Self-Defeating Violence

Half a century ago, the Civil Rights movement made great strides through non-violent protest. Led by Martin Luther King, non-violent marchers validated their plight and protest through dignified acceptance of police brutality. Blacks were the victims; whites the perpetrators. Obvious victims of injustice in the streets, black marchers gained white support for removing injustice in law. When white Americans saw peaceful blacks being beaten and trampled by the likes of Bull Connor in Birmingham and Jim Clark in Selma, whites were forced to reexamine their prejudices and laws. An entire generation, led by Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey did just that.

However, when black Americans turned to violence to accelerate change, they ended the movement. In the midst of riots in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland, Chicago and Washington DC, white America stared at their black & white TV sets and saw blacks as the perpetrators of violence. Although King argued that “riots are self-defeating and socially destructive,” he was ignored by the militants. Sympathy for civil rights evaporated.

Fast-forward to Ferguson, Missouri. Regardless of the social ills revealed by the Michael Brown case, the violence that followed will slow-down change. When the majority of Americans see indiscriminate violence and destruction in high-definition on their LED screens, the apologists of violence become invisible. American voters are not social scientists. They believe what they see and what people with credibility tell them. Had only peaceful protests followed, the leaders of those protests would have credibility; they would have been heard. Now, with burning buildings as backdrops, advocates for change can shout with rage and spew reams of data -- the average American will not hear.

People who think violence accelerates change need to think again. When the goal is dialogue, violence is an inhibitor. Ferguson may be a metaphor for multiple problems, but its turn to street violence is self-defeating.  

Zero-Sum Government

Washington politics are a zero sum game. When one branch gains power, others lose. For example, in the middle of the last century, Congress proved itself unable to deal with civil rights. The Supreme Court eventually stepped in. Congressmen howled about “judicial overreach and activism;” to no avail. With decisions on one-man-one-vote, abortion, equal access to public facilities and right to counsel, the Supreme Court gained power at Congress’ expense.

In our own era, Americans have witnessed a dysfunctional immigration system for decades. Self-weakened through filibustered gridlock, Congress did nothing. It was inevitable that one or both of the other branches of government would eventually move into the vacuum.

Far from castigating President Obama for making immigration law through executive action, Congress has only itself to blame. Under our system of zero-sum government, when one branch fails the others will step up. Further inaction due to Republican-led gridlock will inevitably weaken Congress while strengthening the President.

 

Such strengthening could, of course, get out of hand. For this reason alone, Congress must reject its zealots and return to producing compromise solutions to vexing national problems. Among the problems on Congress' plate are unequal tax treatment, political influence spending, and gerrymandering, among others. If Congress fails to act, more Executive Orders and Supreme Court decisions will fill the void.

Democratic Denial

Never underestimate the power of denial.

Democratic excuses for last Tuesday’s election disasters are pitiful. Placing blame on President Obama’s leadership or the vagaries of mid-term elections ignores the election of a Republican governor in Maryland, a Republican state house in Minnesota and the near-defeat of Democratic businessman Mark Warner in Virginia. Democrats now control fewer state legislative seats than at any time since the Civil War. Republicans are on a long march to dominate American politics – and Democrats are to blame.

Two statistics are all we need to know. First, median household income in America continues to fall. It is down 10% since 2000, with no sign or recovery. Second, the employment rate of Americans aged 18-65 is also down 10% since 2000. It also continues to fall.

Middle-class, working Americans live in economic turmoil. Their vision that a middle-management career would provide a home in a good neighborhood, college tuition, vacations, healthcare and retirement suddenly evaporated along with middle-management. Millions of Americans, reared in the pre-planned Industrial Age, are ill-equipped to realign their skills with the fluid expectations of the Information Age. As our economy continues to evolve this problem will endure.   

Republicans offer a solution: less government; lower taxes. This is a terrible solution; trickle-down economics don’t work and deregulation just gave us the Great Recession. However, the Republican “solution” is politically preferable to the Democratic solution – which doesn’t exist.

In the 1960s, a common bumper sticker read, “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” Average Americans may not demand that government create jobs, but they understand that taxes and regulation impact job creation. They understand that one-third of the job force has given up trying to find a job. They understand that average working Americans earn 10% less today than 15 years ago. They understand that the Democratic Party has no strategy for aligning government action with economic growth.

The measure of merit in political economics is not the Dow Jones Industrial Average – it is median household income. Democrats must convey a clear and concise strategy for middle-class driven economic growth. When the Democratic Party proves its dedication to this standard it will regain the votes of America’s middle class.

Learning from Defeat

Yesterday, November 4^th, 2014, was a Democratic Pearl Harbor. In an era of economic turmoil, with household median incomes down 10% since 2000 and continuing to fall, a robust job market was the number one issue for America’s voters. What was the Democratic message for voters with falling incomes and tenuous jobs? Reproductive rights.

The cause of another Democratic debacle is extraordinarily clear. A liberal-only Democratic Party is a political minority. To regain the political majority, Democrats must regain the faith of working men and woman – who voted yesterday for Republican candidates across the ballot.

The means of Democratic resurgence is also extraordinarily clear. Every Democrat must test every political issue with a simple question: “How is it good for America’s working families?”

• Tax breaks for corporations? “How is it good for America’s working families.”

• Cut public education? “How is it good for America’s working families?”

• Constrain reproductive rights” “How is it good for America’s working families?”

• Restrict gun ownership? “How is it good for America’s working families?”

