Imaginary Political Purity Of Independents.

In response to a recent post about the cruelty of the GOP’s plan to cut food stamps, a Facebook friend dismissed my opinion as propaganda and smugly commented, “I’m so glad I’m an independent and don’t get caught up with all this left wing right wing bullshit.” Like many voters who are registered as independents, he obviously feels superior to those of us who have chosen to take sides in our nation’s political discourse.

But, as holocaust survivor and political activist Elie Wiesel once said, “We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must – at that moment – become the center of the universe.”

For me, the cruel plans of our current administration have brought us to one such moment.

Moreover, I would point out that those who claim superiority by refusing to takes sides are cloaking themselves with a false sense of political purity. Though refusing to participate in our two-party system is certainly one’s right, those who refuse to register as a member of a political party are seldom truly independent and very few are moderate. Most consistently lean toward one party’s candidates, have their own political agendas or simply refuse to participate in our electoral process. For example, in Arizona, a large percentage of so-called independents are libertarians who dislike the federal government. And some are part of the Sovereign Citizen movement which refuses to acknowledge any government.

I can attest to that from my own experience.

For most of my life, I was an independent who was fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I had chosen not to take sides because neither party fully represented my views. Moreover, I disdained the business of party politics…the precinct meetings, the caucuses, the state meetings, the platform discussions, the primary battles, the get-out-the-vote efforts. Finally, in 2006, I changed my registration when I realized that I could never again vote for a candidate that represented a political party that led us into a war on false pretenses. A party committed to robbing from the poor to give to the rich. A party that discriminates against minorities, obstructs opposition voters and despises the very government it wants to lead. A party I now consider morally and ethically bankrupt – the GOP.

It was only after I registered as a Democrat that I realized that, far from staking out a position of purity and superiority, being an independent is really a cop-out. As an independent, I was not fully participating in our democracy. By merely voting in the general elections, often griping about the poor quality of candidates put forward by the two parties, and by occasionally voicing my opinion in the media, I was in essence, letting others control our political process, and by default, our government.

The flaw of being independent should have been made abundantly clear during the 2016 election cycle. Sen. Bernie Sanders may have enjoyed the most widespread support of all the presidential candidates. He was supported by many Democrats (myself included) and a great many independents. Yet he overwhelming lost the Democratic primaries. Why? He was a Democrat only for the sake of his presidential run. Though he has always caucused with Democrats in the Senate, he is an independent. That meant that he had not established a great deal of support within the party he hoped to represent. On the other hand, Clinton was a long-time Democrat who had cultivated close relationships with leaders at every level of the party. More important, the independents who supported Sanders could not vote for him in many of the state primaries without first registering as a Democrat. Then, when Sanders lost, many of the independents refused to vote or voted for minority party candidates.

As a result, we have a person in the Oval Office who is the very opposite of Sanders. One who is dismantling almost everything Sen. Sanders has supported during his entire tenure in office!

Now, you may want to fault the system for that. But you should also look in the mirror. The system is the system. And it’s all but impossible to change the system from the outside. You have to be part of it. You have to get your hands dirty to change it. You have to build coalitions. You have to rally others to your cause. You have to make phone calls. You have to connect on social media. You have to walk the neighborhoods and knock on doors.

If you think that’s asking too much, consider the students of Parkland, Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. By reaching out, even as they are hurting; by speaking out through their tears; by refusing to take no for an answer; by organizing, they have accomplished in a few days what many of us adults have failed to do in a lifetime. If they are willing to stay the course as they promise, they can not only reduce gun violence. They can change the world.

The Inequities Of Our Political System.

We’ve heard a lot about wealth inequality and how it’s destroying the United States. But it’s merely a symptom – a symptom caused by the growing disparity between the parties in our two-party system. Consider the following:

• Since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, more than 90 percent of talk radio has been controlled by right-wing conservatives.
• The conservative Sinclair corporation now controls the largest number of local TV stations, forcing its stations to air conservative talking points within local newscasts.
• The guests on network Sunday morning news shows are disproportionately Republican.
• Republican-controlled states have instituted repressive voter ID laws, reduced voting hours in minority districts, reduced polling places in Democratic districts, purged voter rolls, and gerrymandered districts to minimize Democratic votes.
• The majority of Americans now live in large cities, which mostly vote Democratic. But, thanks to the Electoral College, Republican-controlled rural areas have disproportionate representation. For example, based on population, an Electoral College vote from Wyoming counts 4 times as much as an Electoral College vote from California.
• The structure of the US Senate also disproportionately benefits red states. And the disparity is growing worse. By 2040, about 70 percent of Americans will live in the 15 largest states. Yet they will be represented by only 30 senators while 70 senators will represent 30 percent of the population.
• The Supreme Court decisions in Buckley v Valeo and Citizens United v FEC have unleashed billions in dark money for election campaigns which mostly benefits Republican candidates.

