#975 – Dick Bernard: Four Popes and Fourteen Presidents*

/0 Comments/in , /by

Those who visit the content of this page frequently come to realize that two of my interests are my Church, the Roman Catholic, and politics as practiced in our American society.
So it would come as no surprise that on Christmas Day I was at Basilica of St. Mary for 9:30 Mass.
(click to enlarge)

Basilica of St. Mary, Minneapolis Dec. 25, 2014. Homilist Abp John Nienstedt.

Basilica of St. Mary, Minneapolis Dec. 25, 2014. Homilist Abp John Nienstedt.


This Church of mine is an endless source of curiosity (and other emotions) to many, whether Catholic or not.
Saturday morning, a regular men’s Bible study bunch was at my coffee shop. I’m not sure what denomination they are, but they would seem to come from what I’ve called “Evangelical Protestant”, definitely not Catholic. One proceeded to read from the Dec. 22 message of Pope Francis to the Roman Curia in Rome, and an interesting discussion ensued; more fascination than anything else: this Pope was shaking things up in Rome.
Like for the vast majority of Catholics, the official Church has always been a rather mysterious entity to me, over there in Rome, or even locally, in the Bishops residence, out of sight, hardly in mind except when it makes the news. Most likely I never would have paid attention to the links above cited, were it not for the casual conversation among Protestants the next table over!
But we all “feel the breeze” when something happens over there, and mostly it happens when the Pope says something and releases it for public consumption. What is obvious to the ordinary Catholic is that Pope Francis is shaking things up in Rome, and, thus, in the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church – my Church – is an immense institution. Usually, it is said that about 1,000,000,000 people say they’re “Catholic” among the world’s total population of seven billion. As used to be said of England, “the sun never sets” on a Catholic, somewhere.
But we aren’t all alike.
Neither are the Popes. The Church is no electoral Democracy – maybe we’re governed a bit like Communist China! – but it is not at all so simple. Run of the mill “Catholics” enter and leave, as they wish. The Catholic Church is an institution of free people. In a sense, it is rigid, but at the same time it is elastic. It has to be appreciative of differences, to survive at all.
The Popes are elected by the College of Cardinals, and for whatever reason in March of 2013, they elected a Jesuit from Argentina who chose the name Francis, in honor of St. Francis of Assisi.
Recently I was at a Retreat where a retired Catholic Bishop used one of his talks to describe the three most recent Popes: John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis. One or other of these three have been Pope since 1978; all powerful personalities. Each were very different men, with their own gifts. The Archbishop described all of them in a complimentary way. Talented people. (The only one I ever saw, up close, was John Paul II in St. Peter’s Square in 1998. By then, his health was already very frail. He was in the Popemobile.)
The present Pope, Francis, was described as the first Pope to have been ordained post- Vatican II, the watershed renewal of the Church set in motion by Pope John XXIII in 1962. He’s also the first Pope from the Western Hemisphere; the first from what is called the Global South.
John XXIII, 1958-65 “shook things up”, too, of course. (There have been two other Popes between 1958 and today. Can you name them without looking them up? Not all Popes become household names.)
It matters a great deal who those Cardinals elect to represent the Catholic Church as Pope. They know their candidates.
When they, surprisingly, picked Francis, they were, in my opinion, picking someone to set the “tone” of the Catholic conversation going forward, and in a sense, I’d say, they affirmed the work of Vatican II and Pope John XXIII.
Already in his first year, Pope Francis has shown a willingness to stir things up, and in so doing he has set a very good example.
People like myself are encouraged.
* – U.S. Presidents, like Popes, also set a tone for the national and international conversation. We elect our Presidents, and in so doing, we decide what tone will be set for our country during the term. Since 1958, there have been six Popes and fourteen Presidents. Relationships matter between these leaders, as they do with all of us. Most recently, of course, came news of the rapprochement between U.S. and Cuba, the Vatican being helpful in facilitating the conversation leading to the re-beginning of a relationship severed 54 years ago.
Nativity scene weaving at Basilica of St. Mary Pulpit, Dec. 25, 2014

Nativity scene weaving at Basilica of St. Mary Pulpit, Dec. 25, 2014


PERSONAL OPINION ABOUT THE FOUR POPES:
The serious looking Pius XII, was pontiff during my entre lifetime through high school. As a youth, he was simply a somewhat dour face you’d see at the back of the church.
John XXIII become Pope when I was a Freshman in College (1958). Before college (and Vatican II), “ecumenism” was a largely unspoken term in our small towns. Catholics and Lutherans and whomever were their own islands, relationships often hostile. In college, an inter-religious council was made official, and ecumenism began in earnest in our small town.
John Paul II came along in 1978, after the very short Pontificate of his immediate predecessor, John Paul I, and earlier Paul VI, neither of particular note. JPII was a charismatic leader in his early years, especially to youth. The future Pope grew up 20 miles from Auschwitz-Birkenau Poland, and World War II, and post-war Communism, had huge impacts on him (in my opinion).
Benedict XVI is often described as one of the modern Church’s strongest intellects. To me he always came across as rigid and authoritarian; a Rome insider. His background was growing up German during the Nazi times and unquestionably he was in a profound sense shaped by those horrible times.
Francis is making his own way, with great distinction, in my opinion.

#971 – Dick Bernard: Experiencing History. Cuba, Iran, North Korea and other places.

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

We are, I think, in a very significant time in international history. And it is a good time, but very scary for those who need enemies to be scared of, and dangerous because of a desire to maintain the historical status quo of enemies and war as a solution..
It is a good time to look at the pre-history (that which occurred before the recent history that we are directed towards.) There is a tendency to ignore bad decisions long before that lead to the present. For instance, WWI, the war to end all wars, had a lot to do with creating WWII….
President Obama continues to make very good calls on very complex international situations. Without doubt, he’ll be vilified for all of them, because he’s plowing new ground. As I said in the previous paragraph, it is a good time, for each of us, to start brushing up on history, the history we won’t easily find or hear about, since some things are considered by official dispensers of information to be best left unsaid….

