcare. It won’t. The assailant has two degrees from an Ivy League school and comes from an upper-middle-class prominent family, who went missing for a month before the shooting. He should know better. Shooting someone isn’t an acceptable way to express anger. It is not justifiable under any circumstance. It never was. But that was then and this is now.

A study by the University of Chicago indicated that only seventy-eight percent of those surveyed blamed the assailant totally. Sixty-nine percent said that denial of coverage by insurance companies was to blame, and seventy-six percent blamed the general inequality of wealth or income. Axios reported that in a survey of one thousand voters, seventeen percent said that the killing of Brian Thompson was acceptable or somewhat acceptable. Shockingly, forty-one percent of those 18-29 said it was at least somewhat acceptable.

The assailant, Luigi Mangione, received loud applause when he was mentioned on TV. Axios said that the public's veneration of Mangione “Revealed a deep distrust of the health insurance industry and its treatment of patients in need of critical care.”[ii]

The day after the killing, Andrew Witty, the CEO of the parent company of UnitedHealthcare, wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times in which he said that he and his colleagues were trying to make sense of, “The unconscionable act and the vitriol that has been directed at our colleagues.”[iii] Yes, the deliberate and planned shooting was an unforgivable act. The vitriol should not be unexpected.

Mr. Witty went on to note that, “No one would design a system like the one we have. And no one did. It’s a patchwork built over decades.” He is right. It is a system that doesn’t work, it shouldn’t work and shouldn’t exist. Nothing changes without change. A highly educated friend of mine recently wrote to me, “I knew the U.S. healthcare for us old folks was broken but since coming here (nursing home) I realize how very bad it is.”

Mr. Witty was correct, the system is broken. You can’t expect different results if you keep on doing the same thing over and over again. Change requires change.

But will we make the needed changes? We just elected a president who has appointed people to responsible positions who want to do away with the parts of the system that work. They have convinced a large segment of the country that easily available and affordable healthcare is a bad thing. They want to tear apart Medicare and Medicaid which provides basic coverage for millions and millions of older people and low-income people. They don’t see good healthcare as a basic human right. They are wrong.

So what would be a good start to improving the healthcare of Americans? What would be a good start to make our healthcare as good as that of other nations? We could start by agreeing that everyone should have good healthcare. The rub is that it is hard to get people to agree on the definition of good healthcare. Then we could try to agree that everyone should have affordable access to good healthcare.

If we could agree on those two things it would open the floodgates of strategic options related to how we pay for healthcare, how we provide it, and how we use the system.  My thought is that we try to determine how we will pay for healthcare before we redesign the system. Everyone agrees that healthcare is expensive, but it doesn’t have to be so much. Hospital services, for example, have risen 269% since the year 2000.[ii] That suggests that some of the costs are increasing because the for-profit hospitals feel that they can raise the prices with impunity.

The price of drugs in the U.S. is extremely costly compared to the rest of the world. For example, the cost of the new drug for weight loss, Ozempic, is $936 in the U.S. It is $93 in the UK and $83 in France.[iii] Most users don’t pay full price if they have insurance. Other countries negotiate prices directly with manufacturers or have national groups that determine the price. The manufacturers tell us they could not afford to develop new drugs if prices were constrained, but they do it for other nations. The U.S. and Australia are the only two countries that allow drug manufacturers to advertise. Eli Lilly spends $1.0 billion on advertising each year and Pfizer averages $3.7 billion for advertising. They spent $9.3 billion and $10.7 billion respectively for research. Simply outlawing pharmaceutical advertising would save the system billions of dollars. Allowing negotiation for prices would reduce the cost of drugs by more than a third. Outlawing for-profit hospitals could lower those costs by at least half. A single-payor funding plan would eliminate billions of dollars that flow into insurance company profit streams. The point is that affordable healthcare for all citizens will require a massive disruption of the current system.

If we designed a system that wasn’t a patchwork of random methods and regulations we might do away with healthcare for profit. We might find ways to reduce by half the cost of healthcare if more people were healthier because they can afford preventive care. We might find ways to reduce our child mortality rates and increase our life expectancy. We might be able to provide prenatal care to all who need it. We might reduce the number of people who don’t seek medical care because of the cost. Killing CEOs won’t change the system. What will change the system is a nation of people who believe that good affordable healthcare is a human right.