• Repeal & Replace Obamacare? “How is it good for America’s working families?”

• Bomb ISIL? “How is it good for America’s working families?”

• Deport illegal immigrants? “How is it good for America’s working families?”

• Cut carbon emissions: “How is it good for America’s working families?”

Only when the Democratic Party has the backs of America’s working families will the majority of Americans entrust their votes to the Democratic Party.  Democrats must prove we deserve their trust. The next test is in 364 days.

Democratic Money in Politics

Democrats love to complain about “money-in-politics.” Mention the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson and veins in the average Democrat’s neck begin to throb. But few Democrats walk-the-walk when it comes to political money. Few Democrats treat “Democratic money-in-politics” with the partisan distain they reserve for “Republican money-in-politics.”

Case in point is the current primary in Virginia’s 8th Congressional District. The Cook Partisan Voting Index (Cook PVI) rates the 8th District as D+16; a nominal Democrat will usually beat a nominal Republican by 16 points. This makes the 8th District a certain Democratic win. Baring a felony conviction (not just an arrest), whoever wins the Democratic primary in two days will almost certainly win the general election in November.

As of two weeks ago, the leader in the polls is auto-dealer Don Beyer. He is also the leading money raiser – tripling the cash of any of his 6 opponents. Beyer has raised $1.3 million. His 6 competitors – combined – have raised $1.8 million. 

Don Beyer seems a good person with a record of public service. The same can be said for the other candidates. What distinguishes Beyer is his money. Staying well within the law, Beyer is buying Tuesday’s primary. Beyer is buying phone-banks, paid canvassers, media ads, Google ads, strategists, pollsters, and mailings in amounts and sophistication that swamp his competitors. Come election night, Beyer’s vote advantage will probably mirror his money advantage: 42% of the money will buy 42% of the vote.

Is this money disparity an issue in the Democratic primary? Not at all. Press, public and candidates are silent on Beyer’s fundraising advantage.

Do Democrats really care about money-in-politics? Evidently not, unless the hated Republicans have the upper hand. If a campaign is awash with Republican money, Democrats make it “the” issue. Dems will even call for amending the Constitution. But in this Democratic primary, with money so disparate and decisive, I’ve not heard a single Democratic whimper about money-in-politics.

Democratic silence on the money gap in Tuesday’s 8^th District primary tells the real story of campaign finance. No one really cares. If anyone did, they would make it an issue.

The Wall between Church and State

This week, the Supreme Court committed a historical “sin” by ruling that government meetings can include sectarian prayer.

Religious wars are among the most murderous and vicious scars on humankind. Well-meaning religious people have repeatedly misused government to impose scriptural interpretations on others. The historical result of religious imposition is catastrophe.

Year after year we watch sects murder each other across Iraq, Sudan, Egypt, India, Ireland, Bosnia and beyond. Far from being dangerous relics of the far-off past, internal religious civil wars rage across the 21^st Century.

The threat of religious war was well understood by America’s Constitutional framers. The English Civil War, pitting Catholics against Protestants, and Protestants against each other, lived within their oral history. On a local level, religious persecution through government action was common throughout the colonies. To protect our democracy from repeating these tragedies they built a “wall” (Jefferson’s word) between church and state.

As part of the Americas experiment, religion would be a personal pursuit, not a national imposition. The first words in the 1^st Amendment read: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… From the beginning, our Constitution mandated that America’s laws only reflect social needs supported by data, not scripture. Americans could individually pursue whatever religion they wished, but they could not use government to impose their religion on anyone else.

To test and enforce this proscription, Americans must sometimes go to silly extremes. We prohibit Nativity crèches in front of city halls; we ban prayers in public schools. These extremes test our emotions -- but not our logic. Church-State prohibitions are rooted in historical necessity. To defend our continued existence, we must constantly uphold America’s “wall” between personal religion and public law. This constitutional barrier remains America’s best defense against the historic contagion of religious war.

Last Monday, Clarence Thomas and his partisan pals thumbed their noses at history. They ignored the logic and lessons of history and discarded the words and warnings of Jefferson and Madison. Ironically, the Supreme Court’s license to merge politics and religion may make prayer more necessary. We will need Heaven’s help to avoid Santayana’s warning from a century ago: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

The Democratic Brand

Since the days of Federalists, Whigs and Democratic-Republicans, Americans naturally divide into two political groups: land and business owners versus working men and women. One side believes government must temper capitalism to protect workers from the excesses of businesses, manufacturing and finance. The other side believes that free capitalism is the best path to general affluence. Each side maintains a political party to protect and promote its competing economic beliefs and interests.

In the past, social issues were important but secondary to both parties. Both parties had isolationists and interventionists, liberals and conservatives. The Republican Party had liberals like Abraham Lincoln, Robert La Follette and Teddy Roosevelt; plus conservatives like Robert Taft, Herbert Hoover and William McKinley. Democrats had conservatives like James Polk, Grover Cleveland and George Wallace; plus liberals like Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman. Where each party's base differed was on economic issues (e.g., taxes, tariffs, currency, workers rights and jobs). Election after election, pocketbook and job issues were the constant and most basic differences that  defined parties and their candidates.

Democrats upended this natural split in the 1960s. Instead of being the party of the working class, with liberal and conservative wings, Democrats expelled conservatives and became a social liberal party focused on civil rights. This rebranding was – and remains – disastrous for Democrats, for multiple reasons.

