May 21, 2019--Abortion

Some years ago I had responsibility for the Ford Foundation's work with rural schools.

In the Black Belt communities of Alabama, for example, we funded efforts at the K-12 level to prepare young people who wanted to remain in their hometowns to not just find work locally but to develop the entrepreneurial skills needed to create work opportunities for themselves and their neighbors. 

In one town high school students began a local newspaper that over a couple of years was full of news and local ads. Enough so that five decent-paying jobs were created and those who filled them were able to support themselves and remain in place.

At the community college level, through a multi-state program we called the Rural Community College Initiative (RCCI) we helped colleges and their community partners align courses of study with the needs of local employers while at the same time strengthening the institutions' academic offerings so that those who aspired to earn associate degrees before transferring to four-year colleges had the preparation they needed to complete bachelors degrees in increasing numbers.

Again in Alabama, in Monroeville, at Alabama Southern Community College, with Ford help, the college and its local affiliates saw many more students than in the past receive up-to-date training as well as transfer to four-year colleges.

(One sidebar--Monroeville was the home of Harper Lee and it was a great pleasure for me to have the chance to meet her and spend some time sitting with her on her back porch. Also exciting, she generously gave me a signed copy of To Kill a Mockingbird.)

In addition, while in Alabama, driving from town to town, it was apparent that something else was going on--a battle over abortion rights. 

A battle that culminated last week when the state legislature and governor passed the most draconian antichoice bill in the nation. If implemented it would effectively end the possibility of abortion in the state. 

Back in my day, driving around the Deep South in even stormy weather, at every clinic that offered abortions and women's health services, there was a demonstration underway. All by antiabortion activists.

Women seeking reproductive assistance who were assumed to be arriving for abortions had to run the gauntlet of protesters who shrieked at them, accusing them of being "baby killers."

This went on relentlessly for decades.

One thing I also noticed--little sign of prochoice activists. 

Recalling this, as reproductive rights are under serious attack--perhaps potentially by the newly reconstituted Supreme Court--where are all the passionate defenders of Roe v. Wade? Clearly not engaged in anything comparable. On the ground, all the action is with the so-called pro-life advocates.

I confess to being cynical, but are work and entertainments more important to liberals who support abortion rights but are not involved with marshaling resources to fight back?

Minimally, where are the monthly prochoice mass demonstrations? Again, are we too distracted to organize any?

I know if Roe v. Wade is modified or overturned in the federal courts, abortion supporters self-righteously will express outrage and seek on MSNBC or from the New York Times what to think and how, after it's too late, to respond. 

Distressing to say I do not expect to see many progressives actively engaged beyond a gesture at abortion or Planned Parenthood clinics to help make it easier for women seeking reproductive services.

Too many on the left are better at complaining than getting off their sofas and marching in the rain.

May 17, 2019--The Surprising Supremes

The struggle between the Trump White House and the Democrats in the House of Representatives is heating up. 

Congress is attempting to do its constitutionally mandated oversight work. They want access, for example, to the full Mueller report; they are also subpoenaing Trump's tax records; and they want to gather direct testimony from Mueller and, along the way, to have Donald Jr. testify about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Trump is stonewalling everything, claiming executive privilege.

None of this will be resolved as it usually is by negotiations. There is too much bad blood for that and Trump knows how devastating it would be for him if the truth were exposed. 

It will then for certain take months or years for these disputes to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, at the state level, Alabama just passed legislation to eliminate abortions under virtually all circumstances. Including if a women becomes pregnant as the result of rape or insist. This piece of legislation was not designed to be implemented but rather was carefully crafted to reach the Supreme Court and give the now conservative court the opportunity to consider overturning Roe v. Wade and thereby making abortion illegal in all 50 states.

Conservatives feel that with a majority of the nine members of the current court named by Republican presidents (Thomas by George H.W. Bush; Roberts and Alito by George W. Bush; and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by Trump) Roe v. Wade is threatened as are affirmative action and all forms of support for voting rights. 

But maybe for conservatives it is too soon to celebrate.  

It is by no means certain that Roe and other examples of progressive Supreme Court decisions are doomed. They are seriously threatened, but it is not yet clear they will be overturned. 

Recall that Chief Justice Roberts joined the four liberal justices to uphold Obamacare. I speculated at the time and subsequently that Roberts, perhaps feeling everything that is decided on his watch will be attributed to the "Roberts'" Court, perhaps concerned about how he would be regarded by historians, he abandoned his up-to-then predictable conservative voting record and joined the four liberals to sustain a program that provides medical coverage for 20 million Americans. He did not want to see the Affordable Care Act shredded while he was serving as Chief Justice. He therefore contorted himself and found a way to support it.

But here's the real surprise--the voting pattern of the most recent member of the court: Brett Kavanaugh.

Recall, he is the justice who was accused of sexual harassment and confessed during his conformation hearing that he had a drinking problem. He testified rapturously about how he "loves beer." So much so that he repeated it half a dozen times. 

Did anyone after this and looking at his judicial record think he would even one time vote with the liberal block?

Well, he has been. In fact, he has voted with the liberals more often than any other justice.

In recent months, for example, he voted with Ginsberg and Sotomayor on the death penalty and criminal defendants' rights. In both instances not agreeing with Trump's other appointee, Neil Gorsuch and the other conservatives.

It is premature to speculate how he might vote when it comes to disputes about Trump's claims about executive power. 