Imagine a nation whose people’s health is as good as the rest of the world. We could be that nation someday.

 

---

[i] The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is an international organization that provides economic information from one hundred countries.

[ii] Axios, 12/27/2024

[iii]Andrew Witty, New York Times, 12/13/2024

[1] Nonpartisan research organization at the University of Chicago

[1] Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024

[1] Shawn Radcliff, Heartline, 7/31/202 13

 Nonpartisan research organization at the University of Chicago

[ii] Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024

[iii] Shawn Radcliff, Heartline, 7/31/202 13

Out Of The Fire, Dreams!

 If you’ve been there, you will never forget it. If you have the chance you will go back again and again, no matter what your religious preference or none.

Notre Dame de Paris took two hundred years to build and stood for nearly nine hundred years. The world watched, shocked, as it burned to near rubble in 2019, within fifteen to thirty minutes of total collapse. The bell towers and walls of the nave were saved by the buttresses and the firefighters. People in the know said it could never be rebuilt. It was.

I remember visiting the grand cathedral once when the organ was playing gently until it wasn’t. The organist prodded it until walls shook and the floor vibrated a little. The orgue, all  eight thousand pipes, was saved but it had to be dismantled, cleaned of toxins, and reconstructed.

Les cloches, nine of them weighing from thirteen tons to as little as seventeen hundred pounds, were lowered, cleaned, and raised again to new support beams. You can hear them from nearly any spot in the inner arrondissements of Paris.

This last weekend the rejuvenated church opened to fanfare witnessed by leaders from around the world in both a secular ceremony for la crème de la crème on Saturday, and a religious rite of consecration and Mass on Sunday. The iconic building has an unusual status: owned by the state, which is anti-religion, and the cathedra[i] of the Catholic Archbishop of Paris, a parish church and a tourist destination, the icon of Paris.

Much can be made of the reconstruction: religious, secular, nationalism, or just beauty. As the TV cameras panned the cathedral before the opening ceremony, it showed a large section of the nave with empty seats. Early in the ceremony firefighters entered, clad in their bright uniforms, followed by artists, engineers, stone masons, and others who had worked to restore the building. The applause was deafening as they filled the seats reserved for them.

The thousands who labored for five years were the backstory of the reconstruction. The initial decision to rebuild the edifice as it had been originally built caused a  wave of old skills to be renewed. People went to the original forest to topple trees and hand-hew the beams that would form the roof, held together with hand-shaped dowels. Young men and women learned the old skills of stone carving, painting restoration, granite cleaning, leaded glass cleaning, and reconstruction. The soot and toxic debris demanded that the interior walls be cleaned, removing over eight hundred years of grime, resulting in a bright white interior mirroring its original opening so many centuries ago.

In 1962, President Kennedy challenged the nation: “ We choose to go to the moon in this decade …  not because they are [it is] easy, but because they are  [it is] hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win…” We did.

President Macron rallied his nation after the fire: “The fire at Notre Dame reminds us that our history never stops and we will always have challenges to overcome. We will rebuild Notre Dame, more beautiful than before –  and I want it done in the next five years. We can do it. After the time of testing comes a time of reflection and of action.” They did.

Both challenges required great organization, highly skilled workers and artisans, and a great deal of money; nine hundred million dollars for the cathedral. But it brought focus to a nation in disarray economically and politically. It set a goal to be achieved, and its achievement shouts to us to raise our expectations and change our behavior.

Individuals and nations can achieve greatness if  rightly directed, challenged, and given a chance. We can do better than we are doing. What if our leaders urged us to greatness rather than in-fighting all the time. What if our leaders gave us great goals that moved the world forward to real greatness, to end the funk we are in, to end starvation and disease, to end wars, to let the people rule the world, to shoot for Mars and beyond? Imagine if someone said we could do all that in five or ten years, and we said yes. Out of the fire, we can bring beauty to the world.

“You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope someday you’ll join us, and the world will live as one.”[ii]

 

---

[i] Cathedral derives from cathedra, the Latin word for chair. Bishops traditionally taught from the Chair. Most now teach/preach from the ambo/pulpit.

[ii] John Lenon, Imagine - 1971

The Oath!

 "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

On January 20^th, our once-and-new president will take an oath of office. It is short, specific, and traditional. He will affirm his intention to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. That’s it—full stop.