Some snippets, from a bystander (I could easily make this post much, much longer):
1. Added Dec. 19, from reader John Noltner: “I thought I’d share a little of the Cuban beauty I found when I was there a couple years back.” You can view his montage here. John’s work, A Peace of My Mind, can be found here.
CUBA. I was in college when Fidel Castro took over Cuba (1959), and when President Eisenhower made Cuba an enemy state (1960).
Last night I looked at the college newspaper I edited then, and found the article on the front page about the “Afro-Cuban Review” which came to the college in summer 1961. I reread the article, and found the performers were from “Haiti, Jamaica and Trinidad” – apparently no Cubans….
Back in those days, of course, having black people in our town was very unusual, a novelty, one could honestly say. Cuba then and now was a black country. So, also, Haiti, Jamaica and Trinidad, though, unlike Cuba, they weren’t Communist.
Interesting.
(click to enlarge)
Viking News, Valley City ND State Teachers College, July 5, 1961 page one
In 1962, in an Army barracks below Cheyenne Mountain in suburban Colorado Springs, I watched President Kennedy address the nation during the Cuban Missile Crisis (mid-October, 1962). Colorado, then and now, bristled with military installations and was in the bulls eye, so the Rocky Mountain News reminded us. It was a very nervous time for we young GIs, but it passed quickly.
Ultimately Presidents Kennedy and Khruschev decided there were better ways to deal with their relationship than pointing missiles at each other. We didn’t want Soviet missiles in our backyard much like, I suppose, the Russians are not keen on having NATO missiles in their backyard in Ukraine or such today.
And need I mention how it all started, with Teddy Roosevelt’s “charge up San Juan Hill” and the Spanish-American War which began in 1898, the pretext being the supposed bombing of the USS Maine in Havana harbor.
My Grandpa Bernard didn’t go to Cuba, then, but he did spend a year in the Philippines 1898-99, part of the Spanish-American War which gained for the U.S., Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines, and created the largely ignored part of Cuban-American history we need to read for the first time, between 1898 and 1959….
2. NORTH KOREA. Last night Nora O’Donnell’s (CBS Evening News) voice went dead on-air while talking about the apparently connection between North Korea and the hacking of Sony Pictures and the cancellation of the movie “The Interview” scheduled for Christmas Day. It was a long and distinct enough breach so I wondered: was that brief time of dead-air not a coincidence….
There is lots of pre-history here, too.
A week or two ago I had lunch with an executive of a major corporation here, and was moved to ask a dumb question.
He was South Korean by birth and upbringing, much younger than the Korean War, and I asked him, because I didn’t know, how it was that North and South Korea came to be.
Easy.
Korea at the time of WWII was part of the Empire of Japan; many of the soldiers killed in places like China and the Pacific Theater were Korean conscripts, he said. As I mentioned at table, “cannon fodder?” Of course.
After the War the victors, split Korea into two: North and South. “The victors”, in this case, were what have been since 1945 and presently remain the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council: Russia, China, U.S., France, United Kingdom. Not long thereafter came the Korean War, and the deadly military adventure there, including General McArthur’s being fired by Eisenhower for exceeding his authority, and over 60 years of history where we apparently have preferred having an enemy, than working towards resolution.
Check it out.
3. IRAN. History begins where political leaders want it to begin.
It is that way in all regimes, whether good guys or bad.
Our public history of Iran begins with the U.S. Embassy Hostage Crisis of 1979, which was very useful in bringing down President Carter in the 1980 election.
You have to look a bit further to find the back-story: the overthrow in 1953 of democratically elected Iranian President Mossadegh by covert organizing by the West, especially somebody by the name of Kermit Roosevelt, is mostly overlooked.
The objective: to protect western oil fields in Iran. The Shah of Iran was installed, and was hated by the people he governed. Near his end, he was hospitalized in the Mayo Clinic, in our own state. In effect, we welcomed the leader Iranians hated.
I somewhat haplessly crossed through an interesting demonstration by Iranians when President Carter came to Minneapolis in 1978 for a political event. Their heads were covered with grocery bags, and the demonstration was completely peaceful, but serious. This was before the hostage crisis a year later….
4. ETC.
In this post, I give no links. I didn’t even fact check the specific dates, since I lived some of them and have learned the others over the years.
Take some time to see where history began in these and other circumstances.
I applaud President Obama for his move towards normalizing relationships.
May it continue, regardless of the political hysteria it will excite.
COMMENTS:
from Jeff: Nora O’Donnell… wow, I saw that, Bridget mentioned it and I said “you must have touched the mute on the remote” (she did have it in her hand)… she said she didn’t. I never thought of that connection. And it’s odd as I/we seldom watch the network news at 5:30…
I think the Sony decision was amazing… now it is said to have come from N Korea…a commentator on CNN said expect to see the USA and international financial community cut off all financing for N Korea…apparently they did that several years ago and in 2 to 3 weeks they couldn’t pay the Generals…things changed quickly.
Cuba: good op/ed in the NYT saying basically the GOP is following old thinking per usual. Actually I suspect that except for the Florida crew and Menendez from NJ, and of course, Cruz, there are few against this. The GOP in the new Congress might try to scuttle it but its insipidly stupid. Has been for years… the logic of having on going relations with Russia, Japan, Vietnam, Germany, Venezuela, etc. after and during times of enmity is so overwhelming its beyond speaking. We bankrupted a country and people. The moneyed criollo class who came here post-Castro have called the shots for years and the yokels have eaten it up.
Personally I think the change has a lot to do with the current Russian situation…I think the handwriting is on the wall for Cuba… Russia is heading toward a complete economic meltdown and that is not good for Cuba.
Korea: I don’t know the history of the conscripts of Japan… of course I know the history of the “comfort women” and the general historical enmity between Korea and Japan. My guess is Korean conscripts largely died in China during the war.
Philippines: the war there has been mentioned several times as a complete precursor to our Iraq expedition. Imperialism based on ignorance and blithely turning a population into an enemy.
From SAK: Many thanks for drawing attention to #971 – I agree it is much better to make friends than enemies & especially in this world of ours with vulnerable internet/communications & weapons that are readily available and devastating!
I have been investigating WWI a lot since it is a sad anniversary of sorts – except for the Christmas truce [1914, 100th anniversary this year] which moves me every time I read about it – I also watched a very good French film about it. I suppose instead of the war to end all wars that was the peace to end all peace (1918-19).
As for Mossadegh & other oily business a French/German channel recently broadcast a couple of episodes:
“La face caché du petrole”
1. dividing the world here; and
2. manipulations, here.
from David: Thank you for your peaceable perspective.
President Truman canned Dug Out Doug-ie. That is what my Chief Petty Officer called the fade away soldier. A member of our Chapter 154 (Vets for Peace Fargo-Moorhead) has an anti-war brochure on the Philippines. Horrendous anti-terrorist and insurrectionist atrocities there. I call us the run-to-the-gun Nation.
Blessings on all — animal mineral vegetable.
from Flo: Yesterday, when I heard President Obama on MPR telling us of his executive orders to make the changes he could in our relations with Cuba, I cried for joy! Then I pulled out our photo album with pictures and memorabilia of our 2012 Lexington Institute educational tour to Cuba with about 30 returned Peace Corps Volunteers. Yes, the government of Cuba must make changes, too, but the Cuban people certainly don’t deserve the sanctions and the embargo imposed by our own government. Neither do we, who declare ourselves FREE. The instructions we received on what we could and couldn’t purchase and bring back with us to the USA and what we could and couldn’t do required a full page of small print!
My fervent parting hope for Cuba was that the American embargo be lifted and the curtain separating our countries be shredded. Thank you, President Obama, for giving my hope wings!
***
More from Dick:
An amusing footnote: Back in the 1990s I was having a conversation with a valued relative, my Dad’s cousin, who was a retired bank president in a major Minnesota town, an executive type who had been President of the Minnesota Bankers Association, and before that rose briefly to Colonel in the WWII Army in the Pacific, right at the end of the War.
Somehow or other we got to talking about Castro and Cuba.
“You know”, Marvin said, “back in 1959 I made a $5 bet with a friend that Castro wouldn’t last six months. Guess I got that one wrong.”
A not so amusing footnote: Our complete dependence on the cyber-world (internet) is perhaps our major vulnerability as a country. Imagine your world, today, without computers. In my opinion, it is unimaginable.
The only fail-safe I see is that the world is now so tied together – so interdependent – that an attempt to destroy one countries capabilities would be as destructive to the enemy as to the target. The internet is, in a sense, even more our mad, mad world, than the insane nuclear arsenal we still find a need to have.
An awful footnote: In this same fortnight came the intersection of two events: the terrible tragedy of the bombing of the school in Pakistan, with more than 100 dead; and the grotesque defense of torture back in the good old days by Dick Cheney and company, and the quiet acquiescence of a distressingly high percentage of Americans to that practice of torture.
In this age of misinformation, disinformation, false flags and the like, it is risky to believe any narrative put forth by anyone about anything.
In my opinion, we forfeited our innocence and goodness the first time we tortured someone to attempt to extract information, and even if we now totally outlaw the practice, it will be a very long time for us to restore our standing as even slightly righteous.