There have been more than a few surprises when it comes to justices voting contrary to what one would have expected. There were numerous times when Franklin Roosevelt appointees voted against New Deal legislation and Byron (Whizzer) White, named by Kennedy, turned out to be more a conservative than a liberal. And then there was David Souter, protected by lifetime tenure, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush but turned out, once on the court, to be dependably liberal.

So, keep an eye on Kavanaugh. Along with Roberts he may turn out to be unpredictable. He too may have an eye on history.

October 9, 2018--Swing Time At the Supreme Court

Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for the New York Times, in a postmortem after the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, wrote that with the departure of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court is now left without a swing vote. Expect, he says, very conservative decisions, among others, about abortion (severely restrict or end them), affirmative action (sack it), redistricting (what states are doing is OK), and voting rights (not to worry too much about them).

While I'm not so sure Kennedy did all that much swinging, it is true that on subjects such as gay rights he usually voted with the liberal minority. Mainly, though, he joined conservatives on the court in a series of 5-4 decisions about presidential power, corporate reach, and the funding of political campaigns.

There may be, though, another way to think about this. Even with Kavanaugh seated, instead of a predictable suite of conservative 5-4 decisions, we may find a surprising number, sill 5-4s, tipped in a surprisingly liberal direction. 

We could see more moderate and even occasional progressive judgements then anticipated with someone other than Kennedy or, God help us, Kavanaugh agreeing with the four-member liberal wing of the court.

I see the strong possibility that Chief Justice John Roberts may turn out to be an occasional swing vote, especially when issues are of such magnitude that he does not want his court to be perceived as acting too regressively or with too much partisanship.

Case in point, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) where Roberts struggled to find a way, a rationale that would work for him and allow him to vote to uphold it. Which he did. (Swingman Kennedy voted with the other three conservative judges and argued vigorously to get Roberts to join them.)

Stretching the language of the actual Obamacare legislation, he saw the individual mandate of the ACA to be funded by a tax and not by either subsides or penalties. And, thus, constitutional. A stretch but revealing--he was so eager to find the ACA upholdable that he became inventive when it came to finding a way to sustain it.

Why might that be? Judicial rationalization trumping ideology and even belief?

Because it's his court. Robert's court. Forever in history, whatever the court does or does not do, finds constitutional or lacking in precedent will be attributable to the Robert's Court.

It wasn't the Scalia Court, nor was it the Thomas Court, or for that matter the Ginsberg Court. It's the Robert's Court as it was the Warren Court, the Burger Court, or the Rehnquist Court.

History-minded, as all chief justices are, Roberts may not want his court to be known ever after as heartless and insensitive to the lives of Americans and our institutions. For him to be perceived that way.

I may be indulging in wishful thinking. But, then again, let's wait and see. Stranger things have happened with the Supreme Court.

May 1, 2018--Jack: Trump Delivers

It felt like forever since I had heard from Jack and so, concerned about him, I called.

"I appreciated your being worried," he said.

"Actually concerned. A little concerned," I said to correct the record.

"It's funny you called. I was just thinking about you."

"Really? What were you thinking?"

"What else do we talk about? Trump."  Without waiting for my reaction, he raced ahead, "I was just watching Morning Joe. Thanks to you I tune them in once in awhile to see what the Commies are up to." He chuckled as if to indicate this wasn't going to be one of his stress-inducing rants.

"I was watching as well," I said, "To get a morning dose of the truth. There's so much spinning."

"From Joe and Mika as well," Jack said, "She's got him totally wimped out. Every day he's sounding more and more like Elizabeth Warren. It's the price of her agreeing to marry him. The next thing you know he'll be wearing an apron."

"Now I see why I resist calling you. If this is a bad time to talk we can . . ."

"It's as good a time as ever. You dropped the dime. So what's on your mind?"

"The last time we talked, in early February, I sensed a little doubt about him. About, as you used to refer to him, 'your boy.' It was when they fired his close aide, Rob Porter after he was caught having lied about abusing his wives. You told me about your growing up, about how your parents . . ."

Softly, he said, "No need to go there again. What's past is . . ."

"I wasn't going there except that I got the impression that you weren't happy that Trump had a spousal abuser working right next to him in the Oval Office because of your own . . ."

"I'd rather talk about Morning Joe."

"OK by me," I said, "I don't have an agenda. I just wanted to check in with you. To see how you are. So, what struck you from this morning's show?"

"Did you see that woman who wrote a book about what she called 'flyover country'?"

"I did," I said, "In fact, I just ordered it, The View from Flyover Country. By Sarah Kendzior. Sounds interesting. Good title."

"It was more what some of Scarborough's panelists had to say."

"I'm listening."

"You remember that book you mentioned to me a couple of years ago, What's the Matter With Kansas? Well, I got it out of the library and actually read it."

"What did you think?"

"You'll probably be surprised that I pretty much agreed with most of it. How conservative politicians in Kansas ignored economic issues like sinking wages and unemployment and fed people there a steady diet of what the writer called cultural issues. Back then, abortion, evolution, and gay marriage. You know I'm a libertarian and believe in all of these things. That government shouldn't say who can and cannot get married and get in the way of a woman wanting to have an abortion."

"I do know that about you. If you weren't that way I wouldn't be able to consider you a friend."

He ignore that and continued, "And then when they got elected, ultraconservatives, now in the majority at the state and federal level in Kansas, ignored people's concerns about those cultural issues and voted for tax cuts and things like that that favored rich people and big corporations. In other words the politicians again screwed the little people."

"And with Trump?"

"Maybe you weren't paying attention to Morning Joe, but that woman Kend-something and the others were saying that Trump also ran on a lot of conservative cultural issues but rather than selling out the people who voted for him he actually delivered. Or is in the process of doing so. And this included Evangelicals who overlooked all his misbehavior because they believed in what he was saying about immigrants and guns and science and Muslims and climate change and transgender people serving in the military." 

