July 10, 2019--White Male Privilege

Continuing to ponder the gender implications of the large vote Trump received in 2016 from white women, Guest Blogger Sharon wrote--

One of the questions I keep hearing is should Dems try to get Obama/Trump voters back or go full out Progressive to motivate more new voters.

As much as I hate many aspects of data mining and micro-targeting, it would probably help if the Dems knew more about these and other more reasonable Trump voters and those Dems that didn’t vote in 2016.

With that said, I suspect the real challenge isn’t what candidates say or how they say it but who they are. There just might not be anyone with a wide enough appeal. I cringed when Bill Maher said the only one who could beat Trump for sure is Oprah. But I fear he may be right.

It’s a tiny sample but when a friend from the Midwest had brunch with a friend from New York, he asked him why he and friends voted for Trump. His reaction was people knew him. For me that was a dis-qualifier. But with so many people not paying attention, this may be the key. 

As for more civilized discourse, an acquaintance assisting at the polls on Democratic primary day last month said a woman drove into the church parking lot screaming at her about representing “the party of death” and how she’d never vote for a Democrat. I thought this might just be a disturbed individual. Then I  googled our moderate businessman Senator and former Governor Mark Warner.  The first entry is an ad to defeat him in 2020 because he sides with the “party of death.” Interesting new branding. Not encouraging. 

I wrote--

The most recent ways the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot is to give so much attention to AOC and three (three!) of her colleagues. This gang of four is the gift that keeps on giving to the GOP now that they have someone even better than Nancy Pelosi to demonologize. How self-defeating can we be.

And then Jill Davenport wrote--

I was just this minute reading your blog about women and I believe you’re exactly right. And Bill Clinton was exactly right when he spoke about white men dying of broken hearts.  

There’s another reason as well, and this affects both genders . . . the white male privilege is on shaky ground, and so is the privilege thereby extended to their female counterparts.  They are terribly fearful of the most awful thing that they can imagine . . . being outnumbered by people of color who by nature they believe should be shining shoes in airports.  

Having a black man for president was an unspeakable affront to the proper order as they see it and they thus feel it needs to be restored.  

Obama brought out the latent and carefully hidden racism which came forth like a toxic flood when T-name took over "my" White House.  All of it is, of course, the result of just fear. 

I thought--

Jill's new idea about how for many conservative women male privilege is extended to them is something important to ponder. For me it helps explain why so many white women voted for Trump and how important it is for progressives to understand this in order to find ways to prevail.

November 8, 2018--A Note To Some of My Liberal Friends

I have been hearing from a number of friends that they are disappointed with the results of the midterm election.

That though Democrats regained control of the House and all that that will allow, Stacey Abrams lost the governor's race in Georgia and in Florida not only did Andrew Gillum not win the governorship but also incumbent Democrat senator Bill Nelson failed to be reelected  But to many of my friends, equally disappointing, Beto O'Rourke in Texas failed to unseat Ted Cruz.

Certainly it would have been wonderful if they had come through and thus I share their disappointment. But it concerns me that as a result some friends are disappointed with the overall results.

"I'm spoiled," one friend said, "I'm greedy and want to win everything."

I get it but is the best way to think about the results? 

It would have been exhilarating if they had won, but electoral politics is not about generating exhilaration. It is about electing people who share our values, have the ability to set needed agendas, win, and then (the hard part) are skillful enough to carry them out.

When I heard about this unhappiness I attempted to push back, saying we have to keep our eyes on the prize. In this case the prize is not only diminishing Trump (this week's election has already begun to do that) but to thwart the worst of his plans and (even more important) reduce his 2020 reelection chances.

And now with Jeff Sessions fired and who knows what else Trump will do in a panic to save himself, Democrats controlling the House is even more of an imperative and very good news.

I argue to my friends that politics is the art of the possible, not the perfect, and to be effective one needs to be able to compromise, set longterm goals, be strategic-minded, persist, and accept the reality that almost everything we contribute to accomplishing not only takes too much time to achieve but, even when we do, will never be fully satisfying. It is often frustrating. It's the grinding nature of the process.

My late friend Flash put it this way. He used to say when we saw this tendency among the people with whom we were working (most were progressives), "Though understandable and based on good intentions, when seeking to bring about change it is imperative to avoid the tendency to be satisfied only with the perfect solution. Unfortunately, since we never can achieve that we run the risk of winding up frustrated and ultimately powerless. Feeling pure may make us feel good about ourselves," he would add, "but if we are seeking to make as much a positive difference as possible, being satisfied only with the ideal we run the danger of rendering ourselves ineffectual."

In some circumstances this could feel as if he was calling for compromising in advance (it can have elements of that) but I continue to think at its heart it is true.

Thus, with all the disappointments, Tuesday's election may turn out to be historic. 

Trump had us on the road to an American version of autocracy. If he (yes he) had maintained control of the House, one more essential check built into our constitutional system would have been blunted and an even more emboldened Trump would have felt empowered to chip away at an accelerated pace at the protections thankfully hardwired into our constitutional system.

That we voted successfully to resist this is the headline from Tuesday, not that Beto and the others lost. In fact, looked at it another way he and they might be thought of as actually having won. 

Frequently, in a process that takes years to culminate, blazing trails and coming close is not only essential--it is often the most difficult part--but also can include elements of exhilaration.

The implications and complexity of this are worth more thought. 

May 16, 2018--Morel Mushroom Time

My friend Murray says that many of his liberal friends are feeling "dispirited." 

I asked why and he told me it's for at least two reasons--first that Trump seems to be doing well, that in spite of his outrageousness and the daily scandals his approval ratings are rising, perhaps into the mid-forties; and people he knows are fed up with all the breaking news. It's wearing them down, getting under their skin. As he put it, "They've had it up to here."

Another friend, Nancy, told me the other morning about a meeting she attended of Democrat activists who are attempting to nominate people who have a change of unseating incumbents in the November election. "The first meeting of this kind a couple of months ago attracted 60 participants," she said, "Those who attended were full of energy and optimism. Last week there was a followup meeting. