No, Democrats Have Not Moved Left. The GOP Has Moved Right…Way, Way Right.

It’s popular for the media – even the so-called liberal media – to portray the “Squad” and many of the Democratic presidential candidates as far left. As if they are some aberration from the core party principles. Of course, that’s exactly what Republicans want you to believe. Indeed, even some Democratic leaders and “strategists” would have you buy into that claptrap.

It’s not only not true. It’s not even close to reality.

In the 1930s and 40s, the FDR administration and mainstream Democrats embraced social democracy as part of the New Deal. To rescue our economy FDR, the Democratic Party and even some Republicans incorporated ideas that were socialist in nature in order to move people out of the soup lines and back to work. For example, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) built more than 620,000 miles of streets, more than 10,000 bridges, dozens of airports, hydroelectric dams, public buildings and large numbers of houses and apartments. Much of these are still in use today. Rural electric cooperatives (a form of socialism) brought telephones and electricity to hundreds of thousands of rural Americans who had been ignored by large utilities. In addition, the New Deal’s Social Security rescued the elderly from abject poverty. FDR had even proposed a Second New Deal which included single-payer health care, believing that access to quality health care was a human right.

When fascism and support for Nazi Germany threatened to take over the US, Democrats rejected it. And, when World War II broke out, Americans resorted to what some would now consider socialism by pulling together to produce necessary war materials and to ration consumer products in favor of supporting our troops. Indeed, most of our population temporarily abandoned free market capitalism in order to defeat the Axis powers.

Though many in the GOP opposed some of FDR’s initiatives, they supported others. In fact, the GOP was almost equally divided between conservatives and liberals. But things began to change as the result of Senator Joe McCarthy’s Red Scare in the 50s and the growing Cold War.

As post-war Europe followed the path pioneered by FDR, US politicians from both parties distanced themselves from anything that could remotely be misconstrued as communist. That included social democracy. Yet, even in the 70s, the GOP approved of some liberal ideas. For example, in response to Senator Ted Kennedy’s proposal for single-payer health care, Nixon proposed a health care mandate (Obamacare, anyone?). Nixon also supported the formation of the EPA and OSHA. And he aggressively desegregated public schools.

Only after the GOP saw an opportunity to solidify the Jim Crow South by implementing its southern strategy and creating division over abortion to bring evangelicals into the party, did it begin to lurch far to the right. Since then, it has used race and immigration to divide voters and pander to its rural base. And it has used Christian fundamentalist social issues to hold evangelicals – the so-called “values voters” – in line. Meanwhile, right-wing radio hosts and Roger Ailes’s right-wing propaganda network (aka Fox News) have pushed the party even further to the extreme right.

At the same time, Democrats, in trying to recapture the southern states it lost by pushing through the Civil Rights Acts, began to move to the center-right in order to occupy the space once held by mainstream Republicans. For president, they twice nominated the governors of southern states to win elections. And the party has continued to try to bring southerners back into the fold by moving past the center and trending further and further to the right, at the same time denying or ignoring the wishes of traditional Democratic voters in urban areas and in the rural areas of Rust Belt states.

Voters’ positions on abortion, once a non-political issue, now define them as Republicans or Democrats. And, as the Christian fundamentalists and right-wing media have fomented anger over immigration, gay marriage and transgender use of bathrooms (otherwise known as discrimination) Democrats have struggled to respond. They either had to join in the discrimination or be labeled as extreme leftists.

So here we are. We now have a center-right Democratic party that has struggled to adhere to the principles it once cherished, and an extreme far-right Republican party that uses racism and Christian fundamentalism to disguise its fascist, pro-billionaire agenda.

The GOP has long since abandoned its tradition of fiscal conservatism combined with social compassion. It is now the “everybody for themselves party” that is trying to dismantle every aspect of our government except for the military. It would have you ignore issues such as growing debt and deficits, failing infrastructure, income disparity, the lack of retirement pensions and increasingly unaffordable healthcare. Instead, it would have you blame immigrants, “uppity” people of color and the LGBTQ population for your problems. For those of you who refuse to support the party and its narrow-minded, hateful agenda, it attempts to gerrymander away your rights and make it increasingly difficult for you to vote.