#952 – Dick Bernard: Some thoughts on President Obama

/0 Comments/in /by

Yesterday, President Obama had Speaker of the House John Boehner, Senator Mitch McConnell et al over for lunch. Everybody in that room knew what was going on, and what will continue. You don’t – you can’t – put aside six years of orchestrated hatred against the nations first black President, and “liberals”, and sincerely “make nice”. We the people apparently want a nation at war within itself, and we can expect two more years of being angry till the election of 2016, and regardless of who wins in 2016 we will see, daily, the difference between a positive philosophy of “win-win” versus the now dominant philosophy of “win-lose”.
We seem not to have voted for wholesome competition over ideas, thence compromise and rational decisions on civil law; we voted for civil war, amongst ourselves.
It seems a good time for me to review my own thoughts about our 44th President, Barack Obama.
I first “met” the future President at Minneapolis’ Target Center February 2, 2008. I stood in line for a long time along with a full house of others to see this new kid on the block. I was curious.
(click on photos to enlarge them)

Candidate Obama February 2, 2008, Minneapolis MN

Candidate Obama February 2, 2008, Minneapolis MN


Target Center Minneapolis February 2, 2008.

Target Center Minneapolis February 2, 2008.


I took the above photos that day. My friend, Norm, would probably agree these are “thousand word” photos.
It happened that four days later, February 6, 2008, Minnesota held its Precinct Caucuses.
I always attend these caucuses. My wife and I went.
Twice, following those caucuses, I wrote about the experience the evening of February 6, 2008. For the curious, at the end of this post are the entirety of those comments, written to my own mailing list back then.
Succinctly, “I cast my [straw poll] ballot [Feb. 6] for Hillary Clinton…[she] seems to have both the stamina and the backbone to endure the brutality of the campaign trail. This is some important evidence to me that she has what it takes to be chief executive of the United States, by far the most complex job on earth….”
Progressive friends were aghast at my choice: “how could you…?” It was an interesting on-line discussion for a few days. Only Obama deserved to win.
Ultimately, Hillary Clinton conceded the race; Barack Obama ran against John McCain, and the rest is history.
I wasn’t prepared for what happened next; though I made what turned out to be a prophetic statement the evening of February 6: “Now comes the hard
part: keeping people interested, engaged and committed. This continued engagement can be a real problem. A lot of people showed
up last night solely to vote for Clinton or Obama, and immediately left….”
It was extraordinarily disappointing to see the vitriol heaped on Obama from the moment of his election in November, 2008, and continuing to this day. I expected some of it, though most was completely over the top and truly bizarre.
But that was not as disappointing as watching Obama’s “base” largely dissolve, mostly, it seemed, based on “we elected you, now it’s your problem to solve all of ours; to bring us “Change we can believe in”. But don’t expect us to show up and do any lifting, much less heavy lifting.”
I had come from a career arena where the daily menu was problems that needed to be solved, and I knew that even on petty matters, differences of opinion require patience and persistence. Too many progressives made impossible demands, immediately: close Guantanamo now; get single payer health insurance now; end war today…. Of course, on the Republican side, the active campaign from the beginning was to assure in every possible way that the new President would fail.
He actually accomplished a huge amount of good, against enormous obstacles. But, who cares?
Additional words from myself are superfluous.
Now we are preparing for the last two years of the Obama Presidency. He won’t be running again, we all know that.
As a nation, we seemed to have chosen a fork in the national road way back after September 11, 2001, and it was not a healthy choice.
I’m only a small fish in a very big pond, but to the extent I can, I’m going to continue to work for a more positive America in full relationship with the World.
This is our country. This is our world.
Comments:
from Flo H Nov. 8: Truly prophetic. I, too, voted for Hillary, but didn’t seek further nomination to higher levels of supporting my position.
from Bruce F Nov 8: Too much is being made of last Tuesday’s results. It was a small turnout, even by midterm standards. The Republicans were playing on their home field. The number of Senate seats needed to be defended by the Democrats was a huge impediment for them. The next election will be on the Democrats home field, and the math looks worse for the GOP than the Democrats just experienced.
Neither side presented a cogent message that resonated. The people are not happy. With the unemployment numbers showing job growth and the GDP numbers showing economic growth, the people don’t feel it and think the recovery has pass over them.
That is a recipe for a populist message. It can be a right wing populist message or a left wing message. The message that best captures the fear & anxiety of the voters will be powerful. It can be a Teaparty message or a populist left message like Warren’s.
In the meantime, it won’t be pretty in Washington. The Republicans can’t do anything that the president won’t let them do. Even if the do away with the filibuster, which they will and I hope they do, they can’t override a veto.
As far as working together, the KeystonePL is central. The Republicans really want it, while Obama want’s comprehensive immigration reform and improvements in ACA. So, look for Keystone to get the go ahead and
environment protection regulations weakened for immigration reform an improved ACA.
from Lydia H Nov 9: You are certainly right that too many (mostly non-activist) people thought all they had to do was vote for Obama & he;d solve everything. No activist I know ever thought that. So, here were are 6 years later w/more war, Wall Street still sucking up wealth & evading prison, & our environment in more peril than ever. The ACA is giving some people access to health care (no small thing—my best friend had a cancer scare last spring & if not been connected to the MNSure I do’t even want to think about how it would have turned out. He got early early diagnosis & surgery & it’s looking very good for him). But the ACA isn’t lowering costs of health care. No matter what they say, insurance/Big Pharma are doing quite well.
Unemployment has gone down although wages remain as stagnant as ever.
Problem is way too many people think ALL they have to do is punch a button marked D or R every 2 or 4 years & that’s it. But, REAL democracy requires far more of us.
Thanks for continuing to remind us of that reality
On to 2016.
Dick Bernard
Heres’ what I said, way back when:
Dick Bernard in P&J #1566 February 6, 2008:
CAUCUSING:
I’ve attended precinct caucuses for years. Our particular caucus
location for the last several years has been a junior high school a 15
minute drive from me, just off I-94.
That’s 15 minutes on a normal day.
Tonight it took almost an hour to drive to the location, most of that
time spent in the last half mile jammed bumper to bumper on the freeway
and the exit ramp, and then another 15 minutes to walk to the school from
my car which I had to park on the shoulder of the road.
The time spent had everything to do with the precinct caucus
attendance, which was HUGE.
My caucus location was teeming with young people. The young guy who
serves me coffee most mornings at my local Caribou was there, volunteering
for Al Franken. It is nice to make occasional unexpected connections like
these.
I cast my ballot – for Hillary Clinton; registered to become a
delegate to the next level – an important step, as the next level is where
the state delegates are selected. We left early as Cathy needed to get
home for some phone calls. It was a long chilly walk back to the car,
then home.
Why my vote for Hillary? More on that in a later post.
(The presidential vote in Minnesota last night is simply a straw poll
of those who actually registered at the caucus. It reflects who showed
up. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see the results.)
I got a sense, last night, that people in my area are wanting their
country back. This was a school full of serious looking people. I’ll
hope their commitment sustains itself, and in fact grows.
For myself, I’ll be proud to support whoever ends up as the nominees.
More on my impressions at the end of this post…
*
Some final thoughts from Dick: a friend stopped by at coffee shop this
morning, and said that 2100 were at our caucus location, compared with 700
two years ago. Vote was probably 2-1 for Obama at our location, even
heavier in his affluent part of town. Chatting nearby were an older guy
and a younger woman, both of whom I know a little, both apparently
actively Republican. They were deeply involved in fearing the evils of
socialized medicine and Hillary Clinton. So goes the debate.
As candidates so well know, there are two ‘peaks’ to attain: first, the
nomination of their party; second, the election by the people, hopefully
somewhat fairly through the process of ballots. For eons, organizers have
come to know a basic truth about campaigns: don’t peak too soon! If your