The GOP has used all of these advantages to divide our nation and to redistribute wealth upward to corporations and billionaires – taking money from the poorest among us and funneling it upward. This point was made all too clear by the GOP’s latest tax scam.

The greed and cynicism of the GOP is only made worse by the continuing failures of Democratic Party leadership.

For many years, the Democratic Party could count on two things: Its voter turnout operation and its superior data operation designed to target those voters most inclined to support its candidates. Though a majority of Americans have long supported Democratic policies or, at very least, leaned toward those policies, the party has lost its previous political advantages. And it has failed to effectively energize voters to turn out to the polls, especially during mid-term elections. It has failed to create a “brand” – a coherent message that concisely explains why people should vote for Democratic candidates.

The party’s failures were on full display this week when Sen. Chuck Schumer appeared on Late Show with Stephen Colbert. When asked what the Democratic Party stands for, Schumer sidestepped the question and simply referred to the failures of the Trump administration. No one should settle for that answer. Schumer’s dodge was made even more painful when Schumer’s interview was followed by a performance by the Black Eyed Peas with their new song, Street Livin’, which details many of the problems faced by black communities – one of the largest groups of Democratic constituents.

Seriously, Democratic leaders, it’s long past time to tell voters what you’re for. Not just what you’re against.

Why A Third Party Is Unlikely To Win.

I have long wished for a third US political party. Although I mostly agree with the Democratic Party on issues, in my view, the party’s unelected leadership is largely incompetent and strategically clueless. On the other hand, I believe the Republican Party is just flat-out crazy!

With a third party in Congress, it’s unlikely that a single party could hold a majority. That means that, in order to govern, the majority party would have to rely on votes from the other parties. It could permanently end ideological stand-offs. Congressional representatives might have to actually do what they were elected to do…to represent their constituents.

Unfortunately, I believe the chances of a viable third party are slim and none.

It’s not enough for a third party to field candidates for president and Congress. To be truly viable, a third party would need to field candidates for governors, legislators, county commissioners, sheriffs and even school boards. Even more important, it would take organization at every level. It would take volunteers to help get the candidates’ names on the ballots and volunteers to help turn out the votes. It would take extensive, and expensive, media campaigns. And it would take donations – not just from activists – from lobbyists, organizations, corporations, PACs, and billionaires.

It’s impossible to imagine that a third party can accomplish all of that over one or two voting cycles. Or even over a period of one or two decades.
Until a third party can claw its way up to an equal footing with the two major parties, votes for third party presidential candidates tend to benefit those candidates who are most ideologically opposed to the beliefs of third-party voters.

For example, the votes recorded for the Green Party (environmental) candidate in 2016, Jill Stein, likely came from voters more aligned with the beliefs of Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. In reality, by withholding their votes from Clinton, the Stein voters helped elect an administration that is methodically destroying environmental protections of all kinds.

Another obstacle for a third party is the difficulty in creating a policy platform broad enough to appeal to a large group of voters. Too many voters are focused on a single issue – the environment, education, immigration, taxes, abortion, limited government, etc. Even the two major parties have struggled with that.

For many years, the GOP was merely the opposition party until the billionaires and multinational corporations who benefit from the party’s economic policies were able to coalesce voters (primarily Southern and rural voters) around social issues such as abortion and fear of the “other” (blacks, immigrants, and Muslims).

Likewise, the Democrats have struggled to maintain and inspire their diverse base of voters fighting for civil rights, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, education, health care, and economic fairness. Depending upon the candidate, the party has a difficult time turning out its supporters for many elections – in effect, handing those elections to Republicans.

In reality, it is more likely that we can enact real change by dropping the dream of a third party and work to change the existing parties from within. That means getting involved and making our voices heard. It means speaking up for the issues that are important to you. It means donating to a party and its candidates. It means holding the party accountable. It means voting – not just in the general elections, but in the primary elections, too. And, most of all, it means a willingness to compromise – to not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Without the involvement of a large majority of eligible voters, it’s all too likely that we’ll continue to be governed by oligarchs, ideologues, the unqualified and the unprepared.

An Open Letter To Democratic Party Leaders.

For most of my life, I was registered as an independent. Nevertheless, I faithfully voted for Democrats, and even helped create advertising for a few Democratic candidates. Then, in 2006, recognizing that I could never vote for a Republican, I registered as a Democrat.

I threw myself into politics. I contributed to and campaigned for Democratic candidates. For many years, I served as president of a local Democratic organization. I served on the board of two other Democratic groups. I participated in state Democratic meetings. Even though we received no help from the state or national Democratic Party, I donated time and money to help produce Democratic Perspective, a liberal radio show that is available on podcast. And I published two books at my own cost to debunk accepted Republican lies.

However, following the party’s abandonment of due process in forcing the resignation of Senator Franken, I AM DONE! I WILL NO LONGER CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Though it has been blessed with many good candidates, for years, the party has shown no strategy, no leadership, no message and, most of all, no spine! Although it has been accused of being a party of identity politics, it more accurately has become an incoherent party of victimhood. It seems to be comprised of disparate groups who have experienced some form of injustice, but otherwise share little in common. And, when they feel wronged, they lash out at everyone, including those in the party who support them. This was made clear when Democratic women lashed out at Franken based on spurious allegations by women – most of them anonymous – who had an apparent ax to grind. This is despite the fact that Franken has been a reliable champion of women’s rights!

This attitude of victimhood is perpetuated by the party’s messaging, which mostly consists of “Republicans said/did something stupid, send us money.” Even worse, the party continues to take pride in describing itself with the words of Will Rogers: “I am not a member of an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” And, at a time when people in the center of the nation complain about “coastal elites,” look at those who are the most powerful Democratic representatives – a New York senator who quite literally looks down his nose at others through his glasses and an extremely wealthy California congresswoman who reeks of entitlement.

Meanwhile, Republicans have created a clear brand message of “limited government, lower taxes.” Like it or not, it’s a brand that most voters can repeat. But when you ask a hundred Democrats about their party’s message, you get a hundred different answers.

The Democratic Party has been outmaneuvered in every conceivable way! Conservatives now control virtually all of talk radio. They have taken corporate control of most other media. They control most of the nation’s statehouses. They control most of the PACs that fund campaigns. They have successfully gerrymandered and suppressed Democratic votes. When Democrats were in power, Republicans successfully blocked judicial appointments. And now that they control the White House, the US House of Representatives, the US Senate and the US Supreme Court, as well as many federal courts, Republicans are executing their long-time strategy to cut funding to any government program that doesn’t benefit the oligarchs.

And how has the Democratic Party leadership responded? They have buckled under pressure. They have formed circular firing squads that assign blame to their own members. And they have split the party into two distinct wings that may result in a third party that will hand perpetual control to Republicans.

Though I am personally done with Democratic Party politics, you still have an opportunity to enact change. But, given the many structural issues you now face, it will take a concerted and cohesive effort that is monumental in scope. Without that, not even the impeachment of Trump, Pence, Ryan and McConnell and the changing demographics of America can save the party.

Good luck. You will need it!

Dear Democrats:

I am writing this open letter to the Democratic Party’s leadership in hopes that they might better understand the obstacles they face.

Every day, I receive a series of emails, tweets and Facebook posts asking me to sign the petition du jour. I don’t mean to demean the issues the petitions are intended to address. They are real. And they are important. But I must question their intent. Because, after I sign them, I immediately receive a request for money. Such requests make me question the party’s intentions. Are you serious about the issues? Or are you merely using the issues to raise campaign funds for the next election?

I suspect the answer is both. I also expect that the priority is money.

Whatever your answer, the mere fact that anyone has to ask the question points to the weakness of your communications (or, as political insiders refer to it, “messaging”). To be blunt, your messaging sucks. (“A Republican said or did something stupid, send us money” is not a winning communications strategy.) Compared to Republicans – even during the Trump era – your messaging is intermittent and incoherent. That’s because there is no cohesive leadership. And that’s because there is no single entity that can be called the Democratic Party.

There are many.

There is the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren wing that passionately fights for the little guy. There is the Barack Obama wing that is more thoughtful and sees national politics through the lens of international issues. And there is the Bill Clinton wing that is so centrist it would strike a bargain with the devil (i.e. right-wing Republicans) if it led to another “win.”

In reality, there are dozens of factions within the Democratic Party – each focused on specific issues which include civil rights, LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, veteran’s rights, environment, economic equality, labor unions, education…the list is very, very long. Each of these factions wants to make its issue the party’s priority. And, too often, if the members of a particular faction don’t get their way, they effectively boycott the election.

That’s why, for as long as I have been a registered Democrat, I have heard others quote Will Rogers: “I am not a member of an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” If it’s not already obvious to you, this is a significant problem.

It’s why, even though she won 3 million more votes, Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election. And it’s why despite the fact that a significant majority of Americans support Democratic positions on most of the issues, Republicans now control the House of Representatives, the Senate and a majority of statehouses.

Yes, it’s true that Republican control is also the result of a number of other factors such as gerrymandering, voter suppression, right-wing radio, Fox News Channel, the Kochtopus of dark money organizations, and voter turnout – especially during mid-term elections. This latter issue is a direct result of the Democratic Party’s fractionalization and lack of coherent messaging.

Your own registered voters aren’t motivated enough to vote!

Can Democrats Win With Identity Politics?

Since the 2016 election, Mark Lilla and others have been decrying Democrats’ efforts to address the needs of individual groups, such as women, African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, Jews, atheists, the LGBTQ community, minimum wage workers, labor unions, teachers, senior citizens, immigrants, environmentalists and others. Such efforts have been decried as “identity politics,” as if that is something negative.

Let’s stop and think about that for a moment.

The aforementioned groups represent some of the most vulnerable parts of our society. Yet, combined, they make up a significant majority of the nation’s population. And all of these groups are constantly under attack by Republican policies.

Republicans want to deny contraception and abortion to women, taking away their rights to control their own bodies and their lives. In addition, the GOP has used a variety of tricks – including gerrymandering, voter ID laws, reducing the number of polling places and early voting hours to suppress black votes. They have passed “show us your papers” laws to harass Latinos. They have passed laws to legalize discrimination against LGBTQ people and non-Christians. They have fought increases to the minimum wage. They have fought collective bargaining. They have fought against raises and pensions for teachers. They’ve tried to take away health care from tens of millions of citizens. And they threaten to reduce or eliminate safety nets for the poor and the elderly.

Protecting these groups does NOT mean the Democrats are engaging in identity politics to show preference for some groups over others. It merely shows that they care for others.

Meanwhile, the GOP has engaged in its own brand of identity politics – focusing on protecting the interests of large, greedy corporations, the wealthy, intolerant evangelical “Christians” and white supremacists. Republicans pander to those who view others as commodities to be exploited or as threats to their dominance. In doing so, they foment fear and hate. Yet few political pundits question their strategy because they believe that is why Republicans have won the Oval Office and the majority of seats in Congress, as well as numerous gubernatorial seats and state legislatures.

However, the pundits tend to ignore the structural advantages that have led to those wins. Republicans control more than 90 percent of talk radio shows and numerous Internet “news” sites that shamelessly create false news stories and narratives.

Republicans benefit from a popular cable network that, under the cloak of a news organization, serves as a megaphone for the Republican National Committee. Through Sinclair Broadcast Group, they will soon control the majority of local TV news programming. They control an organization (ALEC) sponsored by large corporations that writes legislation for conservative legislators. They benefit from the Kochtopus, a maze of non-profit organizations that funnel billions into political races to support right-wing candidates. They even benefit from the sensational supermarket tabloids that specialize in stories attacking celebrities and glamorizing Trump.

All of this makes it easy for Republicans to engage in hateful politics that divide us.

Yet, despite these disadvantages, I believe that Democrats can still win, but not by abandoning the vulnerable. To win, the Democratic Party needs to improve its leadership and unify behind the party’s long-held principles of supporting the majority of Americans, especially those who cash paychecks rather than stock dividend checks. Democrats must continue to reach out to Americans who face discrimination, those who struggle to make ends meet, those who have retired, and those who need a helping hand.

The Democratic Party needs to better communicate its principles. It needs to create a brand; a brand that will make it crystal clear that it is unapologetically committed to improving lives and protecting the dignity of ALL Americans regardless of gender, race, religion, age or economic status.

The Democratic Party needs to hold Republicans accountable for trying to turn Americans against one another. It needs to offer hope for a kinder, more prosperous future.

In other words, it needs to explain that it represents “We the People.”

Republicans Are The Masters Of False Equivalency.

Following the shooting of Republican Congressman Steve Scalise, there were calls from both sides of the aisle to calm the extreme rhetoric. The House even made a great show of bipartisanship by kneeling together on the field prior to the annual Republican/Democrat baseball game. Senator Bernie Sanders made a forceful speech denouncing the shooter’s past support for his candidacy. Many others followed suit.

Yet, in a matter of hours following the Scalise shooting, the hateful rhetoric had returned.

A mere four days after the shooting, former GOP Congressman Joe Walsh tweeted, “Screw bipartisanship. This country is at war with itself. Choose your side and choose it now. Grab your musket and get ready.” That’s a great way to calm the anger. Don’t you think?

And Walsh was not alone. Others, including right-wing pundits Alex Jones and Newt Gingrich have also talked about a coming civil war. Of course, this comes on the heels of last year’s GOP convention during which the rabble chanted “Lock her [Hillary] up.” And it comes after then-candidate Trump speculated what might happen if he lost by saying, “…if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.” Others also suggested that, if Trump lost, there might be violence.

The US is more divided, and more angry, than any point in my lifetime. Indeed, the only other times we have seen such division were during the Revolution (when the Revolutionists fought against the Loyalists) and during the Civil War.

That should give everyone pause.

Of course, the fallback for Republicans is that both sides are equally guilty. But that’s simply not true. Let’s start by noting that there have been many fewer threats of violence by liberals against conservatives. I must also point out that the majority of gun owners in the US are conservatives. Indeed, a recent NPR article stated that right-wing extremists are responsible for about 74 percent of murders committed by domestic extremists. Not coincidentally, a recent Gallup study found that 55 percent of gun owners are Republican versus 32 percent Democrat. A Pew Research poll showed an even greater disparity with numbers of 49 percent for Republicans and just 22 percent for Democrats. In addition, the Southern Poverty Law Center currently lists 917 hate groups in the US. These include the KKK, neo-Nazis, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, black separatists, anti-government militias, and Christian identity groups. They are almost exclusively right-wing.

Now let’s consider the media. Certainly, The NY Times and a few other newspapers lean to the left. But the Wall Street Journal, the Arizona Republic and many others lean to the right. That said, though their editorial columns may be partisan, most try to be impartial in reporting the actual news. Talk radio is almost exclusively right-wing…Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin…angry, screaming right-wing. Indeed, within a few years of the end of the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio was already more than 90 percent conservative.

With regard to television, the conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group is one of the nation’s largest media owners. It recently ordered its local news broadcasts to advance the conservative agenda. On satellite and cable, Fox News Channel has long acted as a megaphone for the Republican party. The lower-rated MSNBC was somewhat split. It’s prime-time devoted to liberals and the morning to conservatives. In between, it was impartial. And it’s moving farther right. ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and PBS try to maintain neutrality, although their Sunday morning news programs are dominated by conservative guests.

That leaves the Internet, aka social media. There are so many Internet “news” sites, it is very difficult to make a comparison. But, if you use fake news as a determining criteria, the Internet is decidedly right-wing. The best way for me to explain is to use anecdotal evidence from Paul Horner the “King of Fake News” who appeared on a radio show I occasionally help moderate. Horner is a comedian and satirist. As such, he began writing satirical news stories during the past presidential election. He began by creating stories that would appeal to both sides. But he quickly discovered that stories aimed at liberals garnered few clicks and little money. The problem is that they would fact check his stories. Conservatives, on the other hand, bought his nonsense hook, line and sinker. As a result, almost all of his fake news was conservative. (You can listen to the interview by following this link.)

Want more evidence? Visit Breitbart “News” or any other right-wing website. Then do some fact checks.

That is not to say there aren’t some highly partisan, disgustingly angry websites, tweets and Facebook posts from the left. But there are fewer of them and even fewer of them promote violence.

Why Democrats Lose Despite Having A Majority.

The 2016 presidential election again demonstrated that a majority of US voters align with Democrats. Hillary Clinton did, after all, win the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. Had she not lost 5 key battleground states by a total of approximately 100,000 votes, she would be president. And Combover Hitler would be relegated to an ugly footnote in American history.

In fact, in 2 of the last 3 elections won by a Republican, Democrats received a majority of the votes cast. That was made possible by a combination of voter suppression, Republican gerrymandering and the antiquated Electoral College (a vote in the sparsely populated state of Wyoming is worth many times that of a vote in California or New York).

Further, Republicans have a structural advantage when it comes to the news media, especially in rural areas. Since the end of the Fairness Doctrine, right wing conservatives have been able to spew their lies, conspiracy theories and anti-government hate with impunity on AM talk radio and Fox News Channel. They have also created numerous websites that cloak ideology in the guise of news.

Moreover, Republicans have unified while Democrats bicker among themselves. If elected Republican officials dare to vote their conscience against the wishes of the Party, they are labeled RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and they are faced with well-financed candidates who are even more conservative during the primaries. Democrats, on the other hand, have difficulty keeping their members in line. Indeed, they have long taken pride in describing themselves with a line by Will Rogers – “I’m not a member of an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.”

In addition, when in office, Democrats have been unwilling to do anything that will cause substantial harm to the nation. Unlike Republicans, they have not used the filibuster to block every initiative of a presidential opponent. They have not shut down the government. And they have been far less likely to use parliamentary tricks in order to get their way.

Far too often, voters are left with the feeling that Democrats do not have the courage of their convictions.

Of course, Democratic voters are not blameless for the mess we now face. For decades, they have been willing to turn out in large numbers for presidential races. But many have failed to vote in local and state elections – a fact that didn’t go unnoticed by Republican leaders who for decades have focused their attention on such races with the knowledge that candidates who are successful at the local level eventually become successful in more important races.

It is this strategy that has allowed Republicans to control statehouses and governorships across the country. And, in turn, that allows Republicans to pass laws to gerrymander districts and to pass laws that suppress the votes of minority voters who traditionally vote against them. In these efforts, they are aided by greedy corporations that use ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council) to pass one-sided legislation that undermines working class voters.

During such assaults on our democracy, the leaders of the Democratic Party have remained relatively silent, choosing to believe that the future is in their favor; that the growing numbers of people of color, especially Latinos will turn the tide.

Don’t count on it. Because of the structural imbalance in the media, far too few people understand what Democrats stand for. They can tell you that Republicans stand for “smaller government and lower taxes.” But if you ask 100 people, even 100 Democrats, what Democrats stand for, you’re likely to get 100 different answers. Worse, the most common answer will be the label created by Republicans – “tax and spend Democrats .”

Given these obstacles, what are Democrats to do?

First, quit apologizing for your beliefs whenever you are confronted by conservatives. You are on the side of working people – the largest group of American voters. You also have a great track record. After all, it was Democrats that passed Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act. It was Democrats that rescued our economy from the Great Depression and the Great Recession. It is Democrats that have been the party of fiscal responsibility while Republicans have blithely rung up huge deficits and debts.

Second, show that you have the courage of your convictions. Show that you are willing to fight for the people who elect you.

Third, vote! Don’t sit out any election. And don’t let any Republican candidate go unchallenged. Don’t concede a single federal, state or local office to a Republican just because you think you might lose. History is filled with accounts of long shots who have won elections and gone on to accomplish great things.

Fourth, stop bickering among yourselves. Support those who will support the majority of your beliefs. Don’t let perfection be the enemy of the good. You may not think a particular Democratic leader or candidate is perfect. But they’re almost certainly better than the Republican alternative. (How many of those who voted for the Green Party now wish they would have voted for Clinton?)

Fifth, police the candidates who run under the Party banner. Don’t support a candidate who doesn’t, for the most part, toe the Party line. You don’t have to agree with everything a candidate says, but you should be able to agree with a majority of what the candidate says.

Sixth, and most important, communicate your beliefs. Make the label Democrat stand for something. Make your message succinct, clear and memorable. Then plaster that message everywhere. In other words, create a brand!

Then, and only then, will the Party that represents the majority of Americans control the majority of elected offices.

Worse Than Watergate.

During the 1972 presidential race, Republican operatives known as the “plumbers” were caught breaking into the Democratic National Party (DNC) headquarters. Working on behalf of President Nixon, their intent was to rig the election. The break-in and ensuing cover-up led to the threatened impeachment of the president and, ultimately, his resignation.

Embarrassed and furious at losing the White House, Republicans have been looking for payback ever since.

More than anything else, the Republicans’ desire for payback was what drove the sweeping and nearly decade-long investigation into Whitewater, “Travelgate”, “Fostergate” and “Filegate”, which culminated in impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton for lying under oath about his relationship with a White House intern. And it didn’t end there. With each allegation against a Democratic official, Republicans are fond of saying that the actions are “worse than Watergate.”