And now that a growing number of Democrats are intent on implementing real, substantive change in order to give ordinary working Americans a fair shake, the GOP and its corporate-controlled media try to label them as leftists and socialists. They would have you believe that they are un-American and dangerous. But they are as American and as mainstream as FDR, JFK, Obama and even Ronald Reagan.

It’s Trump, Mitch McConnell, the NRA and the GOP who fail to live up to the ideals of our nation’s Founders

The Insufferable Cowardice Of Democratic Strategists.

Whenever I listen to Democratic Party “strategists” dismiss the idea of impeachment out of fears that it will help Trump win re-election, my thoughts turn to the lion in the Wizard of Oz who was seeking courage. By basing all of their decisions on polling, these pundits and strategists have shown they lack the conviction of their own beliefs. They are little more than weather vanes – always reacting to the direction the political winds are blowing. And, in doing so, they have caused long-term harm to the future of the party and the nation.

Just look at their recent record. The strongest and most eloquent Democratic member of the Senate, Al Franken, was forced to resign without due process by Democratic leaders pandering to the Me-Too movement. Representative Ihlan Omar was publically shamed and forced to apologize for having the courage to speak up about the out-sized role of AIPAC and Netanyahu in US politics. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has largely been left on her own to defend herself against scurrilous GOP attacks. And instead of using all of the powers granted to them by the Constitution to compel testimony, Democratic-controlled committees have patiently awaited the courts to enforce the subpoenas of administration witnesses, allowing Trump to continue to run out the clock until the 2020 election.

Now ask yourself: What would Republicans do if the roles were reversed? We already know the answers. GOP officials have always circled the wagons around those who have been accused of sexual assault, racism and other antisocial behavior. They have ignored the many outrageous statements made by Sen. Mitch McConnell, Rep. Steve King and others. They have looked the other way from the administration’s corruption. And most continue to support Trump despite his crimes and despicable behavior.

Democratic leaders justify their refusal to call for an impeachment inquiry against Trump by pointing to the rise of President Clinton’s job approval following his impeachment. First, let me state that an impeachment inquiry is not impeachment. It is an investigation. If the House doesn’t find enough evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, it doesn’t have to vote for impeachment. Second, they should note that, despite Clinton’s job approval, Republicans still took control of the House and the White House in the following election.

Further, the crimes and circumstances are starkly different. Can you really compare the impact of impeaching a president over a sexual indiscretion with an impeachment investigation into a president who gained office with the help of our nation’s greatest adversary; who welcomed and encouraged Russian interference; who provably committed obstruction of justice trying to derail the investigation into his campaign’s complicity with Russians; who resorted to witness tampering and suborning of perjury? A president who is in obvious violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause? A president who refuses to reveal his tax returns, likely because of questionable financial ties to Russian crime bosses?

When the details of this president’s crimes are put on public display in congressional hearings, do you really think voters will show sympathy for him and vote for him in 2020?

Some Democratic Party strategists argue that Trump is setting an “impeachment trap” – that he actually wants to be impeached in order to ensure his re-election. This supposes that Trump is an evil genius who is just daring Democrats to impeach and, in doing so, they will fall into his carefully laid trap. That argument is laughable. Trump may be good at branding and manipulating the media, and he’s certainly good at creating fear and division. But a genius? Hardly.

Based on his panic over the Mueller report, I believe he is actually terrified of impeachment. An impeachment inquiry would give Congress access to information that was unavailable even to the Mueller team. Rather than exonerate Trump, it’s likely to reveal a large number of yet unproven crimes, such as tax fraud and money-laundering. Moreover, an impeachment inquiry is likely to have little negative effect on Democratic prospects for the 2020 elections. No matter what happens, Trump has already accused Democrats of treason; of trying to implement a coup; of trying to overturn the results of the 2016 election. Indeed, he and his new fixer, William Barr, have already begun an investigation into the “oranges” [sic] of CIA and FBI “spying” on his 2016 campaign. That nonsense is already baked into the 2020 campaign.

What’s more likely to damage the outlook for Democrats in the 2020 election is weakness and indecision. We already know that 35 to 40 percent of Americans support Trump. Given that his supporters only believe what Fox News and other conservative media tell them, they will vote for him no matter what happens. Likewise, for those independent voters who haven’t yet made up their minds about Trump (if they even exist), an impeachment inquiry might reveal details that give them reason to either vote against him or to stay home on election day.