·        First, America’s temperament leans more towards conservatism than to social liberalism. According to polls, twice as many Americans self-identify as conservative as opposed to liberal. By rebranding itself as “liberal,” Democrats turned themselves into a minority party – and Republicans into a majority party.

·        Second, the elderly and wealthy are, as a group, cautious and conservative – and they vote 50% more often than young and poor Americans. As America’s median age continues to rise, the votes of conservative-leaning older people produce an even larger pro-Republican impact.

·        Third, The Electoral College is conservative. The 11 states of the Old Confederacy (160 votes) plus the Plains (32) and Western (27) states that regularly vote Republican = 219 Electoral College votes, 81% of the 270 needed to win the Presidency. These states also comprise 44% of seats in the US Senate. Those are tough numbers for Democratic candidates to surmount before a campaign even begins.

By rebranding itself as the party of social liberalism – as opposed to the party of the working men and women – Democrats ironically made social liberalism more difficult to achieve. Major social legislation requires long-term working majorities throughout government, including the courts, Congress, state houses and the White House. Democrats can produce this working majority if they identify – as Job #1 – the rights and wealth of working men and women. This historic brand will create the necessary political wins that can produce social liberalism. However, branding social liberalism as Job #1, the Democratic Party dooms itself into minority status, unable to produce socially liberal legislation. For liberals and working people, it is a self-destructive strategy. 

Tough Mother Russia

In early 1997, I accompanied a US Assistant Secretary of Defense in face-to-face negotiations with a Russian minister in Moscow. Our closed-door meeting had only 4 people in the room: my Assistant Secretary; the Russian minister; an interpreter; and, me.

At that time, the US enjoyed huge economic and military advantages over Russia.

The US economy was booming with the Dow Jones average reaching an all-time high. The Russian economy was in tatters. Only one year later the Russian government would devalue the Ruble and default on its debt.

The US military was just 6 years removed from destroying Iraq’s Russian-supplied weapons in Operation Desert Storm. America’s stealth and precision monopolies were the envy of the world. Russia’s military was a comparative wreck. It had just absorbed a second wave of massive post-USSR reductions; training was practically non-existent.

Despite these disparities, the Russian minister in 1997 would not compromise. He would not negotiate. The concept of “cost-benefit ratio” seemed alien to him. The Russian refused to give up anything if it resulted in any cost to Russia, however intangible that cost might be. He was like a boxer who will take 10 shots to the head in order to get inside to land one shot of his own. His message? Just because Russia was weak did NOT mean Russians weren’t tough.

Fast forward to 2014 and Crimea. Promises and threats of economic benefits or sanctions will NOT drive Russia to reverse course. As George Kennan wrote in 1946, “deep and powerful currents of Russian nationalism” are “impervious to the logic of reason, and highly sensitive to the logic of force.” Russia will only reverse course if forced to do so.

Force is the only currency Moscow will accept – and this is too high a price for Kiev to pay. Unwilling to resort to force, Ukraine has accepted Russia’s will. It is difficult to imagine why the United States should pay the price of force for Crimea when Ukrainians are unwilling to pay it themselves. Mother Russia may be weak, but it remains a tough mother.

A Tale of Two Districts

Virginia’s two northern-most Congressional Districts have open-seat elections this year. Democrat Jim Moran will retire from the 8^th District (centered on Arlington) after 24 years. Republican Frank Wolf will retire from the 10^th District (centered on Leesburg) after 32 years. Both are members of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. Neither had trouble with reelection over the decades.

You might expect a political free-for-all over two Congressional seats “owned” by incumbents for decades. You would be only half right.

In the 8^th District, only one Republican has filed to run. At last count, 12 Democrats are competing for the Democratic nomination.

Numbers are reversed in the 10^th District. Only one Democrat is running. Seven Republicans are competing for the nomination.

The Cook Partisan Voting Index (Cook PVI) rates Moran’s 8^th District as D+16. A nominal Democrat will usually beat a nominal Republican by 16 points. This makes the 8^th District a certain Democratic win. Baring a felony conviction, whoever wins the Democratic Primary in June will almost certainly win the general election in November.

High as it is, Virginia’s 8^th District has far from the highest Cook PVI in the Nation; it is only tied for 73^rd place among House districts held by Democrats nationwide. It puts Virginia-8 within the top 37% percentile of Democratic-held seats in the US House of Representatives.

The 10^th District, currently held by Republican Frank Wolf has a Cook PVI of R+2.  That places Virginia-10 in the bottom 12% percentile among GOP-held seats in the House.

Given the narrow Cook PVI margin, Democrats are optimistic for winning Virginia-10's open seat in 2014. However, any Democratic optimism is a stretch. There is a reason for the raft of Republicans fighting for the nomination versus only one Democrat. Virginia-10 is gerrymandered to favor Republicans.

In the 2012 Presidential election, President Obama lost the 10^th District to Mitt Romney by 1%. In the 2013 gubernatorial election, Democrat Terry McAuliffe also lost the 10^th to Republican Ken Cuccinelli by 1%. Despite massive fundraising advantages and get-out-the-vote campaigns by both Democrats, the 10^th voted Republican.

The 2013 race Virginia’s Attorney General pitted Democrat Mark Herring (a state senator from Loudoun County, the most populous county in Virginia-10) against Republican Mark Obenshain. They statistically tied each other in Virginia-10.

