Go After the Money

One of many tools to fight the Trump Administration and the Republican power grab is to go after those who contribute material support to such endeavors.  By "go after" I don't want to be misinterpreted: I do not condone any kind of illegal or threatening behavior.  However, boycotts, protesting, and starting uncomfortable conversations, are not only legal but necessary.

So how do we find out who has been contributing to the party of insecure white resentment?  It turns out, there is a very easy online tool http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/?name=campaign%20contributions

Using my own arbitrary judgment, I'm choosing donors who've contributed more than $500.  Who are these people in Montpelier?

JOHNSTON, DARCIE
MONTPELIER, VT 05602

TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, CONSULTANT, JOHNSTON CONSULTING INC.

$2,000 to Donald Trump

$295 to the Vermont Republican Federal Elections committee

HENEY, MARY M
MONTPELIER, VT 05602

W. J. HENEY & SON, INC.

$600 to the Vermont Republican Federal Elections committee

GRAYCK, DAVID
MONTPELIER, VT 05602

$500 to Tom Reed (R)

$1000 to Elise Stefanik (R)

$500 to Steven Wells (R)

$240  to John Faso (R)

SCOTT, PHILIP
MIDDLESEX, VT 05602

GOVERNOR

$500 to the Vermont Republican Federal Elections committee

LAMBERTON, WAYNE
MONTPELIER, VT 05602

LAMBERTON ELECTRIC

$2,500 to the Vermont Republican Federal Elections committee

Liberals Suck at Politics

I attended an emergency community meeting the other night sponsored by the AFL-CIO and I came away with one giant take-a-way:  Liberals/progressives suck at politics.  I've actually known this for a while, but it was reinforced by some of the denial that I witnessed.  With the election of Trump, I think it's critical that liberals understand some things.

1. Don't care what the opposition thinks.  There is value in listening to other perspectives and understanding other points of view.  That being said, energy is much better spent trying to get non/low propensity voters to show up to the polls than to persuade conservatives to change their minds.  Are you really going to convince someone who completely disregards the scientific community and thinks climate change is a hoax that climate change is real?  No.  Are you going to persuade someone who thinks that black people have major advantages over white people that racism exists?  Not likely.  Are you going to sway someone who thinks that there is no difference between the two parties that Social Security and Medicare are more likely to be cut if they elect a Republican?  Maybe.
2. Understand the opposition.  If I had to choose Obama's biggest failing as a President, it would be not understanding conservatives.  I think that Obama thinks, that all conservatives are like the ones he met at Harvard (think David Brooks).  They're not. Newsflash:  People who allow your citizenship to become a defining issue for the first part of your presidency are not operating in good faith.  People who impeach a president over lying about a blowjob are not operating in good faith.  People who hold the economy hostage by credibly threatening not to raise the debt ceiling, are not operating in good faith.  People who refuse to even hold hearings for your SCOTUS nominee are not operating in good faith.
3. Emphasize the stakes.  You know what I didn't hear from the Clinton campaign?  I didn't hear about the Supreme Court.  I didn't hear about Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  I didn't hear about climate change.  I didn't hear about college tuition.  I didn't hear about building infrastructure.  Clinton had policies to improve these things, but they rarely if ever came up. Not in her ads, not in the debates.  The only things I heard were "Trump is a monster" (true) and "Go to HillaryClinton.com" which is the single worst phrase a candidate can utter.
4. Bipartisanship is a means not an end.  Working with the other side is fine if it aimed at achieving a greater good even though you don't get everything you want, but that is never where you should begin the conversation.  Working with the other side is bad if it ends with overly complicated policies that barely address the problem and make it easy for conservatives to label government ineffective.   Too often I see Democrats beginning from a negotiated position before negotiations have even started.  Set high goals and aim for them to be implemented broadly (like Social Security), that way if they're repealed they fuck over a much larger chunk of the population.
5. Politics happens more than once every four years.  Generally speaking, if Democrats show up to the polls, they win.  The problem is, they only show up occasionally and usually only for a presidential election.  Republicans show up to nearly every election like clockwork and that is why they control the majority of statehouses, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and soon the Presidency and the Supreme Court.  Democrats didn't even show up in high numbers in the primary where there was the possibility for real divergence from the party elite.  As brilliant film director and sexual predator, Woody Allen said, "80% of life is showing up".
6.  You don't need to like the politicians you elect.  I very seldom vote for someone I like as a human or don't have some serious disagreements with.  You have to be a little off to run for office, so don't expect these people to be perfect.  At the end of the day, you're electing someone to do a job.  Politicians are vehicles for change, not the catalyst.  It's crazy to place a whole lot of trust in politicians, so regard all of them with skepticism.
7. Voting is a collective act, not personal expression, or a consumer choice.  Refer back to rule six.  If voting was supposed to be a form of self-expression, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be anonymous.  Voting is a collective action to assign power.  Nothing more, nothing less.
8. Expect them to cheat.  People cheating to gain power?  Next thing you'll tell me is people lie on their resumes.  Seriously, they cheat because they know the electorate as a whole is not on their side.  What's the best way to respond?  Get more people to vote.
9. Politics is about power.  This is rule number one of political science, but it seems completely lost on many people.  Ultimately, power is being assigned and divided up.  The only difference between democratic forms of government and undemocratic forms of government is how power is assigned.  If you want to understand politics don't watch The West Wing, watch Game of Thrones.