Jack continued, "More than anything else getting Gorsuch on the Supreme Court said it all. You would think that people who probably don't even know how many judges there are on the Court wouldn't be so crazed about Gorsuch. Most probably don't even know his name, but they believe he has their interests at heart. And that Trump put him there for them. In other words, unlike in Kansas and elsewhere, Trump is keeping his promises. And at his rallies talks to his people as if he's confiding in them. Paying attention to them and what's on their minds."

"And you mean they're not being screwed by Trump and his appointees? You mean that there is a real benefit to average people from the tax cuts that will add trillions to the debt? That Trump lied to his followers, that he continues to do so by focusing the vast bulk of the tax cuts on the richest 5 percent and the biggest businesses that are already doing very well? That doesn't sound like delivering to me."

"I will concede," Jack said, "that nothing and nobody's perfect but with Trump people feel he's on their side. Including when he creates what his opponents label chaos. He claims that he does this intentionally to shake up the system. To bring about new and better ways to do things. The old ways from traditional welfare kinds of programs to the way diplomacy has been practiced forever have only made things worse."

"I will agree with some of that. Especially that big government and big government programs haven't been that effective. I know about federal education programs and most of them haven't produced positive results."

"That's the understatement of the year," Jack said. "But my best case is what might be happening in Korea. Even you have written about how if things work out Trump will be entitled to a lot of credit. Minimally by scaring everyone who thinks he's crazy and if they don't make a deal he'll nuke them. That seems to have gotten Kim's attention."

"I did write about that and if things in fact do get better I'll be happy to see the credit shared. But that's about it. The rest of his agenda is either going nowhere or has already collapsed. Like making life better for working people--a majority of whom voted for him. The economy is growing but not at above-expected rates and people are not seeing a whole lot of additional money in their paychecks. So much so that Republicans are no longer running around patting themselves on their backs for passing that tax bill. So the one thing they accomplished is blowing up in their faces."

"Some of this may be true," Jack said, "But, I remind you, a good third of the population cares more about guns and abortion and being able to pray where and when they want, and, for those people, Trump is delivering."

"God help us," I muttered under my breath.

November 29, 2017--Alabama On My Mind

Not long after Donald Trump announced he was running for president, still in Delray Beach, we ran into a neighbor who, without a proper hello, whispered to us, "Don't repeat this, but I'm voting for him."

By then we knew who the him was.

If she had been polled, not telling the truth, she would likely have said she was undecided or that, as a lifelong Democrat, she planned to vote for Hillary.

But when election day came she voted for him, he carried Florida easily, and we know the final dispensation.

I suspect something like this is going on in Alabama as they are within two weeks now of voting for someone to replace Jeff Sessions in the Senate.

A large percentage say they can't vote for Roy Moore and for the first time in their lives plan to vote for Doug Jones, the Democrat. Many of them are not telling the truth. Even in some Alabama circles it is not socially acceptable to openly say you will be voting for a pedophile.

Perhaps an equal number are saying to pollsters that they plan to vote for Moore, in spite of everything, because they can't handle the thought that someone who supports a woman's right to have an abortion might be elected. In the privacy of the voting booth, though, resisting local social pressure, hating the idea that he seduced adolescents, they will in fact vote for Jones.

At the moment, Moore has been gaining in the polls, whatever they're worth, and it looks like a statistical dead heat.

Once again, as in Virginia, women will determine the outcome. Either by voting or opting not to.

*    *    *

On Morning Joe the other day, they got into an heretical discussion--how for Democrats to regain control of Congress and the White House, they have to welcome into the party and appeal to at least some social conservatives. This may mean that they need to open their tent wide enough to include Second Amendment people, religious voters, and even those who believe that there should be some limitations on the right to end a pregnancy. Like, for example, believing that abortions after 20 weeks of gestation should not be permitted. 

Someone on the show mentioned that Nancy Pelosi said Democrats should welcome right-to-life people. "We want to win," she said. And to win seats in most southern states Democrats must nominate and support cultural conservatives who are not strong supporters of abortion but who believe in and will, for example, vote for other Democratic priorities like preserving the social safety net and protecting the environment and voting rights.

*    *   *

This led to a complicated discussion between Rona and me sparked by this and our seeing Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, where Frances McDermand relentlessly and even violently seeks justice for her raped and murdered daughter.

Neither of us really liked to movie but it did get us talking about issues of concern particularly to women. Especially abortion rights.

"Why is this such a passionate, non-negotiable subject?" I asked. "I support that right and personally do not see it appropriate or perhaps constitutional to restrict it in any significant way."

"Because it's the one issue," Rona said, "that should be totally in the hands of women to decide. My body, myself. All other political and social issues are not as gendered. This is a women's issue. So to limit it, to take it away from the control of women, is to limit women's autonomy in ways that many, most women find to be totally unacceptable."

"Are you saying, then, that this is more about WOMEN'S RIGHTS and efficacy writ large than just abortion?"

"Yes. In itself, again for most women--not all by far--it's both a pressing reality and a metaphor for a range of cultural issues. We feel that though this is our issue, at the same time some of us, including some who are very liberal in regard to other matters, because we want to win, may opt tactically to agree to some compromises. But than again, because it's so important to some, any compromise might be impossible to consider, much less embrace."

"The other day you said, and I feel this sums up some of the complications, that the choice in Alabama to some, perhaps to many, is between a pedophile (Moore) and a baby killer (Jones). That that's the way a lot of religious conservatives view the choice."