The 2013 race for Lieutenant Governor was more definitive. The Republican candidate, Bishop EW Jackson was a laughingstock. His statement that “yoga can lead to Satanism” was only one in a series of extreme positions. Others included, “Democrats are anti-God” and “Planned Parenthood is worse than the Ku Klux Klan.” His Democratic opponent, Ralph Northam was a state senator, pediatric neurologist, professor of ethics in medical school, a Gulf War veteran and graduate of VMI (where he was president of the Honor Court). Despite the Democrat’s clear character advantage, Northam won the 10th Congressional District by only 52-48%.

If their biographies were reversed, if the Republican was credible and the Democrat was incredible, the Republican would have won in a landslide. This is the reality in Virginia-10. Only an extreme Republican candidate puts the congressional election in play. Although Virginia-10 has a slim Cook PVI of R+2, that “+2” is solid. Whether or not the gerrymandered District votes for a Democrat is less determined by the credibility of the Democrat than by the incredibility of the Republican. This is why a raft of Republicans versus a single Democrat are competing for this open seat. 

The Next Civil Rights Movement

Over the past half century, Americans have fought and argued historic battles over the civil rights of African Americans and the LGBT community. To stop government from codifying personal prejudice into civil law, we marched, battled and bled through progressions of violent protests, generational combat across our dinner tables, protracted court cases and emotional elections.

While civil rights battles continue, the outcomes of these wars are decided. Any list of the 10 most popular people in America might include: Barack and Michelle Obama; Oprah Winfrey; Colin Powell; Michael Jordan; Denzel Washington; Magic Johnson; Beyoncé; Tiger Woods; and, Muhammad Ali. While race-based discrimination continues in American hearts, law and majority opinion solidly condemn it. Jim Crow is on life support.

The civil rights of the LGBT community are solidly endorsed by America’s youth and increasingly validated by our Courts. The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996, receives the same levels of ridicule and scorn previously reserved for Plessey v Ferguson. Five words from Pope Francis, “who am I to judge?” signaled a global religious reassessment of homosexuality. The days are clearly numbered for politicians who believe anti-Gay campaigns are winning strategies.

If these two struggles are decided, what is next for the Civil Rights movement? What is the next class of people who will reject today’s social paradigm and force another national re-examination of civil rights in America?

Within 5 years, certainly no more than 10 years from now, the civil rights of Undocumented Immigrants will rise to similar levels of partisan and protracted political combat. Undocumented Immigrants will cease to accept second-class status and insist on equal rights under the Constitution. They will force a civil rights struggle over the meaning of citizenship in America and its value in a globalized world.

The Department of Homeland Security lists specific “Citizenship Rights and Responsibilities” on its website (http://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/citizenship-rights-and-responsibilities)

Rights

Responsibilities

1.  Right to vote in elections. 2.  Right to run for elected office. 3.  Right to apply for federal jobs requiring U.S. citizenship. 4.  Freedom to pursue “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” 5.  Freedom to express yourself. 6.  Freedom to worship as you wish. 7.  Right to a prompt, fair trial by jury.

1. Defend the country if the need should arise 2. Serve on a jury when called upon. 3. Support and defend the Constitution. 4. Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws. 5. Pay income and other taxes honestly and on time. 6. Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others. 7. Stay informed of issues affecting your community. 8. Participate in the democratic process. 9. Participate in your local community.

The “Responsibilities” of US citizenship are very light. Of the “Responsibilities,” current citizens routinely ignore numbers 7, 8 and 9. Numbers 4, 5 and 6 apply to anyone within US borders, citizen or noncitizen. Number 3 (Support and defend the Constitution) is more aspirational than actionable. That leaves us with national defense and jury duty. With no draft in an era in warfare when conscript armies are ineffective, the national defense responsibility is more theoretical than real.

Jury Duty remains as the sole concrete responsibility of citizenship. Is that sufficient grounds for discriminating against non-citizens? As an aside, California Governor Gerry Brown vetoed a 2013 bill that passed both house of the legislature to allow Green Card holders to serve on California juries. Even the bind between jury duty and citizenship is fraying.

The “Rights” of US citizenship are almost as light. Of the “Rights” listed above, numbers 4 through 7 are basic human rights. Number 3 is self-fulfilling (you must be a citizen to get a job that requires you to be a citizen). The most exclusive rights of US citizenship are the right to vote and to hold office. I doubt Undocumented Immigrants would argue these exclusions. All the other rights are shared by all humans, including inalienable rights endowed by our Creator. They are not unique to US citizenship.

For decades, while America had de jure prohibitions against illegal immigration, we extended de facto invitations to millions of people to cross our borders any way they could. Jobs were plentiful. Fences nonexistent by design. Hundreds of thousands (possible millions) of Americans hired Undocumented Immigrants without penalty. Undocumented Immigrants performed work that no one else wanted in the service, construction and agricultural sectors. They obeyed laws, started families, bought houses, started businesses and paid taxes. Some served in uniform. All the while Undocumented Immigrants remained vulnerable to exploitation. They endured unpaid wages, dangerous working conditions, uncompensated injuries and threats of exposure. These vulnerabilities continue to this day.

What will happen when Undocumented Immigrants take to the streets in violent protests over their lack of civil protections and their vulnerability to exploitation and deportation? If history proves a guide, authorities will crack down, meeting violence with violence. Politicians will either fail to act or will join the crackdown. Undocumented Immigrants will then take their cases to Court. After a series of successes and failures, judicial decrees will eventually trigger a reappraisal of American values over immigration and citizenship.