There are some other duties outlined in the Constitution. The President is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy (it was written before we needed an Air Force or a Space Force). S/He also commands the militia of the several states when called into the actual service of the U.S. For those who take an “originalist” view of the Constitution, one might remember that in the late 1700s militias were made up of the local gentry. Because the Framers wanted a “well regulated militia,” they gave people the right to keep and bear arms.[i] Presidents also appoint heads of executive departments, members of the Supreme Court, and other important officials, with advice and consent of the Senate. We know this. We learned it in the eighth grade and again in Civics and History courses, but it’s worth repeating.

When a President-Elect chooses his/her Cabinet they have at least two choices: Competent people who are loyal to the President or loyal people who are competent or not so much. At face value, President-Elect Trump’s choices are in the not-so-much category. Selections based on loyalty to him are the first criterion. He and his MAGA movement scored the trifecta of the electoral race: the presidency, and a majority in both houses of Congress. There is a highly conservative majority in SCOTUS that leans in his direction.

It presents an opportunity for good or bad. If political survival in the majority party of both houses of Congress requires fealty to a president, it messages concern. Montesquieu championed the idea of three separate branches of government. He noted that “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”[ii]

Yale professor Timothy Snyder wrote in 2017 that, “The democracies that arose after the First World War (and the Second) often collapsed when a single party seized power in some combination of an election and a coup d’etat. A party emboldened by a favorable election result or motivated by ideology, or both might change the system from within.”[iii]

The President-elect campaigned on a platform of retribution, politicizing the Justice Department, or using the military against the people of the country. We learned from his first administration that he tends to do what he tells us he will do. Again, his Cabinet appointments seem to be based on loyalty instead of competence, potentially a step toward autocracy in the name of democracy, intended or not.

The President-elect has shown no lack of favoritism for oligarchs. Elon Musk clings to the shirttails of power. Other oligarchs created massive PACs to support the Trump election, as did a few for Harris. The oligarchs own most of the wealth of the nation. Too many of us refuse to acknowledge the reality of the massive wealth distributed among a few dozen people. If they successfully get their claws into the governing fabric of the country, democracy will shrink. You just can’t have a democracy ruled by oligarchs. It never works.

The candidate for Secretary of Defense, for example, isn’t qualified for the job based on his work experience. His appointment is scary because of his disdain for the American system and his call for using the military against citizens who disagree with the neo-nationalism philosophy. He wears tattoos supporting white nationalism. His books call for divorcing red states from the rest of America. If one is less MAGA than he is, they should be concerned: “Whether you like it or not, you are an ‘infidel’ – an unbeliever – according to the false religion of leftism. You can submit now or later, or you can fight.”[iv] He has stated that we are now in a post-Constitution period in our history. If he believes that, one wonders if he will take the oath to support and defend the Constitution.

The danger of one-party rule extends to the states as well. Some states are letting officials determine what is taught in colleges, trying to eliminate tenure for professors. Some states now require schools to teach the Bible and promote Christian beliefs in opposition to the Constitution.

So what is one to do? We know that the nation is exhausted from 24/7/365 politics. They have heard all they want to hear about how bad a person Trump is, true or not. “Woe is me” isn’t especially useful.

We can, however, insist that those who take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution do just that. Whenever someone acts against their oath they should be brought to heel by the press, the Fourth Estate. Individuals can write about it on X, on Facebook, Bluesky, or even Instagram and TikTok. They can write to the local newspaper if they still have one. They can be opposed in the next election.

What can we do about this? We need to pay attention to what our leaders do, rather than just what they say. That applies at the local school board level and at city hall or in the state capitol. Politicians react to citizen reactions. They read their mail; they listen to the phone calls. When they see a trend they move in that direction. Write to your representatives at each level, leave phone messages, write to local newspapers, respond to X messages, join your party’s local committee, and influence it to support your objectives.

Let’s remember that all elected officials at the federal level take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Let’s make sure they do.

It’s about the Constitution. It isn’t about Trump.

 

---

[i] Second Amendment of the Constitution, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Note the placement of the commas. Hamilton argued in The Federalist No.28 that, “For a long time to come, it will not be possible to maintain a large army; and as the means of doing this increase, the population and natural strength of the community will proportionably increase.”

[ii] Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, 1748. Noted in The Federalist No 47. He also wrote that “The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.”