The voters Democratic leaders need to most worry about are those in their own base. Since Democrats are the majority party, voter turnout is critical. Failing to hold Trump accountable could well demoralize Democrats. But an impeachment inquiry is almost certain to energize Democrats to vote.

If all of that isn’t enough to convince Democratic leaders to do the right thing, they should re-read Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution which states, “The President, Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” (Note that it says shall. Not can, may or if it’s convenient.) If gaining the office with the help of a foreign adversary, failing to follow the Constitution, obstructing justice, suborning perjury and witness tampering don’t qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors, it’s difficult to imagine what would.

Finally, they should look to the recent town hall meeting held by Rep. Justin Amash for inspiration. A staunch conservative, Amash is the first member of the Republican caucus to call for impeachment. And, when he laid out his case to his skeptical constituents, they rose to their feet and gave him a standing ovation – proof that it pays to have the courage to do the right thing.

Where Was Trump’s Concern For Unity The Last Two Years?

During his State of the Union speech, Trump called for bipartisan unity in order to move the country forward. In reality, it came across as more of a threat. He all but said, “If you don’t end the investigations into my campaign, my business and my administration, and if you don’t build my wall, I will refuse to work with you.”

Ignoring the threat, it’s telling that only now, after two years in office, Trump is reaching out to Democrats calling for an end to revenge politics. He certainly has made no previous efforts to promote unity. Indeed, he has attacked Democrats at every opportunity calling them names and questioning their intelligence or patriotism. One can only conclude that he is worried about what the investigations might reveal. After all, the investigations have already resulted in numerous indictments, convictions and guilty pleas of members of his campaign, his staff and his long-time personal attorney.

In addition, the ongoing investigations are likely to reveal fraudulent activity by his inaugural committee, his cabinet members, his business and his family. These investigations should not be considered vindictive. They are simply the result of justice and appropriate oversight.

The investigations aside, Trump and the GOP have some nerve calling for unity now. Where was the call for unity when Mitch McConnell and his GOP comrades announced that their primary goal was to make Barack Obama a one-term president? When they were determined to make his efforts fail? When they refused to hold confirmation hearings and votes on Obama’s judicial nominations? When they filibustered virtually every piece of Democratic legislation? When they held endless investigations into Benghazi and Hillary’s use of a private email server? When Trump and his supporters chanted “lock her up” during and after the campaign? When Trump made it his priority to undo and overturn virtually every accomplishment of the Obama administration? When he undermined the Affordable Care Act and rolled back environmental protections?

It seems clear that, despite the many Democratic efforts for bipartisanship, the GOP only seems interested in comity and unity when it serves their purposes and protects them from justice and oversight. Then, and only then, they are worried about revenge politics. And, too often, Democrats have accommodated them.

After Nixon committed treason by undermining the Vietnam peace talks and interfering with the 1972 election, Democrats let him resign and allowed his successor to pardon him. After Reagan committed treason by undermining the Iran hostage negotiations and illegally selling arms to Iran in order to fund the Contras in Central America, Democrats allowed George H.W. Bush to pardon those involved. And after Bush and the GOP took us to war in Iraq under false pretenses, Democrats let them off the hook for their lies.

This time must be different. Certainly, Democrats should work across the aisle in order to accomplish their campaign promises for the benefit of the nation. But they must not prematurely end the investigations. They must not abdicate their obligation to oversee the decisions of this administration. They must not bow down to this wannabe dictator.

And they absolutely must hold those who have committed crimes accountable regardless of the title before their names.

Suborning Perjury? That’s Where You Finally Draw The Line?

After learning that Trump ordered his personal attorney to lie to Congress about his continued attempts to develop a Trump Tower in Moscow, members of Congress are suddenly willing to speak of impeachment.

Seriously, that’s what finally caused you to grow a spine?

It wasn’t enough that Trump, his entire administration and his congressional supporters have lied to the American public on a daily basis? It wasn’t enough that he stole the election with the help of Russia? It wasn’t enough that Trump embraced dictators and thugs around the world? It wasn’t enough that leaders of his campaign had more than 101 known contacts with Russians during the campaign and accepted illegal campaign contributions from Russians? It wasn’t enough that members of his campaign have been convicted and pleaded guilty of illegal activities?

It wasn’t enough that he appointed a man operating as an unregistered foreign agent as his director of national security?!!!