It’s entirely possible that this scenario will not play out. History may not repeat itself.  Problems posed by Undocumented Immigrants may simply “go away.” However, if history does repeat itself, Congress will refuse to act, forcing Courts to address a basic injustice. Congress will then criticize “activist judges” for stepping into the vacuum. As in the 1954 Brown decision, the Courts will dictate a leadership path that politicians will undercut for temporary political advantage.

A better course would be to place a short and specific proposal on the political table that extends basic civil protections to Undocumented Immigrants in America. We would debate and modify this proposal until a consensus forms. Our overall purpose is to get ahead of a possible civil rights struggle before it turns violent.

Future blogs will outline one possible path. Suggestions are welcome.

Prudent Cuts in Defense Spending

Anyone listening to the speeches at CPAC or reading the op-ed pages in major newspapers might assume the US military is headed for obsolescence.  President Obama’s plan to reduce defense spending has triggered no shortage of over-the-top histrionics. Robert Samuelson calls it “a huge gamble.” John Bolton referred to “an American military that is weak and poorly equipped.”

America’s proposed defense budget for 2015 is $495.6 billion. This is 40% of worldwide expenditures. The next two largest defense budgets belong to China and Russia. Our proposed defense budget is 4 times larger than China’s and 8 times larger than Russia’s. If we combine the US defense budget with those of our closest allies (NATO, Japan, South Korea, Australia), we constitute 70% of world-wide military spending.

This $495.6 billion defense budget does NOT include the cost of the ongoing war in Afghanistan. It does NOT include the cost of Homeland Security ($61 billion), International Affairs ($41 billion), nuclear weapons ($11 billion) and Veterans Affairs ($165 billion, including military pensions).

Simple budget numbers do NOT reflect the high combat-readiness of US forces, forged through a decade of constant combat. US forces lead the world in jointness. Visit any combat headquarters any you will see a mix of uniforms. All communicate effectively at all echelons. Among our enemies, jointness is a one-word oxymoron.

Name any weapon system and the best-in-the-world winner will be American made. US weapons are the world’s gold standard in every category.

Bottomline: Any enemy attacking US vital interests will bring inferior, untested and stove-piped forces to fight our massive, best-equipped, proven and joint team. This will not be a fair fight. Any military challenging the United States and our allies would face proven leaders, command & control, logistics and weapons – all on day one of any fight. There will not be a day two.

When he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen said, “Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.” At this time of overwhelming military strength and comparative peace, the federal government must balance its budget. With national security comprising half of discretionary spending, modest reductions in defense spending are a prudent path. 

Obamacare vs Social Security

Today’s #1 political divide is Obamacare. A Google search on “force people to buy health care” and “Obama” generates 2.2 million hits.

Today’s Republican message is that Obamacare is Exhibit A in government overreach; another unnecessary intrusion into personal decisions. If today’s Republicans are right, so were their Republican parents and grandparents.

At its inception in the 1930s, Republicans bitterly opposed Social Security. They labeled FDR a socialist. Republicans used Social Security as a rallying call to win 81 House seats in the 1938 election. Democrats argued that although optional insurance was available, people simply didn’t buy it. Society was left to cope with all the problems posed by impoverished seniors, orphans and the disabled. A government mandate was the only realistic solution.

In the end, our grandparents devised a government-imposed solution that required every American to “buy” retirement, disability and loss-of-parents insurance. It’s expensive, drawing 12.4% off the top from every paycheck (capped at $106,000). No one can choose whether or not to buy this insurance.

Today, Social Security is effective and popular. Its mandate has succeeded in ending extreme poverty among the elderly, the disabled and orphans, where destitution was a reality before Social Security.

At its inception in the 1960s, Republicans bitterly opposed Medicare. They labeled LBJ a socialist. Republicans used Medicare as a rallying call to win 47 House seats in the 1966 election. Democrats argued that although optional insurance was available, people simply didn’t buy it. Society was left to cope with all the problems posed by impoverished seniors needing medical care. A government mandate was the only realistic solution.

In the end, our parents devised a government-imposed solution that required every American to “buy” medical insurance for the aged. Medicare is expensive, drawing 2.9% off the top of every paycheck (with no cap). No one can choose whether or not to buy this insurance.

Today, Medicare is effective and popular. Its mandate has succeeded in extending the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans who either died or bankrupted their children before Medicare.

Fast-forward to Obamacare.

America’s healthcare system is broken. We pay far too much for substandard results. 16% of US GDP goes for healthcare. Our economic competitors in the developed world average 11% of GDP for healthcare -- and get higher life expectancies. In America, insurance companies, lawyers, Big Pharma and hospital corporations scrape off the cream from our healthcare dollars. Our generation needs to fix America’s broken healthcare system.

From its inception as a Democratic program (although not when it was a Republican program), Republicans have bitterly opposed Obamacare. They label Obama a socialist. Republicans used Obamacare as a rallying call to win 63 House seats in the 2010 election. Democrats argued that although optional insurance is available, people simply don’t buy it. Society is left to cope with all the problems posed by people either bankrupted by healthcare, frozen in their jobs or showing up at emergency rooms with no means to pay for life-saving treatment. A government mandate is the only realistic solution.

In the end, our generation devised a government-imposed solution that required every American to “buy” healthcare insurance. Obamacare is expensive, despite the claims of agencies and think tanks. No one can choose whether or not to buy this insurance.