[iii] Timothy Snyder, On Tyranny – Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, Tim Dugan Books, 2017

[iv] The Guardian, Nov. 22, 2024, a report on Pet

 

Wind the Clock!

 Former president Grover Cleveland, nos. 22 & 24 must have been rooting for Donald Trump nos. 45 & 47. They are the only presidents in our long history elected to the presidency twice, but not to consecutive terms. Election night 2024 brought tears of joy and tears of despair to our divided nation. The polls predicted a nail-biter. Reality was a bloodbath.

The election results punctuated the divide between the “educated coastal elite” and everyone else. It is wide and it is deep. It has built over decades but ignored by the degreed and urban bound. David Brooks notes that our education policies pushed people toward four-year college and let vocational training wither.[i] The well-educated migrated to the urban areas where other well-educated worked and socialized, and where they thought well of themselves and not of the under-educated, the working class, and the rural. Brooks said that the sucking sound we heard on election night was the redistribution of respect. Trump heard them, Harris, not so much.

It was the sound of Hispanics moving toward Trump, of men  migrating right, of suburban women sliding right while voting pro-abortion, of Catholics genuflecting to the right without an abortion priority. Ultra-liberal California made a significant move to the Republican side of the ballot in over 70% of the counties. Several congressional districts are too close to call. There was a loud clang for the working class, led by a supposed billionaire.

Ruy Teixeira[ii] laments that today's Democratic coalition is not fit to win. Republicans consistently dominate in rural areas, working-class neighborhoods, and among men and young women. He says it is no longer the party of the ordinary American, the common man, and the women.

Bernie Sanders was not surprised by the Harris loss. He suggests that the Democratic Party, which has abandoned the working class, should not be surprised that the working class  abandoned them.[iii] He noted that 60% of households live paycheck to paycheck and that wages adjusted for inflation are lower than fifty years ago. He is not optimistic that the Democratic Party will be able to understand the pain and political alienation that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing. An independent who caucuses with Democrats raised the ire of Nancy Pelosi who is adamant that they are the party of the working class, all evidence to the contrary.

For many, dreams were shattered when a woman wasn’t elected President when a Black woman wasn’t elected, when someone supportive of LGBTQ+ issues wasn’t elected, when a supporter of trans people lost.

The view in the rearview mirror is pretty clear and closer than it appears. A twice impeached, convicted felon and sexual predator, who tried to overturn the last election that he lost, who speaks of being a dictator on the first day and maybe thereafter based on his focus on tearing the country apart won the election overwhelmingly. He won the predictable red states, he won in the blue-wall states, he moved the needle toward red in nearly every state, he captured a large percentage of  the Hispanic vote in Texas, he won the Black men and Hispanic men, suburban women, and the majority of votes nationwide. When referring to the MAGA movement, Americans can’t say,  “That’s not who we are.” It is, regrettably.

The famous essayist E. B. White received a letter from a man who had lost faith in humanity. He responded this way: “Mr. Nadeau, As long as there is one upright man, as long as there is one compassionate woman, the contagion may spread and the scene is not desolate. Hope is the thing that is left to us in a bad time. I shall get up Sunday morning and wind the clock, as a contribution to order and steadfastness…Hang on to your hat. Hang on to your hope, And wind the clock, for tomorrow is another day.” [iv]

Today is the other day. The clocks need winding. How can the decimated and leaderless Democratic Party, or anyone who can’t fathom or tolerate the election results try to bring order and steadfastness to the chaos we are about to experience?

Without sounding too cliché, a little retrospection would be helpful. The nation is redder than at any time in the last few decades. Exit polls confirm pre-election focus group responses. A vast number of people don’t trust our most trusted institutions anymore. They don’t trust the government. Large unions failed to endorse the most pro-union party. At least one pundit has suggested that Democrats need to go county by county and talk to the people who didn’t vote for them. They need to learn why.

Others have suggested replacing all the octogenarian politicians. At age sixty, Harris was pressed into service to represent the new and younger generation of her party. She is at least fifteen years too late. The average age in the U.S. is thirty-five to forty years old, depending on the state in which you live. There are lots of young Democrats in the House and Senate, in the Mayor’s offices, and in the Governor’s offices who can take the reins of a defeated and leaderless party. They need to lead the charge. They have the ideas. They have the ear of the local folks. Many of the current leaders need to get out of the way.

Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat, won reelection to her House seat in a very red district. The 36-year-old mother and business owner told the NYT that “Democratic condescension has to go… It is going to take parents of young kids, people in rural communities, people in the trades running for office and being taken seriously.” Seth Moulton, a 46-year-old House member from Massachusetts said that “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone.” Both called for a rebranding of the party.

There is plenty of blame to go around in the Harris-Biden campaign organizations. They fell into Trump's trap. He called them names and they called him names. They focused on Trump’s personality and his wild incoherent rants and rambles at his rallies instead of ignoring him and talking about kitchen table issues. Harris never sold whatever plan she had to reduce the cost of groceries and gas, the two issues that mattered. The blue bloods need to provide specific plans for improving the economy.

The current administration did a lousy job of communicating its achievements. Televised focus groups of young men who worked on infrastructure-related manufacturing jobs didn’t know that the funds were part of the administration's infrastructure bill. They didn’t know that their insurance was related to the ACA. They didn’t know that the administration was the most pro-union in generations. They don’t listen to regular TV news or read legacy newspapers. Trump trumped them on X,  Tic Toc, and other social media networks. His interview on the Joe Rogan podcast was viewed by twenty-eight million people in two days. The Dems need to speak to the folks where they live and get their information: TikTok, Instagram, and the other hundreds of websites unknown to forty-year-olds and older.

The media can take some responsibility for the election day outcomes. Daily for the last few years, the press was more interested in Trump’s silly verbal outpourings than in either party’s policies. Harris was an Oh by the way. The media, with few exceptions, is not journalism anymore; Fox News and MSNBC are neither fair nor balanced and they don’t pretend to be. They both carry the stench of partisanship as their mission. They and their ilk are much to blame for the vast divide that streams through the nation. On the other hand, that isn’t where most people get their news anymore. The Dems need to become more astute at messaging.

Lincoln supposedly said that. "Anyone can suffer adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”[v] We have tested Trump's character and found it faulty and lacking grace, yet he was elected by a large margin. But adversity allows the other side to evaluate their character. It must ask itself if this is who we want to be. If not, there is much that can be done to save democracy.

Shakespeare said it differently in Hamlet when the hero laments “The time is out of joint. O cursed spite,/ that ever I was born to set it right!”[vi] So, how to set it right? Democrats need to do several things quickly: Analyze why they lost, develop a modern communications strategy, select national committee leadership and local committee leadership who can go beyond data analysis and get with the people, and quickly hand the reins of Senate leadership to a younger generation and recruit candidates up and down the ticket who are small business owners, tradespeople and others that understand the needs of their neighbors and run on those issues.

Democrats need to listen to the people instead of telling them what’s good for them. Focus group after focus group told the pollsters that grocery prices and gas prices were the kitchen-table issues, both hugely more important than the social issues the Democrats favored.

What the disheartened can’t do is sit at home and fret. That is doing nothing to bring about change. We know that Trump will do what he told us he would do. He will try to deport huge numbers of people, he will tear asunder our public health care system, he will put loyalists in positions of authority instead of qualified people, he will implement the 2025 project without too much noise, he will allow a ban on reproductive rights, he will try to destroy Social Security and Medicare, he will do what he said he would do.

Those of a different view will have to use every tool available to them to ensure that we don’t become an authoritarian country. They will have to convince their neighbor and their uncle that democracy is worth the fight in the courts, in the halls of government, and if needed in the streets.

“Hang on to your hope. And wind the clock."

---

[i] David Brooks, “Voters to Elites – Do You See Me Now? New York Times, 11.07.2024

[ii] Ruy Teiseira, The Shattering of the Democratic Coalition, The Liberal Patriot, 11.07.2024

[iii] Bernie Sanders, Statement released 11.6.2024, Burlington, Vermont

[iv] E. B. White, Letter from Mr. Nadeau, 3.30.1973

[v] The quote “If you want to test a man's character, give him power” is commonly attributed to Abraham Lincoln, but it does not appear in any of his documents. The quote is likely attributed to American politician Robert G. Ingersoll, who said similar things when describing Lincoln in 1883

[vi] Timothy Snyder, On Tyranny, in the Prologue, Tim Duggan Books,2017

A Few Words Tell Volumes!

  

You are biased when you want one candidate to do better than the other in a political debate. Ninety minutes later you feel great, sad, or have mixed emotions. My assessment was different from what I had hoped for. But the bias remains. It’s like a boxing match, you start counting jabs and counter punches hoping that your favorite will land the knockout punch.