It's Perfectly Fine to Label Most Trump Voters Racists

Wikimedia Commons

I have heard may people whom I often agree with saying that we should not label all Trump voters as racists.  Maybe not all Trump voters, but most are completely indifferent to racism.  The Trump voters who think racism is disgusting but voted for him anyway are either:

1.  Completely ignorant of who Trump is and politics generally.
2.  View other positions as more important than letting a racist faithfully execute our constitution, in which case...Fuck you.

Voting is not an abstraction.  Voting is not equivalent to speech.  Each vote is the expression of a very small amount of power.  Trump is a man who through both actions and words has left no doubt in my mind that he is a racist.  Therefore, if you voted for a man that was running a campaign based primarily on bigotry, racism, xenophobia, and nationalism, then you have enabled all those things.  I do not care if what was deep in your heart had more to do with tax cuts, the outcome is racist and is having an effect before Trump even assumes office.

Do I think Paul Ryan believes black people are inferior human beings?  No, probably not more than most people, but I also think that does not matter because has helped enable Trump's rise to power.  I was taught that actions speak louder than words...  So guess what?  Voting is an action.  If you voted for Trump for reasons other than bigotry, you are still saying that those other reasons are more important than the freedom and dignity of your fellow humans.

Most of the white people in the era of lynching in the South were normal, as were most of the people in Nazi Germany who looked the other way as Jews were sent to concentration camps.  The fact that lynch-mobs and Nazis were largely normal citizens does not mean that they were not culpable.

It's Time to Start Writing Your Congressional Delegation

I wrote the below letter tonight and I urge everyone to follow suit.  You are free to copy the letter and modify it as needed for yourself, but it would be better for you to deliver the message in your own words.  The coming days, weeks, months, and years will require action and a lot of letter writing.  A few things about contacting your elected officials:

• Snail mail gets way more attention than an email.
• Be courteous but clear.
• Provide contact information.
• It's best if possible to reference legislation that is up for debate.
• Proofread.
• Find members of your congressional delegation here:  https://www.congress.gov/members

 November 12, 2016

Senator Patrick Leahy

87 State Street, Room 338

Montpelier, VT 05602

(802) 229-0569

Dear Senator Leahy,

Like many Americans, I am outraged by the election of Donald Trump as our next president. Republican obstructionism has prevented any meaningful legislation that benefits the middle class in President Obama’s second term and now we have elected a neo-fascist.

I am urging you along with the rest of Vermont’s congressional delegation to return the favor to the Republicans with the same full-throated opposition and obstruction.  I hope you will urge President Obama to make Merrick Garland a recess appointment.  I understand that this may trigger a constitutional crisis, but these are extraordinary circumstances.

I want every piece of legislation favored by the Trump administration and a Paul Ryan led house to be filibustered.  I want investigations whenever there is the slightest hint of wrongdoing.  In short:  No quarter should be offered and no olive branch extended.   

I am 32 years old, I have voted in every election since I was 18, I am a state employee and a taxpayer.  This will be my generation's fight and it will take years to undo the damage that is likely to take place.  Please fight, this is my future. and you will be dead from old age while I am dealing with the consequences of this election.

Sincerely,

Andrew M

Being a Nice Guy Isn't a Qualification for Governor

By all accounts, Phil Scott the Republican candidate for Governor of the State of Vermont, is a fairly moderate Republican.  Scott seems to be pro-choice, pro-LGBT, not adamantly against social programs, and acknowledges the existence of global warming.  There are however, a number of economic issues where Scott more or less tows the line ideologically for national Republicans.  I've read Scott's economic plan several times and a number of things strike me:

• Firstly, despite being 40 pages long the plan contains very little detail.  Scott outlines a number of vague policy proposals, some free-market buzz words, and a number of pictures of Scott and his family, but there is very little in the way of concrete proposals likely to create growth.  There are also a number of proposals that would presumably cost money, but there are no dollar figures attached to these policies nor any mention of how they will be paid for.
• Scott frequently mentions the increased spending that has occurred under outgoing Governor Peter Shumlin, but this spending is mostly the result of increased healthcare costs and increased pension payouts.  Scott hasn't said what he would cut but he has said he won't raise taxes.  This position necessarily demands that cuts take place so he would either have to gut pensions or cut spending in state government.  Cuts to state government would likely have the consequences of shrinking growth further, increasing unemployment, increasing downward pressure on wages, and cause further dysfunction within state government.
• Nowhere in his plan does Scott demand anything of employers.  He opposes increases to the minimum wage under the disproven notion that a higher minimum wage will drive up unemployment (it should also be noted that Vermont has an unemployment rate well below the national average).  He also says paid sick leave should be "voluntary" which it is now and would have no effect on exactly the jobs where there needs to be paid sick leave.
• Oddly, when it comes to the legalization of marijuana, a policy which would at the very least bring in some new revenue, Scott opposes it, saying it's not about money.  The "this isn't about money" standard is something Scott applies to none of his other policies.   The longer we wait on the legalization of marijuana, a policy with relatively few drawbacks and is inevitable at this point, the less economic benefit it will provide the state.

The biggest economic issue Vermont faces is the aging of the workforce and the shrinking of the tax base.  Things like providing a couple years of free community or technical college as Sue Minter is proposing would help bring and keep young people here.  An increased minimum wage would increase economic activity among the part of the workforce where it has the most room to grow and also decrease the pressure on college graduates to immediately find a job that can pay well (most likely out of state).  Scott also initially opposed taking in refugees and then reversed course.  Apart from the morality of this, it makes no sense economically.  These refugees have skills, the desire to work, and where immigration like this has happened like in Lewiston, Maine, it has been a boon to the local economy.

Scott seems like a good guy, but the policies that he is proposing work against the ends he purportedly wants.  I don't care if my governor is a nice guy, I want good policy.

Podcast 7-24-2016: Guns-a-Blazing

On this episode, Vinny and I engage in some free-association.  We talk about Trump voters, the Republican National Convention, and we go window shopping for weaponry on Armslist.com.

http://s71.podbean.com/pb/4f4e570e701a841b54e4eebd6f91a397/579e9a4f/data1/fs181/958366/uploads/Podcast_7-24-2016_podcast_7-24-2016.mp3

Notes:

• We talked about drinking here's an Economist article about global alcohol consumption.  The cited article is as of 2012 if anyone has newer or more detailed information please forward it to me.
• Tim Kaine is 58.
• Sen.  Mike Lee is running for reelection.
• A demographic breakdown of Trump supporters.

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

Bernie Didn't Lose Because of the DNC

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is an idiot, a hack, and the DNC had their thumb on the scale for the Clinton campaign, but it had little to do with Clinton winning.  Clinton won because she had millions more votes than Sanders.  Her supporters showed up to vote in greater numbers and she had longstanding connections in minority communities.  That's it.

Were there incidents of voter disenfranchisement?  Yes.  Did they materially influence the outcome of the primary?  No.  In fact, the incidents of disenfranchisement particularly in Maricopa County in New Mexico, probably hurt Clinton more than they hurt Sanders.  Did party rules hurt Sanders? Maybe, but they were in place well before this primary and an equally good argument could be made that the long primary process helped Sanders by allowing his name to get out there.

Clinton received 16,847,075 votes while Sanders received 13,168,214.  This is in contrast to the 2008 Democratic primary where Obama received 17,584,692 votes and Clinton received 17,857,501.  The turnout numbers for 2008 don't even include the large states of Florida and Michigan that were excluded from the final count because they moved their primaries in violation of party rules.  The bottom line:  Worry about showing up to vote, not massive conspiracies between the incompetent DNC and the clueless Clinton campaign.

Sanders campaign accomplished a lot despite not winning the nomination:

• The TPP will likely be killed well before it has the chance to reach Clinton's desk.
•  The default position in the Democratic Party is now a public option that is the best way toward universal health care. 
• Clinton has now endorsed free tuition for families making under $125,000 a year. 
• The number of super-delegates has been cut by two-thirds in the primary process.  

These are all good and tangible things accomplished by the Sanders campaign and they will be completely abandoned if Donald Trump is our next president.

The next President will get to name 1-4 Supreme Court justices and greatly influence how the constitution is interpreted for the next 30 years. The choices are Clinton or Trump. If you're a progressive voter and you cast a third party vote or don't show up, that's half a vote for Trump.  Voting is a collective action, not a consumer choice.