Today, aspects of Obamacare are popular, especially the crucial ability to buy healthcare insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions, an ability that is only workable if everyone is already in the insurance pool. In the end, Americans will judge Obamacare by its success in lowering the overall cost of healthcare in America.

Republican claims that Obamacare is socialism and government overreach are only as credible as historic and parallel Republican charges over Social Security and Medicare.

Name 3 Ukrainians

If you can’t name 3 Ukrainians, it’s tough to argue that Ukraine is vital to the United States. Should Ukraine and Russia go to war over the Crimea, the United States does not have a dog in that fight -- unless you believe every fight in every part of the world demands US intervention.

Such thinking runs counter to American history. Jefferson did nothing while Napoleon ran wild in Europe. Theodore Roosevelt did nothing when Japan swallowed Korea. Wilson kept America neutral in World War I until 1917. Franklin Roosevelt did the same in World War II until Japan and Germany declared war on us. Truman did nothing when Soviet Forces crushed a political uprising in East Germany. Same for Eisenhower with Hungary. Same for Johnson with Czechoslovakia. Leaders across American history understood that war is a constant component of human society. Unless the United States wishes to be constantly at war, we must pick and choose which fights are necessary to engage and which others are simply to be deplored.

If we want to get Moscow’s attention over the Crimea, forget troops – send weapons. Massively arm the Ukrainians. Write Kiev a check for $10 billion (that would cost each American $32.90) and ship them Abrams tanks, Patriot surface-to-air missiles, drones, command & control, and AMRAAM air-to-air missiles. These would be tangible “consequences” that President Obama threatened in the event of Moscow’s aggression. A western-armed Ukraine would pose a constant threat to Russia along their 1000 miles of common border. This would be a foreign policy disaster for Vladimir Putin, one he would have a hard time explaining to his political backers.

This is not to say America must or should help Ukraine. According to BusinessWeek, Ukraine is “poorer than Paraguay and more corrupt than Iran.” Just because Russia is not on our dance card, we don’t need to marry Ukraine. They have a dispute to iron out with Russia. Whether they or the Russians like the final answer is not America’s problem. If it was, the average American could name at least 3 Ukrainians. 

Massive Right-Wing Money

In last night's State of the Union Address, President Obama called to raise the minimum wage. Less than 10 hours after the President's speech, a full page attack ad attack in The Wall Street Journal (page A14) appeared on the Nation's doorsteps and desks.

                   "In his State of the Union address President Obama endorsed a nearly 40 percent increase in the minimum wage."

The ad was paid for by "The Employment Policies Institute."  According to Wikipedia, EPI is led by Richard Berman, who was described by 60 Minutes as "the booze and food industries' weapon of mass destruction." Reportedly, Berman previously fronted for the tobacco and booze industries. His past targets include PETA and MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving).

The Journal charges somewhere between $150,000 and $250,000 for a black/white full-page ad. To build and contract the ad in a tight time line adds more costs.

This expensive overnight ad highlights the massive power of right-wing money in today's politics. EPI's real message goes far beyond the minimum wage. EPI's not-so-subtle message is that it has immediate stores of disposable dollars in the millions - and it can as easily target a Congressman or a Senator as target a President. Beware any politician in a swing state who challenges right-wing interests. EPI and its siblings will deliver immediate, professional and overwhelming confusion in state elections.

After the Citizens United case, we may think we saw the high point of money in the 2012 elections. Not so. A tsunami of special interest, right-wing money is heading our way. 

Why I Am Pro-Choice

“Religious war” is a pathetic oxymoron, unnecessarily repeated throughout history with murderous effects. Open any history book; read millennia of examples where humans dishonored God in the purported name of honoring God. The most vicious and long-lasting violations were internal civil wars: Northern Ireland; India’s Partition; the Thirty Years War; the Holocaust; and, on and on and on. These violations are not simply fossils of antiquity; they continue today: 9/11; Israel-Palestine; Sudan; Bosnia; Iraq; Nigeria; and, Lebanon. Religious violence is, regrettably, a proven part of humankind’s DNA.

America is hardly immune. Pilgrims fled the church-state establishment that outlawed their beliefs, then hanged Quakers on Boston Common for preaching their beliefs. Roger Williams founded Rhode Island and the Calvert family founded Maryland as sanctuaries against religious violence.

America’s constitutional framers understood this human failing. The framers’ solution was as revolutionary as democracy: build a “wall” (Jefferson’s word) separating church from state. By law, the American government must stay completely out of religious matters. No citizen can use government to impose his/her religious beliefs on anyone else. The first words in the First Amendment declare:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

Well-meaning Americans repeatedly chip at this prohibitive wall. They ignore its existence (with prayers at public schools) or ridicule its extreme interpretations (no Christmas mangers on courthouse lawns). Yet, Americans intuitively appreciate the goodness of separating government and religion. Politics demands compromise while scripture condemns it. As our Union requires uniform laws, individual conscience require absolute religious freedom. Ergo the remaining words in the first phrase of the First Amendment:

… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…

America’s freedom of religion spans every degree and spectra. One in five Americans follows no religion at all. A third attends services at least weekly. One in ten Americans holds religion as their primary reason for being; twice as many give the same status to money. While Christianity is the dominant religion in America by far, it is splintered into irreconcilable sects with long histories of internecine slaughter. Different Christian bibles omit entire books. Jews spilt along Reform, Conservative and Orthodox lines, each with further subdivisions. Islam, Baha’I, Buddhism, and Hinduism have completely separate tenets of morality and visions of the afterlife. Unitarians, Deists, Druids, and hundreds of other faiths in America expand the spectrum of beliefs, commitment and resolve toward infinity. The First Amendment brilliantly protects religious freedom from itself by precluding any sect from using government to enforce religious uniformity in the face of America’s intractable diversity. Today’s Americans have benefited so much from the constitutional framers’ hard-won wisdom that we have forgotten its necessity.