The debate between the vice presidential candidates last week was a highly hyped event. There had been one debate between presidential candidates. The media had told us this would be the last big event before the election. Forty-three million folks tuned in. For the most part, it was a sleeper. Unlike the presidential debate which was loaded with personal name-calling and personality-driven answers, the VP candidates were reasonably friendly and policy-driven.

It turns out that J.D. Vance’s friendliness was a deliberate strategy to throw genial Tim Walz off his game. It worked for the most part. There is no question that Vance won the style points. His elite school education and schmalz came through. He wasn’t the nasty grenade thrower he tends to be on the campaign trail.

Vance can make the most egregious mistruth seem true. He is good at it. He even admitted that he made up the story about Haitians eating dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio. It is such a good lie that it is a mainstay of the MEGA movement’s campaign rhetoric.

At one point in the debate, when he espoused a fairly obvious lie, one of the moderators fact-checked him. His response was telling: “Margaret, the rules were that you were not going to fact check …” Sometimes a few words tell volumes!

People are more likely to believe a giant lie than a little one. They wouldn’t tell a major untruth, so they don’t question the big one even if data proves it's wrong. It’s a classic political ploy used by authoritarians across the world. You can read about the idea in Mein Kampf.

Saul Alinsky, the radical activist of the ‘sixties published Rules for Radicals in 1971 that included “Ridicule is a man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.” J.D. is good at it, almost as good at it as his dear leader. Oddly, these two reactionaries are experts in the methods of radicals.

Immigration is a major issue in this election. The MAGA movement seems to have the upper hand for now, to a great degree because of the misinformation they broadcast each day creating a fear among a segment of the population that white domination of the nation is ebbing. It is a continuing effort to divide us.

On Nelson Mandela’s first state visit to the U.S., President Clinton welcomed him by saying, “Every day, you teach the world that those who build triumph over those who tear down; that those who unite can actually prevail over those who would divide … We know, and you know, that diversity and progress can go hand-in-hand. Indeed, that they must do so if we are to give all our people the chance to fulfill their God-given potential.” We could learn from the work of Mr. Mandela! After years in prison for his views about apartheid, he revolutionized the culture of his country and brought it into the democratic world.

President Biden won the 2020 Electoral College vote and was inaugurated President. Former President Trump still litigates his loss at nearly every campaign stop or rally. Even his staunch surrogates admit Biden won but they won’t say that Trump lost.

In the VP debate, Tim Walz asked J.D. Vance directly if Trump lost the 2020 election. Vance responded that he was focused on the future, not the past. To which Walz said that “That was a damning non-answer.”

Sometimes a few words tell volumes!

Most people don’t make their electoral choice based on the vice presidential debate or even on the vice presidential candidate. They make their choice based on the presidential candidates; policy is important, and character is more important. Support for the rule of law is important. Willingness to stand by the oath to support and defend the Constitution is a must.

Our vote will tell volumes about us!

 

Sometimes a few words tell volumes!

 

 

 

Shocking!

Truth be told, I’m somewhat of a political junkie. It began back in high school. Some of you may remember when we took Civics in our freshman year, U.S. History in our junior year, and something called Problems in American Democracy in our senior year, all three of which were required for graduation. Each required keeping up with the world, reading newspapers and news magazines, and preparing for the current events quiz every Friday. I’m sure they still teach history but I wonder about Civics.

We knew the Constitution, memorized parts of the Declaration of Independence, and could name our senators and local representatives, the governor, and other state officials. We learned how a Bill became a Law. We knew stuff.

I know a few folks who aren’t particularly interested in the day-to-day combat between political parties and special interest groups, but they remember stuff. I mention this because I was shocked three times this week: I found out everyone isn’t interested in the current campaign for president, some don’t know much about either candidate's position on major issues nor had they come face-to-face with basic civic practices in their lives. Shocking!

Alex Wagner is a talking head on MSNBC. Don’t let that bother you if you normally watch Fox News. She went to Michigan to interview a group of skilled union workers. I thought the questions were softballs, but the answers were grounders. The panel appeared to be in their young twenties to mid-thirties. But most young folks look eighteen to me, so I’m guessing. They were generally unaware of the candidate’s position on nearly every issue, or what the issues were in this close race.