That is especially true of any hint of scandal involving the Clintons.

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Republican accusations regarding the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and Hillary’s use of a private email server have all resulted in the claim that the events are “worse than Watergate.”

Of course, those claims are entirely untrue. But there is one scandal that may, indeed, be worse than Watergate.

I’m referring to the hacks and subsequent release of emails from the DNC, from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair – John Podesta. The hacks accomplished what Nixon’s plumbers failed to do – by allowing the GOP to sort through thousands of stolen documents in search of embarrassing details and their opponents’ campaign strategies. Worse yet, the NSA and CIA have determined that the hacks were executed by a foreign government – Russia – seeking to affect the outcome of our election.

Ignoring Democratic outrage, journalists have written relatively little about it. Other than Donald Trump’s call for Russia to hack Hillary’s private emails, Republicans have remained eerily silent about the matter. And, unlike the Washington Post’s sustained investigation by Woodward and Bernstein, the media briefly reported the story then refocused their attention on Hillary’s use of a private email server.

It’s almost as if the hacks, and a foreign government’s meddling in our presidential election, never really happened. Perhaps it’s because the media don’t know how to pursue the story. Perhaps they don’t feel they have the time or resources to do so. Perhaps they don’t know how to find and cultivate their own version of “Deep Throat.”

If so, that’s particularly troubling. Because a comedian did.

Despite lacking the resources of a major news organization, Samantha Bee and her crew were able to find and interview two Russians who could provide insight into the matter. They stated that they, and hundreds of other Russian hackers, have been hired by the Russian government to meddle in the US election by disseminating false information and memes on social media in support of Donald Trump.

Take a moment to reflect on that – a foreign government which is one of our long-time adversaries is meddling in our presidential election on behalf of one candidate. For what reason? What does Russia hope to gain? What should we know about that candidate’s relationship with Russia and its leaders? What impact would Trump’s election have on our nation’s foreign policy? What impact would Trump’s election have on our national security? What, if any, connection does the meddling have to do with the previous hack of the State Department’s email server (the government server that was hacked while Secretary Clinton’s private server was not)?

Is not the theft of private documents from one of our two major political parties a bigger story than a former Secretary of State using private emails to communicate with her staffers as her predecessors had done?

Many things have changed since Watergate. And few of the changes are good.

Will US Election Be Decided By Outsiders?

During the Clinton and Obama administrations, the right-wing promoted numerous conspiracy theories – that Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered; that Obama is not a US citizen; that Obama is a secret Muslim; that Obama is coming for your guns; that Clinton and Obama sacrificed our Libyan ambassador by telling a military response team to stand down; that Obama planned to use the Jade Helm military exercises to take over our nation and institute Sharia law. The list of conspiracy theories is lengthy.

Now, allow me to posit a conspiracy theory of my own.

We know that Russia hacked the email servers of the DNC (Democratic National Committee), of the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee), and the DGA (Democratic Governors Association). We also know that some of emails were altered before their release to make them seem more damning than they were. We know that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has threatened to release additional emails aimed at damaging Hillary Clinton’s election campaign. And we now know that a foreign government hacked into the election systems of at least two states: Arizona and Illinois.

We know that, until recently, Donald Trump’s campaign was being run by a man with close ties to Russia and Vladimir Putin. We have heard accusations that Russian oligarchs are heavily invested in Trump’s businesses (we can’t know for certain because Trump refuses to release his tax returns) . And we know that Trump called for Russia to hack the former Secretary of State’s email server and release her personal emails.

Taken separately, these things are concerning enough. But collectively, I believe they represent a true threat to the sanctity of our election, especially given the improprieties that occurred in Florida during the 2000 presidential election that resulted in George W. Bush claiming the White House.

Equally worrying are Trump’s suggestions that the US elections are rigged and his claims that the polls don’t show the true strength of his campaign, saying that there are many voters who refuse to acknowledge their support for Trump to pollsters (of course, this would represent a ready-made excuse if the voting software are hacked to show that Trump’s vote totals significantly out-performed the polls to win the election).

Yes, I acknowledge that such concerns can be dismissed as a wild-eyed liberal conspiracy theory. But I think you will have to admit that there is far more substance to it than any of the aforementioned right-wing theories.