"I still believe that," Rona said, "This is about as contested and complicated as it gets. Assuming one is able to calm down enough about the subject and attempt to look at it from multiple perspectives. Because to win we first need to understand."

November 22, 2017--Notes From the Swamp

As part of his campaign in Alabama, Roy Moore has been enlisting the assistance of a large group of Evangelical preachers.

This week, a number of them reached rock bottom in their desperate attempt to deflect attention from Moore to those who accused him of sexual abuse.

One in effect said, "Who can blame him. Some of these 14-year-old girls look like they're 20."

Another said that if Jesus Christ himself came "down off his cross" and confronted Moore about his behavior, Moore should say, "I need to talk with my president to see what he would advise me to do."

I think we know what Trump would advise.

My favorite--one minister said that his accusers have committed crimes and should be prosecuted. If they claim that he molested them, they should not have waited decades to report him to the police. They had a legal responsibility to seek his indictment. Not to do so is to obstruct justice. A felony.

This is my favorite because of its desperate logic--if it is valid to say the girls and women were covering up crimes that means that Moore would be admitting he committed the crimes they are covering up.

This is so hypocritically and perversely clever that it suggests Steve Bannon is behind these counterattacks.

*    *    *

Rona last night raised a complicated question--

We were talking about the governor of Alabama who, among others, said she believes the the accusers but will still vote for Moore because anything is better than electing a Democrat.

Rona said, "If you're a Christian conservative and believe that abortion is killing; and that if Moore's opponent, Doug Jones, believes in a woman's right to choose (he does), you're faced with the dilemma of voting for either a pedophile or a baby killer. Put yourself in the shoes of the person who is passionate about this. What do you say? What do you do?"

I'm still thinking about this. There's a part of me that wants to be fair minded, then there is another part of me that . . .

*    *    *

Then, I wondered, when attempting to compare Moore with Al Franken, feeling that there is no moral equivalency, there may be a great and sad irony that Moore, who I think will be elected, will be ushered into the Senate while Franken is being ushered out. How out of joint does that feel?

*    *    *

Further, about the sexual component of this, there is yet another social divide between people of faith and those of us who are more secularly oriented.

Whatever the truth about Franken's and Moore's behavior, clearly Franken was having some sophomoric though inexcusable "fun" as the photo of him fondling Leeann Tweeden reveals, while Moore was involved in acts of traditional, regional Gothic perversity. Yet another example of the great cultural dissonance that continues to plague our country.

*    *    *

Finally, I was thinking about the swamp that Trump and Bannon famously say they want to drain. Putting aside for the moment what that all means--since by my definition of swamp creatures they both qualify--one thing is clear: we're not talking about a swamp. We're talking more about a cesspool that in fact needs to be drained. 

To compare what is going in within our various governments--federal as well as local--swamp is an inappropriate metaphor. 

Swamps are a part of the natural order and as forested wetlands serve important life-generating purposes. They are places of great fecundity and contribute vitality to biodiversity and the larger ecosystem.

Cesspools on the other hand are, well, cesspools. And we have an overflowing one in Washington and another in Alabama. They and the many others are long overdo for draining. 

Swamp

May 30, 2017--A Word About Intelligent Design

There is a hot debate underway among progressives and others who do not in any way support Donald Trump about how to relate, if at all, to those who voted for and are sticking by President Trump.

The fact that I have difficulty referring to him as "President," is indicative of how complicated this situation is. About as complicated as how Republicans in the main had difficulty thinking about Barack Obama as "President" and opposed him aggressively, seeking from Inauguration Day to bring him down.

So Democrats and Republicans share that.

I have been arguing here for some time that, while opposing most of Trump's initiatives, progressives need to reach out to the most independent-minded of Trump supporters in an attempt to convince them that we understand their frustration and anger and make the case to them that traditional Democrats share many of their concerns and would like to welcome them back to our enlarged tent. Even including abortion opponents and Second Amendment defenders.

Others argue that we shouldn't waste our time reaching out to them. They are so unredeemable from a progressive perspective that we should not engage with them.

Yesterday, guest-blogger Sharon made that case forcefully--

If I have given up trying to reason with and understand people I already know who perhaps have spent too many years being brainwashed by Fox News, trolls and "news" outlets even further right, I have even less interest engaging strangers who want people to be free not to have health care.  I hold in special contempt those who encourage conspiracy theories that spur the lunatic fringe to shoot up pizza parlors, etc.

I respect this, understand, but disagree. I feel we have to do the opposite--no matter how difficult or infuriating, we need to seek opportunities to talk about our differences to see if there is any possibility of finding some common ground. 

In that spirit, Rona and I have been talking about how to have these difficult dialogues. Unlike our life in New York City where, politically, pretty much everyone we know has nothing but contempt for Trump and his supporters, we are fortunate up in Maine to know people with a wide range of views, including some who are eager to talk across the divide.

Thus, we have been searching for issues, topics around which to organize potential discussions. We even made a list. The first few topics are not good places to begin since about them there is little or no possibility for compromise. For example, abortion. If to opponents it is murder and for supporters it's a woman's right, there is not much to talk about. There is nothing to negotiate.