One or two on the panel remembered something about a group of people storming the Capitol a few years ago: it wasn't something they thought about. They weren't aware that the infrastructure bill provided the basic funding for their jobs. They were not engaged in the complexities of governance in a democratic nation. They seemed to lack a basic understanding of the requirement or mandate for them to pay attention to what was going on around them. The lack of information and the lack of interest in the nation were appalling and cause for concern for the future of the country. It's not their fault.

A recent study by the Bill of Rights Institute[i] found that only 22% of eighth graders scored proficient or better in Civics on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. It reported that most elementary school children receive less than twenty minutes of civic study each week. I’m sure that it varies a lot by school district.

The Institute noted that schools reflect our priorities and we have demanded so many other priorities that the schools don’t have time to spend on Civics. So it’s not really the school’s fault or the teacher’s fault, but our fault.

If we believe that citizens should be well versed in how the government works, in how a democracy works, and about the important issues of the day, then we need to let the school systems know that it is a priority. Some states have noticed the lack of civic training in the schools and have passed laws to require more thorough instruction in Civics. But it is not an easy row to hoe.

Several decades ago, I taught junior high school and senior high school Social Studies: Civics, U.S. History, World History, and Government. We went beyond basic facts. We discussed the effects of events and the value of various political positions.

Forty-one states require that Civics and/or history be taught in their schools. That should be a good thing. But there are too many obstacles to the process. A recent article indicates that “30 percent of principals said the idea that Civics is too political or controversial was a ‘challenging’ or ‘very challenging’ barrier.”[ii]

There is a resurgence of requirements for teaching Civics with specific guidelines attached. In Florida for example, a new curriculum, designed in great part by professors from Hillsdale College emphasizes memorization as early as the first grade and a different approach to historical facts. A course designed for and attended by thousands of teachers “features video lectures that contradict what mainstream historians tend to teach about the founding. The lectures state that the founding fathers were influenced by Christianity more than the secular Enlightenment and its ideas, such as Montesquieu’s theory of the separation of powers.”[iii]

It obscures the fact that Jefferson, Washington, and other Founders lived at the height of the Age of Reason and were influenced by its thought leaders. At least at the senior level of high school students should be able to discuss Locke’s ideas of government by the people or maybe even Voltaire’s concepts about reason as a force for good government. Florida’s efforts to create a curriculum of alternate facts aren’t helpful.

There was a fine line between indoctrination and education that is easily crossed in Social Studies classes. Yes, we want students to know and appreciate the Founding Documents and the thinking that brought them about, but to also understand their dichotomies and how those ancient documents give direction to the current needs of society. Students should discuss and form convictions about our history and form of government. They need to know that many of those who designed our way of life were slave owners. They need to understand that Manifest Destiny involved taking land from native inhabitants who had lived on it for centuries. We have a rich heritage that is balanced by some bad deeds that make the melting pot that makes us great. But if students can’t discuss these things, they will not learn them and they will not be ready for leadership.

Yes, we want students to know about the Civil War and the Gettysburg Address, but they should also understand that slavery is the nation’s original sin. Yes, we want students to know about the evils of the Third Reich’s attempt to take over Europe, but to also understand the horrors of the Holocaust and why it should never be allowed to happen again.

Learning facts alone doesn’t prepare someone to be an active and contributing citizen. That takes discussion, analysis, postulation, decision-making, and aspiration. Without that, people will follow faulty leaders, choose the simple over the demanding, and settle for comfort rather than the hard work of preserving a democratic republic.

 

Shocking!

---

[i] David Bobb, Do They Even Teach Civics Anymore? Bill of Rights Institute, printed in the Sacramento Bee, September 25, 2024

The Institute is financed by the Koch Brothers Charity Foundation and is associated with Hillsdale College. I find little that the Koch Brothers support that I agree with and little that comes out of Hillsdale College that is in the best interest of the country.  On this issue, however, I give them a pass.

[ii] Sarah Schwartz, Civics is Getting Harder to Teach, Education Week magazine, September 6, 2024

[iii] Dana Goldstein, For Republican Governors, Civics is the Latest Battleground, New York Times, September 30,2023.

 

It's Official!