campaign reaches its high point six months out, you’ll lose as certainly
as if it peaks six months after the election. The careful strategists are
well aware of this dilemma. The Obama campaign is well aware of this
dilemma as well. Super Tuesday (a media creation more than a substantive
national primary) makes necessary aggressive and expensive campaigning by
all the candidates. But it is just a media creation. Now comes the hard
part: keeping people interested, engaged and committed.
This continued engagement can be a real problem. A lot of people showed
up last night solely to vote for Clinton or Obama, and immediately left.
A heap of us will gather (in my case) March 8, for a long, long, often
very boring day at our Senate District Convention where the hard process
of selecting delegates to the state convention begins. In turn, the state
convention will select the national delegates, and on the process goes.
We will work really hard on March 8, and listen to lots of people, and try
to make some kind of reasoned and reasonable decisions. The people who
came, voted and left, will have no appreciation of this part of the
process.
Hang in there.
Here’s the rest of the Presidents, with their age at time of election.
George Washington, 56; John Adams, 61; Thomas Jefferson, 57; James
Madison, 57; James Monroe, 58; John Quincy Adams, 57; Andrew Jackson, 51;
Martin Van Buren, 54; William Henry Harrison, 67 (MY AGE, but he lived
only 31 days in office – bad omen. Keep my day job); John Tyler, 50:
James Knox Polk, 49; Zachary Taylor, 64; Millard Fillmore, 50; Franklin
Pierce, 48; James Buchanan, 65; Abe Lincoln, 51; Andrew Johnson, 57; U.S.
Grant, 46; Rutherford B. Hayes, 54; James Garfield, 49; Chester A. Arthur,
52; Grover Cleveland, 47; Benjamin Harrison, 55; William McKinley, 53.
P&J 1568 February 8, 2008
Why I voted for Hillary:
This is one of mine I hope you’ll take a moment to read.
Pro or Con responses will go into a future mailbag. (There will be a ‘mailbag’ following this one, then I may give you a break for the weekend!)
Why did I vote for Hillary, and Why am I inclined to support her?
There are no simple answers to those questions, whether answered by me, or anyone else. It is a complex matter. But I can provide some clues, with some data I find significant:
1. No less an authority than archconservative William (Bill) Bennett pronounced on CNN yesterday afternoon (Feb 7), that while he had serious reservations about John McCain as the Republican nominee, he would back him because McCain had an American Conservative Union rating of 82, while Hillary Clinton had a rating of 9. (If those numbers are incorrect, it’s Bill Bennett or American Conservative Union who’s lying, not me! Here is where you can check. On this list, which ranks lawmakers performance through 2006, MN Senator Mark Dayton had a ranking of 11, and Norm Coleman a rating of 75. Obama’s ranking is 8. Most conservative: DeMint (SC) 98; most awfully liberal, Ted Kennedy of MA, 2).
2. The same afternoon of Feb 7, a letter came from a good friend, a Catholic Priest friend who’s now in El Paso TX saying he’s now “on board w/the Obama campaign. Clinton has never repented for her support of the [Iraq] war….” He was talking, I suppose, about the October, 2002, resolution on which she voted ‘aye’; and on which my own Senator, Paul Wellstone, wavered until almost the last second before voting ‘nay’ (I know the circumstances on the latter, since I was on the way to banner at Wellstone’s office that fateful October afternoon and on arrival there found nobody bannering. I learned after I got home that he had declared he would vote against the resolution. At the time, I was very new to the Peace movement, and nobody was keeping me in the loop about what was happening (they still don’t, too often!). Of course, that vote was strategized by the administration and Republican leadership to take place in very close proximity to the 2002 mid-term elections. It’s easy research to find out what happened that Nov.)
Clinton was in her second year in the U.S. Senate when that vote occurred, and representing her state of New York. Her vote apparently didn’t hurt her standing with her home state folks – her constituents…she was easily reelected in 2006.
If folks take time to recall, Bush’s approval ratings were still stratospheric then, and they were stratospheric because of his WAR rhetoric and planning, and the politically massaged aftermath of 9-11. It’s useful to think back to those times. Hillary Clinton’s constituency was and is in New York City and State, where the worst of 9-11 happened, and it’s hard to imagine any other vote from her at that time, however ill advised one might think it was in hindsight. I wouldn’t expect her to ‘repent’, either. (When I became a peacenik, October 2001 and the bombing of Afghanistan, 94% of Americans approved of the bombing. Talk about being in the minority.)
3. I have mentioned more than once that in my own assessment of the candidates stated positions, Kucinich clearly was most in synch with my own personal views (40), while Edwards, Clinton and Obama were quite positive and a virtual tie (29, 28, 28), with Huckabee and McCain almost tied far down the list (12, 11), and Romney almost a no-show (4). (In my listing, Mike Gravel came in at 29 also. Thompson, Hunter, Guiliani and Tancredo were at the end, with 3,2,2 and 1 respectively. [Link provided here no longer exists in 2014].
This assessment had lots of issues, and lots of position statements from all the candidates, not labeled by candidates, so I don’t know in which areas I was most in synch with Clinton or any candidate, but it was useful for me in trying to figure out the general positions of the potential candidates for the most complex and difficult job in the world.
**
Debate rages on this network and others about Clinton, and mostly it has been pretty negative towards her. It was an act almost like ‘coming out’ to mention that I was going to vote for Hillary on Tuesday! “What will they say?” I suspect I was/am not at all alone in the big camp of folks who think Hillary is okay, and her own person, too.
I haven’t and won’t rate Hillary based on her years as first lady; nor did I rate her based on Bill, though I admit to being puzzled why even Bill has been made out to be such a liability. Best as I recall, he was very popular with the American people even after the impeachment, and through the end of his term, and most people would take the ‘Bill days’ of the 90s in a minute over what we’ve endured in the last 7 years.
Clinton ended his term, as I recall, with still very high approval ratings. He still is popular here, and around the world.
But the notion has been planted (and accepted) that, somehow, that this is a bad couple, in almost any way someone wants to define ‘bad’, and this includes many assessments from the Left. So be it. Could the description be a ‘spun’ one? Are we witnessing how the Politics of Division and Character Assassination works, directly and/or subtlely? From BOTH poles of the ideological spectrum?
Hillary Clinton seems to have both the stamina and the backbone to endure the brutality of the campaign trail. This is some important evidence to me that she has what it takes to be chief executive of the United States, by far the most complex job on earth (if one takes time to be engaged in the complexity – Bush didn’t. “The Decider” decided and in the process we have become a country governed by a ruler not a President.) Even as first lady, Hillary was molded by and initiated into the vicious crucible of Washington politics with the Health Care reform dilemma early in Bill’s first term. She’s criticized for not achieving the goal; I rarely hear she (and Bill) complimented for trying….
Add to the complexity of governing a monstrosity like our democracy is, the almost certain extraordinarily difficult situations and circumstances that we are entering after this disastrous eight years, and I puzzle as to why Hillary or anyone for that matter would want to be President. FDR may prove to have had a cakewalk in comparison.
That Hillary Clinton is a woman has never caused me to wonder about her ability to lead. My career representing teachers (still basically a female profession), long ago rid me of the business of sex role stereotyping, if indeed, that ever was a serious issue for me.
As I prepare to click ‘send’ on this, I have one last thought, from overnight. Hillary (and the others) are cursed by the ‘Liberal’ label as if it is the mark of Satan himself. This has been one of the most successful anti-marketing campaigns in our history. I commented on ‘liberal’ at a disenchanted conservative’s dinner table a while back thusly: “I’m definitely a Liberal, but if you truly want Conservative government, where people carefully handle your money, and are Compassionate in the process, you’ll elect Liberal every time. We’re careful with our fellow citizens money.” Liberals in my experience are, by and large, careful with the dollar (sometimes ‘cheap’) because they’ve had to be; and they tend to be, I think, more truly compassionate and understanding of other points of view. There could be worse qualities. The best ‘Compassionate Conservatives’ are, really, Liberals. (I know plenty of truly Compassionate Conservative Republicans…these folks are, by their own admission, out of power even in their own party, and trying to figure out how to regain some of the deserved stature and respect they had in the past.
We’ll see what happens these next months. Keep talking.