Here are some of the topics--

Abortion
The Second Amendment
Immigration
Healthcare
Same-sex marriage
Prayer in school
Taxes
The deficit
Government regulations
Iran
Russia
Climate change
Contraception
Food stamps
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Evolution/Intelligent Design

We have had considerable success talking about SSI. A number of conservative friends expressed vehement opposition to it, claiming that almost everyone receiving benefits is perpetrating a fraud, lying about their circumstances, and thus should be denied ongoing assistance  To complexify matters and to see if there might be some room for give, I looked up who actually receives SSI benefits and found that 33 percent of the 8 million are children or elderly and 15 percent more are significantly disabled and incapable of working. When discussing these recipients in turn, all on the far right agreed it was important to continue to help these people. To many of them it was the Christian way.

I then said, "So we agree about nearly 50 percent. That's progress, and of course it's OK to disagree about the rest."

With this in mind, Rona suggested that maybe we should move on to talk about Evolution. Many who are deeply conservative and often evangelicals who believe the Bible is the literal truth do not want to see it taught in public schools. They either call for its outright ban or, at a minimum, that it be taught alongside the theory of Intelligent Design (ID).

"Where's the give with this?" I asked, quite skeptical.

"There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support Evolution," Rona said, "But, hear me out, no valid scientific evidence that discredits Intelligent Design."

"What?"

"That's right. Tell me how you know, how we know that there was not some force of nature, or something more divine that guided the evolutionary process? Therefore, why not concede that it's worth putting this out for discussion? Doesn't a good education include teaching the history of controversies? Like Evolution and ID?" 

"Interesting point. Maybe this is like same-sex marriage. Twenty years ago only a small minority favored it but in more recent years it received overwhelming support, so much so that the Supreme Court stretched to find it to be constitutional."

"Bottom line," Rona said, "As difficult as it is and how unpleasant it can be, if we want to have a more inclusive and civil country, we need to not give up on having these kinds of conversations."

"I agree," I said, "But I do understand why others might come to a different conclusion."

"I'll predict that we could also have productive conversations about climate change and . . ."

I cut her off, "Let's take this one step at a time. I'm already feeling exhausted."

May 1, 2017--The Perfect, The Good

I had quiet an argument with a friend the other day about just how big a tent Democrats should pitch and who should and shouldn't be be welcome in it.

It was provoked by something Tom Perez, the new chair of the Democratic National Committee, said about so-called right-to-life Democrats. Specifically, by clear implication he criticized Heath Mello, who is running to become mayor of Omaha, as being insufficiently pro-choice because back in 2009, as a member of the Nebraska legislature, he supported a bill that would require women to be informed that they could use ultrasound before getting an abortion.

Chairman Perez said--

Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman's right to make her own choices about her body and her health. That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state. At a time when women's rights are under assault from the White House, the Republican Congress, and in states across the country, we must speak up for this principle as loudly as ever and with one voice.

After a few days of awkward silence, Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren finally said it is all right for people who are pro-choice to be Democrats and that, if they run for office, Democrats should support them.

My friend disagreed.

"If we allow people who don't believe in a woman's right to have an abortion to be Democrats, what does it mean to be a Democrat?"

"Is that the only litmus test?" I asked.

"What do you mean?"

"I mean if someone believes in school vouchers can they be a Democrat?"

"I have no problem with that," my friend said.

"OK, how about someone who feels we should have American troops on the ground in Syria and that they should be actively supporting the Syrian rebels?"

"I'm OK with that too."

"So, is one's views on abortion the only litmus test that matters?"

"To me, yes. If you're antiabortion you can't be a Democrat."

"But what would be the fate of the Democratic Party if others had their own version of litmus tests about education or health policy? Of, for that matter, the environment or same sex marriage?"

"For me the issue that counts above all others is the right to choose."

"You're avoiding my question."

"Try me again."

"If we made a list of all the issues people could potentially turn into litmus tests for membership in the Democratic Party, I'm afraid we would doom ourselves to minority status and political irrelevance forever. I'm very concerned about that since I feel liberals have been acting in exclusionary ways for a long time and Republicans, as a result, are ascendant at every level of government, from small towns to cities to states and now most dramatically at the congressional and presidential levels. You can't possible see this as a good thing."

"I don't, but to me abortion is different."

"As to someone else are charter schools or healthcare exchanges."

"None of your examples are as important nor do they generate the same level of conflict. About everything else there can be compromises. You can agree to having some charters schools in the mix or allow states to set up various versions of the way people can acquire healthcare coverage. You can't be sort of for or against abortions. Just like you can't be a little bit pregnant."

"That's not how many people see things. To them you're either for or against fracking. No compromises. Or for or against charter schools. No compromising. Just ask Randi Weingarten the head of the teachers union. For all I know, from her perspective, if you're in favor of school vouchers you can't be a Democrat. No compromises."

"Republicans do the same thing. Look at the Freedom Caucus members of Congress. They won't compromise."

"Though Republicans also have 'moderates.' But, we're getting distracted. I don't care what they do. I care what we do. And I am totally opposed to any litmus tests. We need every vote we can muster. I want to win some elections. We're getting wiped out, especially at the state level. For example, Bernie Sanders raised questions about supporting Jon Osseff in Georgia who has a good chance to win a seat in the House for the Democrats. Bernie raised questions about whether he was progressive enough. He walked it back quickly but his initial position exposed what he really thought--that there needs to be a doctrinal purity test to receive his endorsement. That's crazy."

"But I want us to stand for something."

"How about inclusiveness and tolerance? Those feel like Democratic values to me."

"The next thing you're going to do is say that we shouldn't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good."

"In fact, that's just what I was going to say."

"Isn't that what Ronald Reagan said?"

"A version of that. I think he said get 60 percent of the loaf the first time and then come back for the rest."

