Spinning Nov. 2 Elections

November 21, 2010

To:  The Editor

     Nov. 2 has come and gone, and now is time to speculate about what "the American people" said.  In just about every other word they speak, Republicans are spinning that  "the American people" said they want what Republicans want.  And they spin it as if Republicans simply want what "the American people" want.  The fact is:  the American people want different things.  But what we all want, is a quick return to the days when there is a lot less threat to or uncertainty about our future.

     I was hopeful that voters would conclude that their best hopes rested in the character and agenda of the Democratic Party.  It was Democrats that at least tried to produce jobs with stimulus legislate,--which worked, though not to the extent needed or expected.   

     It was not Obama's fault, however, that cities, counties and states did not have plans in place that could make use of the money.  It is not his fault that many cities, counties and states that were prepared to use the money chose instead to leave workers unemployed.  Voters rewarded Republicans for limiting the success of the stimulus they limited.  Because of Republican repudiations, too many voters gave Democrats no credit for either their intent or for whatever success was achieved.

     The message that voters sent rest in the fact that they gave Republicans the House but denied them the Senate.  It would have been easy for voters to vote straight Republican tickets and elect enough Republicans to the Senate to give them a majority.  The message was:  We're hurting.  We're worried.  We don't know what is needed, but we expect the President and Congress to figure it out.  Its like a patient going to a doctor and saying, "Doc, I don't feel well.  Nothing hurts; I just don't feel good."  Obama and fellow Democrats have been prescribing medicine, but Republicans have done everything within their power to prevent the patient's accessing and taking the medicine.  The patient still feels bad, but blames the doctor rather than those who denied them access to the medicine.

     In this election, voters are saying to Democrats:  Maybe it wasn't your fault that we didn't receive the medicine, but we're going to blame you until you find a way to get that medicine, whatever it is, to us.  Voters said in effect: maybe you'll have to give it to us in your office or bring it to our home.  But find a way.  Their message to Republicans is:  Get in there and help get the medicine to us.  If someone tells you another medicine is better, discuss it with the President.  We elected him to be our personal physician.  If his medicine is not right time will tell.

     The fact is Republicans were not obstructing Democratic ideas because Republicans thought they were bad ideas.  They opposed them because they were afraid they would succeed.  Defeating Democrats, not healing the patient, was the goal of Republicans from the beginning.  That goal has not changed.  And whatever they agree to will be with hopes that it fails--with a little help from them if necessary.

     I suggest the following strategy for any bipartisan compromise:  (1) Identify the sectors where there are new ideas or concerns by either party, for example, health care, financial regulations, education, energy independence, clean energy and the environment, comprehensive immigration legislation.  (2) Within each sector, allow each party to identify in writing changes it would like to see made in each sector.  (Parties would have met in advance to decide what changes they would recommend.)  (3) List by party all recommendations submitted for each sector.  (4) Allow the parties to take copies of both sets of ideas back to their caucuses and choose between alternatives.  (5) Pair up the ideas about each area and have caucus prioritize their choices from most important to them to least important.  (6) Flip a coin to determine who gets the pick first.  During the first cycle, the winner picks the area that party determined to be highest priority.  The loser gets their 2nd and 3rd choices, then winner the 4th choice.  During the second cycle, the loser of the first cycle chooses first, the loser 2nd and 3rd and winner 4th, etc.  In case there is only set of ideas left, flip a coin to determine which party's idea will be accepted.

It seems complicated, but it's fair.

     A far as extending the tax cuts for the wealthy,  Democrats had better get something mighty good in return.  Extending tax cuts for the rich only became an issue when it was almost too late to negotiate a deal with health care, comprehensive immigration legislation,  the environment, etc. 

     The president had a great press conference on Nov. 3.  He took blame for results that were not his fault.  Critics questioned as if they also bought it was his fault, and that he felt none of the people's pain.  But nobody can feel the pain of a situation like someone who has been there.  

     The President did more than say he felt the people's pain, he tried to alleviate it.  He stimulate the economy to save and create jobs, he extended unemployment benefits, he provided money for small businesses to be better able to hire people.  He lowered middle-class taxes so people would have more money during tough times.  He kept American auto manufacturers in business, saving automaker jobs and jobs at the dealerships and suppliers. These jobs kept people in homes, and gave workers buying power that kept other workers employed.  

     Yet, the President is constantly criticized for seeming not to care.   But Republicans, who have tried every trick in the bag to prevent help from going to these people, are never asked how they feel about not helping those in need, nor are they criticized for seeming not to care.

     Again, President Obama seems anxious to reach across the aisle.  And, again no Republican talks about reaching back to compromise on something that Republicans feel passionately about.  Democrats should demand that Republicans reach back with things they value.  If they won't compromise their "principles," why would they (and the American people) expect Democrats to compromise theirs.  

Ronald

     

     

An Election Like No Other

     This year's mid-term elections very likely were the most crucial elections in American history.  The American people were faced with the need for earth-shaking reforms, from very complex survival needs to the very daunting needs to adjust to a new economic reality in America.   Voters had to determine whether America would become a place where "survival of the fittest" prevailed, or where no group of human beings was considered dispensable, and none was deemed indispensable.  As was the case with the founding of the nation, however, solutions would only be provided by our brightest Americans who are also among our most moral, ethical and empathetic Americans.  

     Someone said that democracy requires and moral ethical majority.  "Survival of the fittest" with a moral, ethical and empathetic foundation both prepares and enables the strongest, brightest and wealthiest to then provide the means for maximum opportunities and preparation of those of lesser attributes so they, too, can make their maximum contribution to society.  But where conscience is no longer a factor in decision-making, "survival of the fittest" leads to domination rather than support of those less fit.

     Someone else has said that the test of a nation's character is how well it treats its poor.  

     And as the American people have become wealthier, we are becoming less willing to share that wealth with those who are less fortunate.  This attitude eventually impoverishes the middle class.  Increasingly more American families have children in poor schools than in good schools, guaranteeing to grow that pool of needy Americans who either don't know or can't control what is best for them.  

     Strangely on Nov. 2, American families, most of whose children attend poorer schools, expressed a belief that Republicans offered their children a better chance for a quality education--despite there being no evidence of this.  Thomas Jefferson said that democracy cannot survive with an uninformed, poorly educated electorate.  

     But instead of providing quality education for all children, too many parents have succeeded in providing the best schools, courses, teachers and classmates for our own children so they will be among the "fittest" to survive.   But they do this with no intention that their children be among the "fittest" so they can then help those who are less "fit."

     Someone said that democracy requires a moral, rational majority.   We need to be able to trust those with whom we survive.  But we can't continue to elect people we don't trust, for the wrong reasons, and expect honest government.  What we are to become as a nation, we are now becoming.  We can only hope that the last election results is not evidence that we are already there.  It certainly will be difficult to elect people who are better than we are ourselves.  And we cannot care more for other people than our minds have been taught and our hearts will allow.  Those who lie most, deceive most, and care less about those of us who have come upon hard times have been able to convince a majority of "the American people" that their successful war against the poor is due to God's being on their side.

     These are confusing times, indeed, when people think that those who got them into trouble are more likely to lead them out, and those who cost them jobs are more likely to bring those jobs back.  

     During this campaign, Tea Party participants depicted President Obama as a socialist--and as a nation we are socialistic: Social Security, Medicare, public schools, public universities, public highways, public support for medical research. public financing of the military, public judicial systems, public police and fire services, etc.  Little did voters realize, though,  the kind of political system they were making possible.  Even in communist China the government determines the parameters within which businesses operate, and establishes people-friendly ends that business must pursue.  In the end, the success of political and economic systems does not rest in what the system is called but in the results it achieves--its ability "to do the most good for the most people."  

     But America in the process of doing the most good for the fewest people, and we are finding ourselves operating contrary to all the words of wisdom that have been spoken and guided the behavior of mankind for thousands of years.  Even "do unto other as you would have them do unto you" is beginning to be treated as a joke.   

Whether it sought it or not, big business has been handed control of both elections and the Supreme Court, and a return to little regulations, no oversight, and no obligation to be people-friendly in its behavior.  It can reduce workforce or what workers are paid at will.  They can cut work time and workers would have to accept it because there would be no better paying jobs elsewhere.  Judging from the unidentified financial contributions given to the Republican party during the last election, there are more corporate bad guys than good guys.

     In the past, businesses made money off middle-class and the working poor who both spent more and accumulated more debt than they could afford.  Not being paid what their labor was worth, too often these Americans used credit and credit cards to cover financial shortfalls. That money bought things and activities (and paid interest on debt) that enabled businesses, both the lenders and the sellers of goods and services, to generate more profits.  These profits exceeded what business should have expected (or even would have been possible) had workers lived within their means and saved according to their future needs.  But this allowed investors at the top of wealth ladder to further enriched themselves by climbing on the backs of those working Americans who were doing the ground-level work for both businesses and this society.  

      The fact that the rule of big business is not only conceivable but, with the help of the Supreme Court, quite achievable should ring a alert bell and be cause for great concern by moral and rational voters on whose wisdom and actions survival of our democracy depends. 