Taylor Swift has spoken. A few minutes after the presidential debate last week. the most famous diva of our time, the headliner of The Eras Tour, posted her endorsement of Harris for President. It included a picture of herself with a cat – The Childless Cat Lady. Thankfully, her tour doesn’t take her to Springfield, Ohio. J.D. Vance says cats and dogs don’t stand a chance in that town. Anyway, it’s official now. The candidates can begin the campaign.

Does Swift’s endorsement really have an effect on the electorate? That depends to whom you speak. She has 284 million followers on X. Four hundred thousand responded positively within one hour of her posting. The November vote count will tell us.

The debate was a runaway win for Harris, but Trump thought it was his best debate. One wonders if it will have any effect on the final vote count. It is possible both candidates made some inroads with the undecided voters of the country, although only a little movement, based on network interviews just after the debate. So why bother?

The 2020 election was decided by less than one hundred thousand votes. Some pundits suggest that it will be even closer this year. That means the election comes down to a few precincts in a few states. All of the polls are within the margin of error.

Pope Francis said recently that we should do two things – vote and vote for the candidate we think is the lesser of two evils. That doesn’t give a lot of people a lot of comfort. He spoke from the point of view of the leader of the world’s largest Christian denomination and as an Argentinian, which gives him a different perspective on U.S. politics. So what are we to do?

Most voters believe they have an easy decision; nearly fifty percent want Trump again and nearly fifty percent want Harris. Half of the voters will be disappointed with the results. The candidates represent two different views of America. One wants to go back to a time when rural life and conservative values permeated the nation; the other wants to move forward to a more perfect union. One has been remarkably successful as the stormtrooper for those who consider themselves the forgotten, the passed-over, the regular folks. The other is seen as the representative of the coastal elites. Two things are true about those thoughts: only 17 percent of the U.S. population live in non-urban areas so their needs are often forgotten or unrecognized by the 50 percent who live within fifty miles of the coasts and/or the 83 percent who live in urban areas.

So it is going to be a close call. The emotions are high. Because we are a democracy we are subjected to contrary views every day, and that is ok. What I don’t like is the obvious way in which many in the Republican Party are buying into the lies spewed by many of the former president’s surrogates and the conspiracy theories that abound. Millions are convinced that undocumented immigrants are voting in big numbers and they support new laws to keep them from voting. It is illegal in every state for a non-citizen to vote and there is no evidence of undocumented immigrants voting. Some states are creating new procedures for reviewing all votes before the results are certified based on lies about fake votes and illegal voters. It goes on.

The election should be about the character of the candidates. Trump doesn’t meet the high bar required of a president. He didn’t the first time and he doesn’t now. Did I mention that he was a convicted felon awaiting sentencing and trial for another 30-plus felony indictments?

The election should be about policies and programs. Trump’s former staff, hundreds of them, helped the Heritage Fund write Project 2025, a 900-page plan to tear down our democracy and replace it with a strong autocratic form of government. Trump has demonstrated his willingness to favor the rich over the poor in tax codes and safety-net programs. He doesn’t measure up to the needs of the nation.

The election should be about the Constitution. Trump said he would ignore the sacred document on his first day in office. He has said that he would use the military to quell protests, which is against the law. He has demonstrated that he is unwilling to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. He showed that on January 6, 2020. He demonstrated that by his friendship with the dictators of North Korea, Russia, and Hungary to name a few, all known enemies of America or its institutions. He hasn’t met the high bar required of a president.

Kamala Harris has demonstrated a willingness to support the Constitution, to fight for the middle class, to disrupt our trek to oligarchy, and protect our civil rights. She may not be the perfect candidate but she seems to be honest and focused on more than the upper one percent of the population.

What are we to do?

First, we must vote. That is what a democracy is all about. In his book On Tyranny, Yale professor Timothy Snyder references a hero in a David Lodge novel who says that you don’t know when you make love for the last time, that you are making love for the last time. Voting is like that. Consider the Germans who elected an autocratic government who then started WW II. Consider the Czechs and Slovaks elected an autocratic Tito, or the Russians who continued to elect an autocratic leader. Even if we are unhappy with our current state of affairs, we must vote to protect our democracy, to prevent the destruction of our institutions. We may not all agree on how to do those things, but we know that those who don’t vote allow bad leaders to win.

But, we have a choice. If we want to keep  America great, if we want to preserve our democracy, if we want to write a new chapter for our country, and if we want to ensure that it is not the last vote, or the next to the last vote, the choice seems easy to make. Vote for Harris.