"So," my friend said, "It's come to that--Liberals quoting Ronald Reagan. The next thing we'll be doing is quoting Donald Trump. When that  happens, I won't need a litmus test to stop being a Democrat."

November 14, 2016--Election Postmortem

I called an old friend late last week to commiserate about the results of the election.

It was three days after the fact and she was still morose. "I'm too old to move to Canada or Europe. Friends in England called to invite me to stay with them for at least Trump's first six months. They said his first hundred days would be over by then and it would be possible to see how bad things were going to be. They said if by then he overturned most of Obama's major accomplishments, I could apply for asylum in England. But then of course there would be Brexit to deal with."

"Really?"

"Really. I'm thinking about it."

"Do you think things are that bad?"

"Potentially. Did you see who's on Trump's short list of possible cabinet members?"

"There's a lot of speculation but . . ."

"Forget 'but.' How does Sarah Palin as secretary of the interior sound? Say goodbye to our forests. Remember 'drill, baby, drill?' Or how does John Bolton for secretary of state sound? I think his favorite quote is John McCain's 'bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.' McCain was probably making a joke but for John Bolton it could sum up his foreign policy agenda."

"Sounds like a nightmare."

"And worst of all, as a lifelong feminist, I hate what Trump and his even-worse vice president, Mike Pence, say they want to do about women's rights. Say goodbye to Roe v. Wade. That alone is making me sick and depressed."

"I hear you," I said, then, "Therefore this may not be the best time for what I want to say but . . ."

"Say it. There's nothing you could say to make me feel worse."

"I'm not sure about that. But you know on my blog I've been writing critically about progressives who I feel did things to unintentionally help elect Trump."

"Too many didn't turn out to vote."

"That's part of it and related to my critique. For me a big part of the problem was that too many liberals lost touch with what was smoldering in that part of America they don't know because they live in isolated urban coastal enclaves, live comfortably, and look down on people who have different lives and value different things. Also, we have lost touch with people who are finally fed up with the false promises that have been made to them for decades by both Democrats and Republicans. In many ways Trump was like a third-party candidate."

"So far I don't disagree with you. We've grown very complacent."

"Worse, in that complacency and out of feelings of superiority, we've lost the activist spirit. I was looking again at Kevin Phillips' Emerging Republican Majority written way back in 1969 after Nixon in '68 won all but one of the southern states. He lays it all out there and conservatives have been using it successfully as a kind of playbook since then about how to take control of governments at all levels from the local to the state and now the federal. All three branches."

"I remember that. Isn't he now disenchanted with the right wing he helped empower?"

"He is, but it's a little late. Among other things he wrote about how the so-called silent majority should begin the process of dominating all levels of the government by running for school boards and then work their way up the political food chain. They've done this successfully so that now they control 33 of 50 governorships and most state legislatures."

"Fair points," my friend said.

"But here's the even harder part--I know you really well and how you live and what activates you. So let me ask you a tough question."

"Fire away."

"You're very passionate about preserving the reproductive rights of women from being able to get contraception to . . ."

"And Mike Pence," she snarled,"wants to block that."

"Totally terrible," I said, "But people who agree with him about that and who are also obviously anti-abortion, have for decades set up picket lines at abortion clinics, harassing women who are seeking to terminate pregnancies. I've visited and worked in almost all the states and pretty much everywhere I've seen those nasty pickets. But, you know one thing I haven't seen?" I paused but my friend remained silent, "I've never, not once seen a picket line of pro-choice people there to help women enter the clinics." More silence.

"This to me is a terrible and condemning reality. And I'm including myself. I never was out there trying to offer support for those brave but harassed women. And while I'm on a roll, have you ever . . . ?"

"Never," my friend whispered, "I should have but now I'm old. Too old for that".

I let the silence remain uninterrupted between us.

"You could be right," she finally said.

"I think I am," I said, "And if I am, by our inactivity--maybe excluding some check writing to Planned Parenthood--we left this political opening to the more motivated people who are trying to take away rights that we believe are protected by the Constitution."

"My biggest worry is the Supreme Court."

"We should be worried. But here's my bottom line--Progressives are very good at marshaling facts and articulating opinions, but not so good as fessing up to how we've become complacent, waiting for government to take care of and protect us, much less getting mobilized and activated in support of the things we value. And until we do, what happened last Tuesday should not be a surprise. Also, though it may be hard to acknowledge, as I said, through our inactivity we helped bring about the debacle. And worst of all," I concluded, "too many of us secretly agreed with Hillary that Trump's people are deplorable."

Before I finished I heard the sound of my friend hanging up.

July 18, 2016--Vice President Mike Pence

If there are moderates flirting with the idea of voting for Donald Trump, take a close look at who's in his caboose and would be, if Trump were elected, one proverbial heartbeat away from the presidency.

Mike Pence.

A recent piece in the New York Times, "A Conservative Proudly Out of Step With His Times," summarizes some of Governor Pence's extremist views--

In 1998, long after it was indisputably proven that cigarette smoking causes cancer, Pence mocked the requirement to include warning labels on cigarette packs, calling it "hysteria." He wrote, "Time for a quick reality check--smoking doesn't kill." He has yet to retract this view.

During George W. Bush's first year in office, when Republicans overwhelmingly were supporting a Medicare prescription drug benefit and a major education reform program, No Child Left Behind, then congressman Pence voted against both.

He wears his fundamentalist beliefs on his sleeve, calling his Christian faith more important to him than even his family. And he is so abstemious that he once said, "to avoid temptation," he would only appear at an event where alcohol is served if his wife were present. (Trump, by the way is a teetotaler not for religious reasons but because his brother died of alcoholism.)

Pence opposes abortion under any and all circumstances, even if it has been determined that the fetus has Down syndrome.

He so passionately opposes same-sex rights that, as governor, last year he worked hard to get the Indiana legislature to pass a law that would make it easier for religious conservatives to refuse service to gay couples. A version of Jim Crow laws designed not to exclude African Americans but homosexuals.

It was only after there were threats from numerous national organizations and businesses that they would boycott Indiana that Pence reluctantly relented.

Though a President Trump would not agree with most of these views, there is always the danger that a Vice President Pence would at any moment wind up in the Oval Office as President Pence.

Even by comparison Newt Gingrich or Chris Christie would look good.

April 21, 2016--Headline: TRUMP TAKES 60.5% OF REPUBLICAN VOTE IN NEW YORK

The real headline should have been--

TRUMP TAKES 57% OF FEMALE VOTE AND 54% OF COLLEGE-EDUCATED VOTE

More than anything else, these percentages have befuddled print and digital media pundits. They do not fit the conventional narrative.

Until the New York votes were tallied, the story has been that college-educated voters do not vote for Trump and, even more starkly, only a quarter or so of Trump supporters are women.

Democrats, liberals have been not-so-secretly thrilled about this. If only Trump can hang in there and win the nomination, turning off well-educated and women voters will guarantee that Hillary will win in a landslide.

Not so fast.

As the New York numbers may portend, it could be that a "presidential" Trump has more appeal among the college-educated and women than generally assumed. If so, this makes him a potential winner in November. Even against Hillary Clinton.

How could that possibly be? Are the New York numbers an aberration, perhaps attributable to the fact that Trump is a real New Yorker and that trumps everything else?

We may be chauvinistic in New York (Trump appeared at his rally last night to the strains of Frank Sinatra's swaggering, "New York, New York"), but we're not stupid.

Finally getting a chance to vote in a primary that has real meaning (the nomination process is usually pretty much over when it gets to be New York's turn) focused voters' attention and I suspect registered Republicans took their choice-making very seriously.

So the question remains--why did Trump do so well among women and the college-educated?

To my female and male feminist friends who are supporting Clinton primality because she is a woman (still an insufficient reason to me) or because she is "good" on women's issues such as equal pay, parenting leave, and the right to choose (all critical issues to me as well), for many non-feminst women (and there are millions of them) Trump is a better choice because he for them is on the right side of the issues that count most for them--mainly economic and national security issues.

Exit polls indicated that Trump's female voters care more about who they feel is best able to keep the country safe from terrorist attacks than who will fight harder to achieve pay equity. They care more about the security of their jobs and their capacity to make enough money to support families and themselves than about keeping abortions legal. They care more about how their children will fare in college and their viability as the nature of the American economy continues to morph into something unrecognizable than about securing paid leave for childcare.

Not that these are unimportant issues--women (and men) can support the right to choose but still vote for someone who wants to limit or even end it because they are not litmus-test voters. For them it appears what James Carville said back in 1992--"It's the economy stupid"--is still the most potent impulse.

And, understandable.

This, then, may be at the heart of Trump's appeal and staying power.

April 4, 2016--Trump Is Post-Peak

A friend wondered if Donald Trump has peaked. 

What with his various stumbles last week--

His campaign manager being charged with assault and battery;

His reckless comments about encouraging Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia to take up their own defense, including developing nuclear weapons;

And his being lured into acknowledging that if abortion becomes illegal, becomes a felony such as manslaughter or even infanticide, which he now supports, of course doctors who perform them would have the be "punished" (Trump's word) but so would women who take the first step in initiating this "crime" when they schedule an appointment and then undergo the procedure.

This latter thought--that women would also need to be "punished"--unleashed such a storm of criticism about Trump's misogyny and outrageous views that he felt the need to "walk it back" as well as change his position at least four times since Friday after stepping in it during a brilliant, badgering interview conducted by Chris Matthews where this "punishment" kerfuffle began.

One would have assumed that this outrage directed at Trump would have come exclusively from those on the political left who believe fervently in a woman's right to choose.

And though the chorus of criticism came mainly from that source, a great deal of it was from those on the right--anti-abortion conservatives, including Ted Cruz, who gleefully joined in the vilification of Trump.

Cruz, in his usual weasely way, said: "Of course we shouldn't be talking about punishing women. We should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world."

Cruz and his ilk were delighted to see Trump blunder into further trouble with female voters though, like Trump, they too want to criminalize abortion but claim that only the doctors should be punished. Calling for the prosecution of women seems to them too Scarlet-Lettery. Or, closer to the truth, too politically risky.

In an email back to my fellow progressive friend, here's what I said about Trump's peaking--

Trump is post-peak. 

Among other things the Trump phenomenon is a classic media tale--build him up then delight in tearing him down. The usual mix of entertainment, distraction, ratings, money, and blood sport. Bread and circuses. Everything about this is just so hypocritical and cynical.  

My favorite thing at the moment is how Trump stumbled into revealing the ugly truth about abortion. A truth GOPers don't in general want to hear or acknowledge-- 

Trump really favors abortion but to pander to the base and have a chance to win the nomination he flip-flopped and became pro-life.  

But what are the implications--to ban it, to make it illegal, not only must the doctors be "punished" (T's word--interesting choice) but also the women. Anti-abortion people have focused on punishing the doctors (including winking at murdering them) but see women opting for abortions to be victims.  

This is more sexist regression--women again perceived to be victims. But, of course, it is women who choose and thus to be consistent in a lunatic, anti-abortion environment, they too must be punished. 

Which is what Trump said.  

And as a result got massacred by the Republican establishment who are afraid to state the full implications of their heinous policy (to ban all abortions with no exceptions) because that would drive even more women than at present away from supporting GOP candidates.  

They've been hiding from this truth for years but Trump ripped off the scab. Or, if you prefer, revealed what's under the rock. 

He may be crazy but in his unpredictability and version of "truth"-telling he's dangerous to Republicans. That's the real reason they hate and want to get rid of him. Not that he's a loser and would bring the party and its current candidates down. 

But because of what Jack Nicholson said, "They can't handle the truth." 

August 3, 2015--The Case for Fetal-Cell Research

I rarely, very rarely reprint articles from the New York Times or any other source. This op ed piece from last Thursday is an exception. 

It was written by Nathalia Holt, a microbiologist and author of Cured: The People Who Defeated HIV.

At a time when both sides in the agonizing debate about abortion, particularly the sale and use of fetal cells and organs for research and those who oppose it are heating their rhetoric to white hot, this sane piece provides a much-needed perspective. Among many things, what is at stake and how emotionally complicated the issues are. Even for those, like Holt, who support fetal-cell research.

The Case for Fetal-Cell Research

We first acquired the stem cells from the red receptacles of a local hospital's labor and delivery ward, delivered to our lab at the University of Southern California. I would reach into the large medical waste containers and pull out the tree-like branches of the placenta, discarded after a baby had been born. Squeezing the umbilical cord that had so recently been attached to a new life, the blood, ladened with stem cells, would come dripping out.

But sometimes a different package would arrive at our lab. Despite my distaste for wringing placentas, I felt more squeamish about what lay inside the unassuming white box. Packed in the ice was a crescent-shaped liver of dark red tissue: a human liver. Just like the placentas that were discarded after birth, this tissue was originally destined for medical waste following an abortion.

Although their fates were similar, their origins couldn't be more different. One source was the byproduct of celebrations, the other a procedure often marked with stigma and shame. While under the bright focus of the microscope the cells we isolated were indistinguishable, in our minds there was a significant difference.

Stem cell research is a big deal in California, thanks to the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, a state agency that has allocated almost $2 billion in research grants since 2004 (federal funding is still highly restricted). To meet the demand for cells, researchers turned to a procedure protected by federal law: abortions. The discarded tissues from terminated pregnancies, performed up to 24 weeks in California, is a rich source of stem cells.

But only certain fetal cells are useful. While embryonic stem cells, derived from fertilized eggs, can give rise to any cell that makes up the body, as fetal cells develop from the embryo they become committed to specific cell lineages. The liver and thymus, for instance, are packed with the precursor cells to the immune system, while the brain contains neural cells that form the nervous system.

To meet the need for these precursor cells, biotech companies form an essential middleman between tissues donated from abortion clinics and the research labs that need it. They insure that informed consent is obtained, harvest the organs, in some cases isolate and purify the cells, and then ship them out to laboratories. There are profits to be made by such middlemen in what critics call the abortion industry. I fetus runs upwards of $850, not including testing, cleaning, or shipping charges, while a vial packed with pure stem cells can fetch more than $20,000.

The use of fetal tissue in research is not new. Fetal cells extracted from the lungs of two aborted fetuses from Europe in the 1960s are still being propagated in cell culture. They're so successful that today we we still use them to produce vaccines for hepatitis A, rubella, chickenpox, and shingles. From two terminated pregnancies, countless lives have been spared.

It isn't just vaccines. Scientists at the University of California, San Diego, have injected neural stem cells into two patients to treat their spinal cord injuries. And progress is being made in the use of stem-dell therapies against cancer, blindness, Alzheimer's , heart disease, H.I.V., and diabetes.

As impressive as this is, for critics the lives saved cannot make up for those that have been lost. And as important as I believe the research was, I sympathize with the sense of loss, even after leaving the [USC] lab for Boston. 

Every week when the plain white FedEx box was delivered, uneasiness permitted the lab. We all knew that the tissues contained within were precious. We planned our experiments meticulously, trying not to waste a single drop. We rationalized using the cells by telling one another that the abortions would happen regardless of whether we used the tissue for research. And we knew that if we didn't use the tissue it was bound for the trash.

Still, even with our preparations, justification, and sheer excitement that accompanied our research, the fetal cells brought sadness. We wished we didn't have them, despite the breakthroughs.

This is why it was difficult to hear Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood's senior director of medical service, discuss the organs of aborted fetuses so casually in surreptitiously recorded conversations with anti-abortion activists posing as fetal-tissue buyers. It's understandable that politicians, angered by her callous tone, are investigating how fetal tissue is handled and how research is conducted, despite the strict institutional review that governs the use of anatomical tissue donated to research.

Politicians aren't the only ones looking for answers. Scientists are searching for alternatives to fetal cells. One solution may lie in reprogramming adult cells, creating what researchers call induced pluriponent stem cells. These cells share the ancestral adaptability of embryonic stem cells, yet can also be manipulated to look and act like fetal stem cells.

And yet, every time I worked with a fetal liver, I imagined that somewhere in California a woman had made an agonizing, heartbreaking decision to end her pregnancy. Yet she had also donated her aborted fetus to medical research. I thought of this as I isolated the golden-tinged cells inside the vent hood. A promise had been made; these cells were not simply trash.

The choice I made is repeated every day, in labs all over the world, Researchers have no say in whether a fetus is aborted or developed into a human body; those decisions are made by women and shaped by politicians. Yet their science, performed on discarded tissue, has the ability to save lives. It already has.