#951 – Dick Bernard: The Days Ahead, the Aftermath of the 2014 Election

/0 Comments/in /by

Questions only you can answer: did you vote in the 2014 election? If not, why not? If you voted, did you vote for all the candidates on the ballot? How well did you know the candidates running for the offices?
It will be days before there is reasonably accurate data, but all appearances are that only about one-third of those who could potentially vote in 2014 actually went to the polls on Tuesday. When I googled “voter turnout 2014 election united states”, here’s the first link. It’s worth scrolling down to the state by state data.
Nationally one of three voted. In Minnesota, one of two.
Minnesota is traditionally a very high turnout state, with great effort made to make voting accessible to voters. But even here we didn’t vote. In the national link (above) only half of Minnesotans who could vote actually went to the polls; this was less than the 55% who went to the polls in 2010….
In my little corner of the world, parts of two St. Paul MN suburbs, about 60% of us who are registered to vote actually voted.
Unfortunately, collectively, everywhere, we are going to richly deserve what we’re going to get in the next 24 months.
Politics is totally about Power*. We are a two-party country, despite the wishes of those who’d like to have a parliamentary kind of state.
When I cast my ballot on Tuesday, I was voting for more than just my local representatives. In effect, I (and all of us) voted for the single persons who will wield power as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and United States Senate Majority Leader; and for similar positions in each of our states.
If there is continued gridlock, it is what we demanded, by action, particularly by our inaction on Tuesday.
President Obama was not on any ballot on Tuesday. But he was made to be the major issue, a six year campaign by the Republicans to make it impossible for him to succeed, then to blame the President for the apparent failure.
History will clarify the Obama years and will, I think, be very kind to him. Later I will write my own impressions of his evolution, as I have watched it. That’s for later.
The U.S. will never be post-racial – we have too long and too sordid a history – but when it comes to the matter of race, the Obama years will be seen much like traversing the rapids in a seeming tranquil stream: upstream nobody notices the turbulence (racism just is); traveling through the rapids (change) is turbulent and dangerous and very frightening; succeeding the traverse changes one forever. As the so-called “greatest generation” passes on, they are being replaced by a much more tolerant multi-racial and culturally diverse society.
There will, of course, always be new rapids. But the eight year Obama administration will be as significant, if not even more so, than the Civil Rights years.
In this Democracy, our country is too large to have effective populist revolts between elections. The policies will be made by those safely in office. The ballot box is where change will have to be made. This is not to say that there can’t, or won’t, be effective actions here and there
We are in a winner-take-all time in U.S. history; there was a time not long ago when collaboration was more the rule. Not now. It will be all about who will win, and what.
I will do what I can, as I always try to do. You?
* – There will be endless opinions about what Tuesday will mean to our country. Here, here and here are samples. Here is another about the race-card and Obama.
Elections, especially in democracies, have consequences. We freely “pick our poison”.
Back in the 1920s, fearful and angry and desperate Germans slowly and democratically brought Adolf Hitler and the Nazis to power. It took a number of years to accomplish the dream of a “Thousand Year Reich”, but it happened in 1933…and lasted till destroyed 12 years later.
That’s how grandiosity works.
A quotation I actually spent considerable time ten or so years ago, seeking evidence that in fact it was true, is this one, by Hermann Goering, long time Nazi, Reichmarshall, and heir-apparent to Hitler. Th statement was made while imprisoned at Nuremberg after WWII. Goering was sentenced to death by hanging for war crimes, but committed suicide first. He was talking about how the Nazis succeeded, at least for awhile, but he could be talking about most anything, particularly today’s American politics, dominated by, let’s face it, pure propaganda….
Goering: “Why, of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?
Naturally, the common people don’t want war, neither in Russia, nor England, nor for that matter, Germany. That is understood, but after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simpler matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Quoted in the book Nuremberg Diary, p. 278, Gustave Gilbert, Farrar, Straus & Co., 1947. Gilbert was psychologist assigned to the Nazi prisoners on trial at Nuremberg.
Everyone knows the rest of this story.