Ronald

Thinking through Political Decisions

November 10, 2010

To:  The Editor

     When a nation's children rank 23rd and 24th (and falling) in science and math, respectively, there is little surprise that their parents ("the American people") also will not think rationally in the political decisions they make.

     Rational decision-making in politics--as in education--is a problem-solving activity.  As in science and mathematics, both begin with a set of given conditions that are relevant to a goal to be achieved during a solution process.  Each goal has it own set of relevant conditions.

     A student who has not been taught to think critically and reason logically in English, history, government, health and other non-science and non-mathematics classes will not automatically do so in science and mathematics classes either unless science and math teachers encourage, stimulate and teach them how to do so. If voters have not been taught to think rationally in their schools, how can they be expected to do so in preparation for election day?

     Being prepared to think rationally in preparation for election day does not mean that all people will come to the same conclusion.  With difficult math and science problems some times the correct solution is reached by students only because the answers are in the back of the book.  Rational thinking will not alway lead to the correct answers to problems, but it gets one on the road toward the solution.

     Solutions to all problem require access to correct information and knowledge of relationships between and among the variables existing within that body of relevant information.   The relationship between a home to live in and a good job is simple:  If the father has a good job, the family will have a place to stay.  An employer, however, does not relate directly to the family having food and a place to live.  But both an employer and family needs relate to the father's having a job.  Hence, if the employer hires the father, there will be food on the table and a place to live.  But employers also have needs, further complicating the problem.

     I once attended a conference of science teachers who were setting the guidelines for the curriculum of a science course, and the teachers had been led to conclude that teaching the scientific method was no longer appropriate because even real scientists did not use it.  I was unable to convince them that the scientific method was not just an approach to tackling science problems, it was useful in problem-solving and decision-making in everyday life activities--like voting.

     I'm again reminded of my favorite mathematics teacher, Burton West, saying to us:  "Think, young people, think."  If children are not taught and encouraged to think in school, who will teach and encourage them to do so after they become adults? 

      In a recent column, Bill O'Reilly asks, " Why do the West Coast and the Northeast continue to embrace liberalism, especially when it has led to economic disaster?"  That statement was aimed at an uninformed and misinformed audience whom O'Reilly hopes remains so about such facts.

     Often, when voters are not able (or inclined) to think rationally during political campaigns, they either flip coins to decide how to vote or engages in "trial and error problem-solving.  Trial and error works sometimes but mostly when one knows the answer and has much time to solve the problem.  Flipping the coin always has a fifty-fifty chance of being right, but votes tend to cancel each other.  Recent elections suggest that the present electorate is resorting to both methods in making political decisions: If the bunch who are in office are not getting the job done," trial and error" says choose someone else.  "Flipping the coin says: I don't know which is better; I'll just pick one.  At least I'm voting.  Both can be persuaded, by the party which claims to know and represent what "the American people" want.

      President Obama was doing what "the American people" wanted:  Preventing a depression required that money be spent to stabilize banks.  It required that money be spent producing and saving jobs.  Saving General Motors and Chrysler saved jobs at the automakers, their dealerships and their suppliers.  Health-care reform was aimed at  reducing the contribution of health-care costs to the growing national debt.  Keeping economic conditions and unemployment from getting worse and effecting an economic recovery, slow though it may be, made Democrats worthy of two more years.  "The American people" disagreed, and TV personalities, almost to a person, espoused that kind of thinking by them as reasonable.

      No person who survives an auto crash in critical condition goes home the next day.  Yet that's what "the American people" thought was possible with America's great recession.  Trial and error thinking has demanded another doctor, presuming that with another "doctor", our economy would have been well the next day.  The reason why people don't make bad decisions in medical emergencies is because they don't constantly hear and submit to other people who tell them to do what is contrary to their better judgment.  Yet, in politics, "the American people" allow surrogates to think for them.

      Granted, liberals are no more thoughtful than conservatives about what is best for government to be and be doing.  The more rational or centrist elements of either ideology could move the country forward.  But ideologies no longer control political agendas.   The contest is no longer one of political and social ideas; it is about whether the wealthy have the right (and should be allowed) to become richer at the expense everyone else.  

     Middle-class voters, whose incomes have been stagnate for the past ten years or more as incomes of the wealthy increased, and others who earn less than $250 thousand dollars a year, essentially said on Nov. 2:  If taxes of the wealthiest Americans are increased on Jan. 1, then, we want ours increased also.         

     How can Democrats regain the faith of "the American people" who use trial and error, flipping the coin and the thinking of others to make political decisions?  How will Democrats deal with "the American people" who allow questionable financial contributions to essentially buy their votes?  Better education might help; a better national character would demand it.  But Republicans won't allow either.  

Ronald