Which brings us to abortion.

When anti-abortion zealots base their crusades solely in religious terms, they take sledgehammers to the Constitution’s brilliant wall between church and state. Because their personal consciences and religious beliefs condemn abortion under any circumstances, they want government to prohibit any of their fellow citizens from aborting a pregnancy. The question is, why?

Are anti-abortion crusaders trying to turn America into a theocracy that imposes specific scriptural laws on everyone? If so, they pose a historical threat to America’s democratic survival.

Are anti-abortion crusaders trying to protect America’s respect for life? In the 40 years since the Roe v Wage decision, America’s respect for life has INCREASED, not decreased. The homicide rate is down by half. So is the highway fatality rate. Life expectancy increased 8½ years. All these advances required massive investments. Four decades of data prove there’s no threat to the social compact posed by abortion.

Are anti-abortion crusaders trying to save their own souls? Some might argue that any government program that underwrites abortions (however infinitesimally) inflicts a “sin” on every taxpayer. But this is the same logic that opponents of the Vietnam and Iraq wars used to avoid paying income taxes. They went to jail. Because government and religion are completely separate in America, government actions do not convey religious culpability to every citizen.

The pro-choice movement has many sound arguments for its positions, including women’s health and the primacy of individual conscience. Yet these arguments routinely fail to sway millions of middle class Americans who routinely vote against their economic interests because of their religious stand against abortion. Democrats need to sever this link.

Religious fervor during times of economic uncertainty is understandable. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no atheists in unemployment lines. Personal fervor, however, should not drive into government into the hands of priest, ministers or mullahs.

It is a constitutionally protected right for every American to make individual decisions on abortion based on their own religious beliefs. At the same time, it is a constitutional prohibition for any American to use government to impose individual religious beliefs regarding abortion upon everyone else. In the face of committed religious diversity, history teaches us that a wall between church and state is absolutely necessary for national survival. If Americans tear down that wall we risk repeating humankind’s history of religious violence.

The Democratic Brand

In 1965, Virginia’s Democratic Party published a progressive platform.

“We believe that government exists to serve the people, that public office is a public trust, and that the policies of government must adapted to changing times. We are for:

·   “Stronger conflict of interest laws.”

·    “Improvement of consumer protections laws.”

EDUCATION

·    “Expand resources and facilities for state institutions of higher learning.”

·   “Higher teacher salary scales, and retirement and sick leave benefits above, not below, the American average.”

TRANSPORTATION

·   “Provide more funds for improved commuter roads and highway maintenance.”

·   “Create a rapid transit system for Northern Virginia.”

MENTAL HEALTH

·   “Alleviate shortages in mental health facilities.”

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

·   “Improve workmen’s compensation laws.”

Half a century ago, these progressive values were controversial, aggressive -- and winning. 1965 was a Democratic sweep.  It was the last time, prior to 2014, that Democrats won all of Virginia’s state-wide offices (Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General) while holding both Senate seats. In 1965, Democrats also held the Presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress.

These bullets still speak to voters in 2014. They share an overarching message that binds them into a Democratic Party “brand” that endures over time, regardless of candidate or crisis.

Democrats are the party of everyday working people. A level playing field, where every American has opportunities for success, is the Democratic goal. Democrats have the backs of the Middle Class.

Just as each bullet point from 1965 fits under this brand, so do 2014’s big issues that separate progressive Democrats from right-wing Republicans. Medical care, income inequality, Social Security, consumer protection, tax fairness, mass transit, public education, workers rights, pensions, campaign finance – all are schisms between progressive Democrats and right-wing Republicans. All are subsets of the larger and unending struggle between working Americans and corporate wealth.

Under the American political system, working people and corporate wealth have own political parties. This divide is the battlespace of politics, setting the starting conditions for every campaign. While individual candidates must define themselves, energize their supporters and get out the vote, national parties convey the overall brand that colors every contest.

The corporate Republican brand is “less government, lower taxes.” This brand benefits management, shareholders and the wealthy. The Democratic brand is “a level playing field, where every American has opportunities for success.” This brand grows the Middle Class.

Each party can, and should, articulate why its brand is best for America as a whole. Republicans do this; their message is clear, concise and unified. Pull the string on any Republican and you will hear, “less government, lower taxes.”

Democrats, wanting to be all things to all people, shy from uniformity. Pull the string on any Democrat and you hear a string of unrelated talking points ranging from abortion to gun safety and the minimum wage. Unlike FDR with the New Deal and LBJ with the Great Society, today’s Democrats refuse to define themselves.

Perversely, when today’s Democrats refuse to define themselves, Republican do it for them. Republicans define Democrats as the party of “bigger government and higher taxes.” This damning characterization handicaps every Democratic candidate from the starting whistle.