It wasn’t enough that Trump bragged on tape that he has committed sexual assault? And that it is known that he paid hush money to cover up illicit affairs with a porn star and a centerfold model? It wasn’t enough that Trump has damaged all of our most reliable and necessary institutions, such as the FBI, the CIA and the EPA? It wasn’t enough that he regularly refers to the news media as enemies of the people? It wasn’t enough that Trump appointed a group of sycophants and unqualified toadies to positions of authority? It wasn’t enough that Trump and his cabinet squandered tens of millions on vacations and private interests? It wasn’t enough that his administration sold public and tribal lands to the highest bidders?

It wasn’t enough that Trump undermined NATO and our international relationships with our strongest and most loyal allies – that his administration has broken international laws and treaties? It wasn’t enough that he manufactured an international crisis at our southern border – that he separated thousands of refugee children from their families? It wasn’t enough that his administration’s actions resulted in the deaths of two young children who had survived a thousand mile trek from Central America?

It wasn’t enough that Trump and his supporters have supported racists and Nazis – that they excused racist violence and the death of an innocent young woman? It wasn’t enough that they gave billions in tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy while denying the basic needs of the poor as an extreme act of cruelty? It wasn’t enough that those unnecessary tax cuts ran up approximately $2 trillion in additional debt?

It wasn’t enough that his administration pandered to the victims of disasters in Texas and the southeastern US, while turning their backs on the American citizens of Puerto Rico? It wasn’t enough that Trump blamed the victims of California wildfires for losing their homes and their lives as a result of the climate change he denies? It wasn’t enough that he created trade wars causing Americans to lose markets for their products? It wasn’t enough that he shut down the federal government in a childish temper tantrum?

It isn’t enough that there is abundant evidence that he engaged in treason in plain sight?!!!

But ordering his attorney to lie to you? THAT? That’s where you draw the line?

Where Is The Tipping Point?

Some political pundits, even party insiders, have cautioned Democrats against beginning articles of impeachment when they take control of the House in 2019. Their line of reasoning is that the occupant of the Oval Office should be determined only by election and that a GOP-controlled Senate would never convict Trump anyway. The result of impeachment, they say, could destroy our nation.

Really? What do you think Republicans would do if the roles were reversed? I think you know the answer to that question. They would almost certainly vote for impeachment. Indeed, many called for the impeachment of President Obama simply for saving our economy from a second depression.

And there are even more important questions. What would be the impact of allowing a man guilty of multiple felonies from serving out his term? What precedent would that set? What would prevent a president from committing far more serious crimes in office. Declining to vote for articles of impeachment would say to future candidates that, if you can convince enough Americans to vote for you, you can do whatever you want as president while in office.

Consider the following:

President Richard Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment for making false or misleading statements; for withholding relevant evidence or information; for condoning and counseling witnesses to give false or misleading statements; for interfering with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Congressional Committees; for approving the payment of substantial sums of hush money to witnesses; for making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States; for causing defendants to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony.

And President Clinton was impeached for far less. After a 4-year investigation, he was impeached on one count of perjury for lying about a sexual affair and one count of obstruction for attempting to cover up that affair. He was ultimately acquitted by the Senate.

Now, let’s look at what we know about President Trump. With all of the chaos caused by his administration and the violation of norms, it’s easy to lose sight of the crimes he has committed. For example, he has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator for directing and participating in the illegal payment of hush money to two women with whom he had extramarital affairs. That means he has committed two counts of election fraud – both felonies.

During a televised interview, Trump openly admitted to obstruction of justice by saying he had fired FBI director James Comey for refusing to ignore Michael Flynn’s lies about his contacts with Russia – another felony. In a series of tweets, Trump indicated his admiration for Paul Manafort for refusing to cooperate with the Special Counsel’s office. That is witness tampering in plain sight – another felony. And we know that Trump has repeatedly lied to news reporters and the American public about his involvement in the payment of hush money – yet another example of obstruction of justice.

Additionally, we know that Trump has, on multiple occasions, violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by receiving money from foreign visitors to his Washington DC hotel and receiving foreign investments in his family business. He and many of his appointees have violated the Hatch Act by using public office and public funds to campaign for re-election. And we know that he and many within his campaign violated the Logan Act by negotiating with a foreign government (Russia) which has a dispute with the United States.