#950 – Dick Bernard: The 2014 Election sine die; 2016 ahead

/0 Comments/in , /by

A few days ago a friend from college days sent me Bill O’Reilly’s U.S. Citizenship test. The admonishment: “Take this test. DO NOT CHEAT!!!!”. There are 25 questions. Passing is 15.
I follow directions. Like my friend, I got 24 right. Your turn.
Election night was not an easy one for someone like myself, self-described moderate, pragmatic, liberal Democrat who truly admires President Obama.
Living in Minnesota took a bit of the edge off, since Democrats did pretty well, though they lost their majority in the Minnesota House. Last night was no fun.
But, I’m not a short-term kind of person (“quitters never win”), so I awoke this morning, ready to learn from yesterdays experience and to go to work.
There will be endless analysis of what and why of November 4. I’ll keep mine short.
For the long, daily, version I always like the summary of daily happenings at Just Above Sunset, a retired guy blogging in Los Angeles. Here’s the overnight edition. About half way down he cuts to the chase.
Watching politics pretty carefully, as I have for many years, there is a repetitive theme to the Republican “pitch” especially in these perpetually angry Newt Gingrich and “Tea Party” years which began about 1994. The message is very heavy on fear, loathing and rugged individualism (never mind that only a tiny few of American individuals manage to grab the brass ring of individual victory, even temporarily.) But these stock messages sell pretty well.
It occurs to me that these are the easy routes we mostly like to take. But then these entail “no pain, no gain” or similar descriptions of taking risks and going to work to solve things.
It is simpler to be against, than to be for. To be for something, means you have to do the hard work to reach a goal. It’s more than just a single action.
In recent years, the Democrats and President Obama were punished mercilessly for “Obamacare”, which in the long run will be one of the finest accomplishments ever. They risked on other things as well. In Minnesota, they were harpooned for such needed actions as authorizing and funding a long-needed Senate Office building (aka “Taj Mahal”). Made no difference that the building was known to be needed for over 30 years, and got costlier every year, it took huge courage to pass it in any form at the legislature last year. They knew the punishment that would follow.
Remember President Johnson and his assorted civil rights initiatives back in the 1960s, when the south was mostly Democrat, and more racist than today’s Republicans to which most of those Dixiecrats all fled? It was at the signing for one of the Civil Rights Bills that Johnson said that his action would lose the south for the Democrats for a generation.
Or remember Medicare, 1965, which a large portion of the angry white Republican electorate now considers an entitlement, but seemingly cannot stand the idea of extending the idea to the rest of the population.
President Obama took the necessary risk in 2009; the Democrats who supported him knew the consequences.
Under the new regime in Washington, it will be all politics all the time between now and 2016.
The Republicans now do not have Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to kick around, since they control both chambers of the Congress, but neither are veto proof. The GOP has ridden the blaming horse all too long….
Start by taking Bill O’Reilly’s little quiz, and resolve this moment to get more involved in politics than you’ve ever been before.
from Bruce F, Nov. 5: I don’t think O’Reilly could pass this test.
The Republican message is fear based, but those hardworking blue collar people that vote for it are voting on the hope that their hard work will pay off. It’s subtle and complicated, and Democrats don’t get it.
There are myths at work with ingrained values attached to them. Those voting Republican are more value based voters than Democrats. As far as I can tell, voting is an emotional experience. The Republicans have learned that lesson well.
Take ObamaCare, as an example. It’s presented by Democrats as a universal Heath care that will provide better coverage, while lowering industry costs, insuring everyone regardless medical history. The supporters of the plan have many facts & attributes that should make it, politically, an easy sell. When voters are polled, they like the pieces of it.
The Republicans attack it as a big government freedom robber. Freedom from big government is a value by which people vote. Thus Obamacare is a political liability.
The Democrats could neutralize that freedom attack by appealing to the value of freedom rather than using a fact based approach. For my money, Obamacare increases freedom providing voters freedom from inadequate healthcare, freedom from potential bankruptcy that will help the blue-collar worker pick up their boot straps and become self-sufficient.
But the Democrats refuse to pander to values to win elections. For me it’s a bias that shows a lack of understanding of how the political mind works.
I read yesterday that Ralph Nader has called for Pelosi, Hoyer, and other top Democratic Party leadership to step down. I agree.
As a side note, you must agree that none of the major issues of our time were discussed by the two parties in this election.
As far as what happened in Minnesota, here is my take:
It could be worse…it could be Wisconsin.
Six years ago Franken won by a few hundred votes. Four years ago Dayton won by a razor thin margin. Last night they both won by substantial margins. MN still has just 3 Republican US Reps. The direction, even with the turn of the MN House, is toward a deeper blue.

#949 – Dick Bernard: One Day to Election Day, Tuesday November 4

/2 Comments/in /by

Other personal commentaries on 2014 election here.
What matters tomorrow, Tuesday November 4, is voter turnout. The people who show up and vote for one or the other of the two major parties on the ballot will make their choice for thousands of local, state and federal offices around the U.S.
If you haven’t voted already, vote Tuesday, and encourage others to vote, and vote well informed.

Personally, I’ll vote Democrat. Neither major party, nor any other party, meets the test of “perfect”. Having said that, however, the Democrat record continues to be far more in synch with the needs of the vast majority of ordinary people than the Republican.
Personal observations from the ground level:
I like to observe politics in “real time”, beyond the pundits, the polls, the projections as seen in ads, on TV, in newspaper. I like to hear actual people, not posing or precisely speaking someone’s party line.
Like Sunday morning:
At late morning coffee, a large table of men near me was starting to thin out, and one older guy was mentioning that he’d been an engineer for his whole career, and that there is really no longer much of a middle class in our country. He mentioned no raises to speak of in his last 20 years at his company. “The middle class is now more like the lower class”, he said. No party or candidate was mentioned. It did not need to be. The “last 20 years” was specific. No one challenged him. Ordinary middle class people know what the current problem is, personally, for particularly their children and grandchildren.
Mention was made of the vast and increasing gap between the wealthiest 1% and the rest.
Best I could tell, this was not a bunch of Democrats shooting the breeze. Quite the contrary, just a dozen or so old friends visiting on a pleasant Sunday morning.
A few hours earlier we had been at church taking down the Families Moving Forward “bedrooms” for local homeless families. This particular week, I was told, there had been three families spending overnight at our church, including about 10 children.
“All of the families have someone employed, but none of them can afford apartment rent” said Mike, the person in charge.
Nothing much more needs be said. We all know “working poor”. It is easy to not notice them, but there are far too many.
They are less likely to vote than others. They have other preoccupations, other concerns. That’s where people like ourselves come in, to help give voice to the voiceless.
And a few days earlier, I got a first-hand glimpse at priorities at the higher economic levels:
A week ago today, I was invited to attend the annual luncheon of a very large investment management company with many billions in its investment portfolio, a company whose name would be recognized by anyone in this area. There were perhaps 300 or so of us in a large room, cold sandwiches for lunch, there to listen to reports on how the economy was and would be, for the people at the tables.
The companies economist spoke first, and helpfully gave us a four page copy of his remarks, which can be read here: Invest Report Oct 27 ’14001. This was followed by an endless review of 37 pages of charts and graphs by a company executive.
The economists report is very interesting to read, even if you’re not into economics. Such reports are always speculative – hopefully “educated guesses” about the future.
The economist scarcely departed from his text. One time, he did the obligatory sanctification of Ronald Reagan’s slashing the marginal tax rates on the wealthy in the 1980s; and in another surprising aside mentioned a concern about the increasing gap between the wealthy and non-wealthy. I would guess my colleague guests were not in the truly upper crust – there are private meetings for the truly rich – but we were the aspirational class. The folks in that room had their own piles of resources.
Still, some sitting there would have noticed the references, as I did, and the lack of references: for instance, there was not a single word about President Obama or the dramatic turnaround in the American economy since his election in 2008 despite constant efforts to make the President appear to fail….
I would guess I was in a room full of people whose tendency is Republican, though I don’t know that. There certainly were no poor hanging around, unless one counts those serving tables.
The meeting also caused me to think back to two years ago, November 8, 2012, when an angry right winger sent me a article published in Forbes magazine a day or so after the 2012 election. Essentially, the writer, a venture capitalist, assures readers that the election of Obama will mean the end of the economic world as we know it…. Here’s exactly what he said,in Forbes magazine two years ago: Misery Loves Company.
Doubtless, others believed the narrative two years ago, and would not be inclined to believe the very different reality that exists in the U.S. this day before the 2014 election.
Despite their most fervent efforts, the Republicans have not managed to make a convincing case, even to their zealots, that the Democrats have destroyed America.
Quite the contrary.
VOTE with your eyes open tomorrow.

#947 – Dick Bernard: One week to the 2014 Election. Vote, and vote well-informed, on November 4.