The Democratic brand of “a level playing field, where every American has opportunities for success,” is both good politics and good policy. Democrats have always been the builders of the Middle Class, whose defenses are even more valuable to voters today due the harms levied by corporate wealth over the last two decades. With information age technologies concentrating more and more power and influence in fewer and fewer people, armies of lawyers, lobbyists and PR pros have skewed wealth in America to unbalanced levels unseen in a century.

Highly concentrated wealth is simultaneously a threat to liberty and to economy. As Justice Brandeis said in 1941, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.” Historically, aristocracy is incompatible with democracy. With the 400 richest Americans controlling wealth equal to the GDP of Russia, we have already reached Czarist levels of concentrated wealth. Unless the Middle Class regains control of government, we risk even higher concentrations which will inevitably lead to Czarist consequences.

American growth and stability go hand in hand with Middle Class growth. America was strongest when average working Americans were the direct focus of government investment. Indirect, trickle-down benefits channeled through corporate sieves have proven to only produce arid and isolated crops of stunted economic growth.

The Democratic Party should trumpet its traditional roots with a full-throated, unified and singular focus on -- Middle Class growth and opportunity. The Democratic brand is “a level playing field, where every American has opportunities for success.”

$85 Billion for Afghanistan

The House of Representatives voted yesterday to spend $85 billion for the war in Afghanistan. The money covers only fiscal year 2014 – which is one-third over.

For what? After 13 years in Afghanistan, can the average American name 3 Afghanis? Does the average American know how many US servicemembers died in Afghanistan last year? Exactly what American objective in Afghanistan is worth $85 billion this year to America?

The 19^th Century German theorist Carl von Clausewitz coined the aphorism, "War is the continuation of policy by other means." This bumper-sticker is true but misses a crucial point. Once wars start, emotions take over. The emotional demand to justify those who have already died compels nations to order more men (and now women) to kill and die. Nations become dedicated to winning as opposed to achieving. The beginning of war may be a “continuation of policy by other means," but war’s continuation is often an emotional justification of blood already shed.

Because World War I and Vietnam did not teach this warning sufficiently, Afghanistan 2014 is another lesson. National interests in Afghanistan do not justify another $85 billion this year.  Nonetheless, we will spend it without a whimper from average Americans – even though no one can give a simple and compelling justification for continuing the war. Raw appeals to emotion evidently suffice.

Yes, Abraham Lincoln gave Americans an emotional goal at Gettysburg, “… we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain…” But the end of the same sentence he gave a rational justification for continuing the slaughter of war: “… government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Americans deserve an equally simple and compelling case for why the enemy in Afghanistan poses a “clear and present danger” that justifies spending $85 billion this year. Lacking such a case, we must tell the families of our dead that we have achieved all that is necessary to achieve. There is no more worth dying for.

127 Americans died serving in Afghanistan last year. 2307 have died to date.

Create Your Own Job

America is moving from an employment-based workforce to an entrepreneurial workforce. Today’s employment question is less, “where can I find a job?” and more “how can I create a job?”

Seeking jobs that someone else builds reflects an Industrial Age paradigm. Compare the small teams who create massive wealth for Information Age billionaires (Gates, Buffett, Ellison, Brin and Zuckerberg) versus the masses who toiled incrementally for Industrial Age barons (Ford, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Duke and Rockefeller). Information Age employers simply do not need many employees. Only the likes of Walmart and McDonalds hire in great numbers. They need bodies not brains – and pay accordingly.

Our Industrial Age grandparents sought career-long jobs in a single factory, shipyard or store. They “knew” their company would span a career. Those days are gone. Does anyone think our Information Age grandchildren envision 40 year careers with the same corporation? Yes, they may work for someone else. But that “someone” will change in purpose, pay and personage many times.

Jobs of the future will be less corporate and more entrepreneurial – because wealth in the Information Age comes less from employing thousands of others and more from building small temporary teams to create technologies and applications.

Like it or not, workers must keep pace. Employees must align and realign with employers, not vice versa. As workplace projects change so must workforce skills.

Employers will pick teams, not for hierarchical careers, but for uncertain and transient projects. Candidates for employment must anticipate emergent value and re-create their value and contributions accordingly. They must do this repeatedly throughout their working life. They must also re-create their value simultaneously; working for several employers at the same time will become the norm, not the exception.

Jobs in big companies and in government will certainly exist. Just as we still have Agrarian Age farmers, we will always have Industrial Age workers. However, fewer field and factory jobs will be “good” jobs. Workers who expect others to create their jobs will be left standing in dispiriting unemployment lines or staring at barren recruiting websites.

The implications for this shift on retirement, healthcare and education are profound. Retirement will continue shifting away from job-stable defined benefit plans and towards job-flexible 401k’s. The greatest contribution of Obamacare is guaranteed medical coverage despite constant career changes. Obamacare and 401k’s are aligned with the tough realities of the emerging Information Age.

Education is the great problem. Schools remain enslaved to the mass-production priorities of the Industrial Age. Schools treat confidence-building activities (such as sports and clubs) as “extracurriculars” when the self-reliant courage they instill is absolutely necessary for entrepreneurial success. Our society institutionalizes expensive education from K-through-college, but it’s no longer enough to educate a young person and expect a lifetime of self-sufficiency.  The Information Age demands continual cycles of education. This system of renewal does not exist and Luddites oppose its formation.

Breaking fealty with education’s mass-production and entry-level paradigm is the next great revolution. States and societies that instill personal courage while aligning life-cycle education with workplace demands will equip workers to create their own jobs. This is how to germinate and grow the jobs of the 21^st Century.