Even without knowing what the Special Counsel has found about Trump’s role in the Russian interference in our elections, and without knowing if Trump acted on behalf of Vladimir Putin to relax sanctions against Russia, we already know that Trump has committed multiple high crimes and misdemeanors. Indeed, he has far surpassed the crimes that led to Clinton’s impeachment. And he has even surpassed Nixon’s. In 1974, those crimes were enough to force a president from office. Is the standard so much higher now? And, if so, why?

Whether or not we allow Trump to remain in office is not just about politics. It’s about the law and what we should reasonably expect from a president. Trump took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He has clearly violated that oath. And if Democrats fail to vote for articles of impeachment, they will have failed to carry out their duty.

Democrats’ Dilemmas.

Now that Democrats have overcome the Republican’s extreme gerrymandering and voter suppression to take control of the US House of Representatives, they face a serious dilemma. If they reach across the aisle and cooperate with the president to pass legislation on behalf those who elected them, Trump will take credit for it. (No one is better at claiming credit for others’ efforts.)

On the other hand, if Democrats obstruct Trump’s sinister agenda, Republicans will call them obstructionists and use their propaganda networks to undermine the Democrats’ chances of re-election. (Seemingly, only Republicans are able to obstruct without paying a price.)

And, as of today, Democrats are faced with an even more serious challenge following the forced resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. By passing over Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to install one of his compliant lackeys, Trump is clearly obstructing justice by taking responsibility for the Robert Mueller investigation away from Rosenstein. As the new Acting Attorney General, Matthew Whitaker will not have to recuse himself. Moreover, he will be able to block any further indictments or, worse, prevent the Special Counsel’s report from becoming public. Of course, this comes on the heels of the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court likely based on Kavanaugh’s belief in the supremacy of the presidency – that the president is above the law.

The result is a constitutional crisis most Americans have been wanting to avoid – the modern equivalent of Watergate’s Saturday Night Massacre which ultimately led to Nixon’s resignation.

Lest you dismiss Trump’s actions as mere politics as usual, you should consider the fact that the Trump campaign’s conspiracy involving Wikileaks and Russia is actually far worse than Watergate. Both consisted of interference in a presidential election. Both were break-ins – one into an office, the other into computers. Both involved the theft and use of Democratic documents. Both involved dirty tricks. And both led to indictments and convictions of the presidents’ campaign operatives. The difference is that Watergate did not involve a foreign government hostile to the United States.

All of this means that the new, Democratic-controlled House will be forced to take measures to ensure that the Mueller investigation continues unimpeded until we get to the bottom of the Trump campaign’s conspiracy. And to determine, once and for all, whether or not the president was directly involved and aware of the conspiracy.

How Democrats go about these tasks may determine the outcome of the 2020 elections. If they do not protect Mueller and do not let the investigation continue to its conclusion, they will be punished at the polls by Democratic voters who will be understandably infuriated at their failure to hold Trump accountable. But, if their actions seem too partisan, and if they ignore the many other serious issues facing this nation, they will be punished by independents and swing voters.

Democrats will be walking a tightrope. It will take much thought, foresight and balance to attain their goals. Let’s all hope they are up to the task.

Will Election Winners Live Up To Their Promises?

Over the past year, Americans have been subjected to non-stop campaigning by national, state and local candidates. They and their affiliated Political Action Committees fueled by billions of dollars have papered our cities with flyers and ads. They have held thousands of campaign rallies. They have run tens of thousands of commercials on television and social media. And many of those commercials and ads have tried to create fear about the opposition.

We have been told that an invasion is coming – an invasion of MS-13 gang members, terrorists and thugs from Central America. We have been told that, if the angry mob of Democrats win, they will turn the US into a socialist country, and we will forever lose our democracy. We have been told that many of the candidates are corrupt. We have been told that if the opponents get to Washington, they will raise our taxes, bankrupt our nation and turn our health care over to a government bureaucracy.

Both sides have told us that they, and they alone, can end the division.

Both sides have told us that they will preserve our access to affordable health care. Both sides have promised to protect those with pre-existing conditions. Both sides have promised to preserve Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Both sides have promised to improve education and the economy. Both sides have promised to create jobs. And, ironically, many on both sides have promised to be independent and to reach across the aisle for our benefit.

Really?

To the last claim, I’ll simply respond this way: If every candidate who promised to work across the aisle actually worked across the aisle, Congress and our country would not be so divided.

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.