/0 Comments/in /by

(click to enlarge)

DFL (Democrat) candidate Joann Ward's Campaign mailer late Oct, 2014

DFL (Democrat) candidate Joann Ward’s Campaign mailer late Oct, 2014


It happened that on almost the same day campaign mailers arrived in our St. Paul suburban mailbox advocating for the election of either the DFL (Democratic) or Republican candidate for state Legislature in our Minnesota legislative district. The JoAnn Ward (Incumbent and Democrat) mailer is above; that of her Republican challenger Lukas Czech is also on this page. Look carefully at both. There is an obvious and great contrast in both tone and content. (Click to enlarge both, which in original form were much larger in size.)
The two fliers give, in my opinion, a very accurate distinction between the Democrat and Tea Party (Republican) narrative at this moment in history.
There is a very major choice this November 4, as there is in every election.
Our personal electoral choices, including whether we choose to vote at all, have long term implications – at least for the next two years.
Last May, I had the great privilege of meeting and then working with a Fulbright/Humphrey Fellow through the Human Rights Center at the University of Minnesota Law School. Ehtasham, a civil official in a large city in Pakistan, was nearing the end of his year in the United States. Early on in our work relationship he mused about about the U.S. as perceived by his country, and his experience in our Twin Cities. His observation (as I recall it): “the people I have met here are good people; how is it that they support U.S. policies that are so dangerous to us in our parts of the world?”
This was the gist of what could have been a very long conversation, and came up more than once.
My succinct answer: we choose our leaders, and too often we make very bad choices, particularly by not thinking through the implications of who we’re voting for, or, as important, by our non-vote. Too often we are sloppy citizens
Last Saturday evening Michael Smerconish of CNN commented on a Pew Research survey that really helps to explain why the political conversation in America is so dominated by the far Right and far Left, and the results so unrepresentative of the U.S. community-at-large. You can watch his commentary here, and read the data here; especially note the first two graphics.
If you don’t vote, you lose. It is as simple as that.
In 2010 the very angry Tea Party Right Wing, who still dominates the political conversation as Republicans in Congress and in many state houses and legislatures, turned out to vote; great numbers of Democrats stayed home; and even more of what is called the Progressive Left either refused to vote at all, or voted for fringe candidates with no chance of winning anything, calling their action a vote for “principal”.
campaign mailer late Oct, 2014

campaign mailer late Oct, 2014


Every two years you have a single opportunity to select your representatives for our Democracy.
It is a crucial choice.
Vote well informed on November 4, and urge others to vote as well.
Recent related posts here and here.

#946 – Dick Bernard: Financing Elections. Transparency vs the Gutless Wonders of Dark Money

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Last Fall I volunteered to become Treasurer for my local state legislators re-election campaign. This was a voluntary decision. Rep. JoAnn Ward is a stellar representative, taking her duty to represent all very seriously. I felt helping a little was the least I could do.
But the experience has not been without stumbles. Succinctly, I was to Campaign Treasurer, as a 1920s kid was to learning all the intricacies of the Model A Ford.
Even today I am not a full-service Treasurer. I am too old a dog to learn all of the requisite new tricks required in the technological age!
But by now, I’m fairly comfortable with the process and to a certain degree the technology I’m required to use.
One of the many things I’ve learned is that Minnesota Election Law mandates transparency.
If you donate, you’re known by the name on your contribution. You become an “entity”: your name and address on file within the state reporting system.
There is only a single exception that I know of: donations of $20 and below can be received as “anonymous”, and the Campaign Finance Board computer won’t kick them back. So it was that on Monday I had to enter the contents of several plain envelopes, with no markings, each including cash up to $20. (Such donations are infrequent, I’ve found.) People apparently know the rules. If somebody “anonymously” put a $50 bill in a plain envelope, how could I possibly return it? Nothing like that has happened, and probably won’t.
Similarly, if a contribution is $200 or more, the system demands to know the persons employer or work (“retired”, “homemaker” and such qualify as descriptors). Registered Lobbyists must reveal themselves and there are strict limits on how much lobbying money can be accepted by candidates.
In short, the system is pretty tight, and pretty fair: you enter the process and you are a known person.
So, “the Gutless Wonders of Dark Money”?
This morning the Al Franken campaign (U.S. Senator, Minnesota) sent the latest fund-raising appeal, beginning: “One “dark money” group, Hometown Freedom Action Network, just launched the largest attack against me yet — backed by $331,OOO in online ads.”
U.S. Senate is under Federal Campaign rules, and here comes the “wild west” of “freedom of speech” and playing games with Federal Law.
I looked up the dark money group, and two interesting sites are here and here. Both sites speak for themselves.
Hometown Freedom’s site does have a contact tab, but unless I’m missing something obvious, it is impossible to know anything about the group, who’s in it, where it’s located, etc.
It appears to be Minnesota based, and it is mostly out to take down Sen. Franken through television ads, which will be ubiquitous for the last couple of weeks of the campaign.
Of course, I don’t know the “facts”, because I’m not supposed to know the facts, but from all appearances it would be a tight coalition of likely wealthy Minnesotans who have pooled their resources to finance anti-Franken attack ads.
They don’t want anyone to know who they are.
(The second site, OpenSecrets.org, is helpful in identifying who Hometown Freedom’s money goes to help, or hurt….
At least for this time in history, “dark money” is a major player in Federal elections.
There’s time to continue talking about transparency after this election is over. Till then, if you watch the ads at all, look for the disclaimer which they are all required to carry. Most likely, as with Hometown Freedom, it will say, essentially, nothing.
I’ll give Sen. Franken the last word, again from his solicitation: “The term “dark money” sort of brings to mind the picture of a billionaire, sneering behind a desk in a creepy mansion, wringing his or her hands menacingly while funneling money into anonymous attacks against me…There’s no telling how much these dark money groups can squeeze out of their deep-pocketed backers to attack us with.”
I don’t think he’s far off in his analysis.

#945 – Dick Bernard: Two Weeks before the 2014 Election.

/0 Comments/in /by

Previous related posts: here and here.
There is no magic in the next two weeks. The difference will be measured strictly by how many people actually vote on November 4.
Vote yourself, and urge everyone you know to vote, and for everyone, to vote with full awareness of the implications of your vote (or non-vote). This is our country, our democracy.
Since President Obama has been made to be an issue in this election, it interested me that Saturday’s Minneapolis Star Tribune had an letter about worst Approval ratings of past U.S. Presidents:
(click to enlarge)
Obama Appr Oct 18 Strib001
Given incessant attacks by his enemies, President Obama seems to be doing right fine, especially given that the entire Republican program for the past six years has been to try to drive down his approval numbers: to make him seem to be a failure.
A day or two earlier, another poll assessed the dismal approval of Congress, very recently another poll apparently gave Congress 8% approval. I looked for a longer term tracking. Here’s one from Gallup. The craziness of we Americans is that people think THEIR Congressperson is the exception to the rule…. (at this link is another poll that says that 24% of Americans essentially are in synch with the Tea Party. One might ask why, then, does the Tea Party wield such out of proportion political influence, local, state, national? It is not a difficult question: for starters, they voted, too many of the other 76% didn’t vote in the previous two elections.)
Soon we’ll know what we Americans decided, by our vote, our non-vote, our informed or uninformed vote, or vote passed on whatever whimsical or factual thing has enamored us, such as “they’re all alike, it makes no difference who’s elected” for instance; “she’s (candidate) attractive and seems like a nice person”, and on and on. We will get exactly what we voted for (or against).
Last week I submitted the below letter to the local newspaper on my personal take on America and Americans. I’ll see, tomorrow, if it made the cut:
“Long ago, November 19, 1863 at Gettysburg, President Abraham Lincoln made his famous two minute address which included these words: “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”.
For some years now we’ve been engaged in another kind of “civil war”, waged largely in sound bites and made for television advertising.
This war is about who’ll run things, and how (collaboratively, or dominance). It is waged by attempting to restrict access to voting, and to influence voters to make decisions not in their best interest.
Nowadays, in my opinion, what Lincoln’s words (possibly borrowed from a quote by John Wycliffe about the Bible in 1384), have come to mean is the influence of great wealth in managing the political conversation. The words, “The people” have been replaced by “the rich”, in many ways.
Perhaps we all think that we, too, will become rich; that somehow we can prevail and live the high life above the common folks.
As for the rich, a tiny few do succeed, perhaps even in the long term. But they are the very tiny few.
Several years ago I had the unpleasant duty of sorting out the affairs of a relative who’d lost his house and was destitute.
The immediate cause was the Minnesota Lottery. But in the detritus of his possessions I found videos of getting rich in real estate (“no money down”) and Ayn Rand’s paean to greed: “The Virtue of Selfishness”.
Tuesday, November 4, like all election days, is a referendum on what we mean by “we, the people of the United States” (the first words of our Constitution) when we have another opportunity to choose who’ll make government decisions affecting us.
Our choices have consequences, especially so for the rich.
Someone needs to have the money to spend to make Black Friday possible. It’s as simple as that.
Cast a well informed vote November 4.”

#943 – Dick Bernard: Three weeks before the 2014 Election. The Obama Presidency, near six years out; and the Tea Party movement tries to re-incarnate itself.

/0 Comments/in /by

I’m liberal, but very moderate, and passionate about the need for people to understand each other and to find common ground. Three weeks before the 2014 election, some thoughts, the main one: VOTE, AND VOTE WELL INFORMED.
First, this week, Nobel Prize economist Paul Krugman wrote a long commentary about his view of the reality of the Obama presidency so far. You can read it here. This is an important commentary, whether or not you like the President.
Another e-mail brought a column by Joan Walsh on how anti-government intervention in matters of public medicine complicates the current fight against Ebola. You can read it here.
*
This time of year, Mid-September and October in 2008, was the moment the harsh truth hit the George W. Bush presidency, and all of us. That month and a half was a very anxious time for me.
We were all watching the American economy nearing collapse, and in October 2008 I took personal steps to hopefully insure some kind of floor on my 401(k) hoping that some of it might possibly be left as the economy careened towards a fiscal cliff. There was the residue of a Iraq war we were fighting, unsuccessfully, on the national credit card, and essentially zero national fiscal discipline. This was a very Republican time. We Americans tend to forget that up till near the end of 2008, the fantasy of “let the good times roll” prevailed in America. We couldn’t see bad times ahead, and “winning” a losing battle in Iraq remained the priority of the Bush administration. To be against a disastrous war was unpatriotic.
Remember, 2001-2009 was Republican time, not Democrat.
Then came President Obama.
The President had not even been inaugurated in 2009, when direct and very public messages went out from the Republican leadership that their objective was to see the Obama presidency fail.
Most famously, Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rush Limbaugh were very publicly on record. Ever since the Republican party has done its damnedest in every way possible to sabotage everything President Obama proposed to do.
The very word “Obama” became a mantra of derision (as “Obamacare”, being repeatedly and symbolically repealed by the Congress). A key strategy for elections (2010 and 2012 and now, 2014) has been to make them referendums against President Obama.
Even though President Obama is not running for anything this year, and in any event cannot run for President again, he is again, cynically and dishonestly, being portrayed as the primary issue in this election.
After a brief time of Democrat control, as you recall, in 2010, the Tea Party raged into control of the U.S. House of Representatives, and picked up folks like Ted Cruz in the U.S. Senate, and it went to work for failure – failure for which it hold Obama accountable and with him, the Democrats.
For the once proud “Grand Old Party”, political success came to mean achieving failure.
So, what actually happened in the Obama years thus far?
Paul Krugmans commentary, referred to above, is not the only such commentary. Those who know, know that President Obama, with support from Democrats, has made progress against all odds. It was one-sided progress, largely because the Republicans largely refused to work together to resolve issues on matters of substance .
What might have happened if, as normally might be reasonably expected, had our government legislators worked together to do the best they could for those they represented?
In the second paragraph of his commentary, Krugman says the president was “naive” in his first term, facing “scorched-earth Republican opposition from Day One.”
Everyone, of course, can have his or her own opinion.
In my opinion, with my own life experiences dealing with fervent opposition, it is reasonable that President Obama and his advisers knew exactly what they were doing from even before taking office. They knew what they were up against.
There’s an old saying about giving someone “enough rope to hang themselves”. Obama was much criticized for attempting to compromise with his enemies from the very beginning. He was, I would suggest, “dumb like a fox”. He tried to work together – to fashion compromise – and I think he was sincere. I doubt he expected he’d get cooperation, but he did try…. This was not an act without consequences. People to his left accused him of selling out. People I know well, and respect, who are far to the left of me, think Obama is too moderate, even conservative. Far too many protested by not voting at all in the 2010 election. So be it.
This brings to mind the Party of Tea:
It was in the wake President Obama’s election that the outraged folks of Tea Party fame went on the attack, with huge success in the election of 2010, with the biggest issue, it appeared to me on the sidelines, as Affordable Care. How dare he propose that more people could have affordable medical coverage.
His race was a big player as well.
I tend to be engaged in politics, so over the last five years I’ve been to many public events where Tea Party types made their presence offensively known.
It is an accurate generalization, I feel, to label Tea Party leaders as disrespectful bullies, most often loud and large and dominating white men, out to drown out any opposing voices. They were intimidating to take on. Over and over, they exposed themselves as fact challenged, but this seemed to make no difference to them. Facts were irrelevant. A descriptor I first saw in print regarding 1974 campaigns, “disrupt, confuse, display anger“, fit these folks like a glove. Their interest was power, period.
Fast forward to today. The Tea Party image has been tarnished – after a while even bullies lose their ability to intimidate – and it has become obvious that those loud and large folks I describe above have moved into the background, to be replaced by people with the exact same anti-government philosophy, but seemingly kind and gentle looking types with good hair and smiles and cuddly and cute kinds of ads. We have one of these running for a local legislative seat, another for Governor, and many others. They are, all of them, simply, stealth candidates.
Make no mistake, the same people as in the early 200os, just wearing a different costume.
So be it, that Obama is the issue in 2014. Against great odds, President Obama has accomplished very good things with Democrats help. His is a record to be proud of.
As for the Republican right, if your program is fear, loathing and failure, how can you possibly switch gears to a program of optimism, inclusion and success if you win? And you’ll be faced, now, with the same problem that you modeled for the Democrats in the last four years, if you end up in the majority?
As the saying goes, two can play this game.
We all lose.
Vote with your eyes wide open on November 4. By all means, vote.
POSTNOTE: While preparing the above, an e-mail came from our dear friend, who immigrated to the U.S. after WWII:
I am disturbed by the attitude of supposedly successful, intelligent people.
One question someone asked me:
“What do you think of America today compared to the America when you came,— or 1960??”
Good question, I thought.
Answer: the America I found when I came was loved and almost revered by at least most countries.
Our soldiers who came home could get an almost free college education to better their and their families lives.
We are aware today is sadly not comparable to then.
If you have a child in college — the cost of higher education for most families almost takes what they have saved for their retirement. The young people have to postpone purchasing a home, start a family. Inflation — cost of nursing home care — down grading of education— I could go on, but I think you see what I use for examples.
Another man:
“What do you say to the people on food stamps, they should go and work, not rely on the government handouts.”
Looking at the $7.55 minimum wage, I don’t call food stamps a hand out.
Technically, we are all dependent in one way or another on the government — lets call them subsidies — our roads, schools, farming —- I could go on —- but I think you understand.
I am amazed at the questions I get.
To one very bright 8th grader with an I Pad.
“My question is do you own your IPad?”
“Oh, no the school got it for me.”
“You like it”
“Yes, now when I need to solve a problem in English or math I go to the Ipad, it has all the answers and I don’t have to think anymore.”
Believe me,. If I still were a teacher, the iPad would NOT ever be used for school work.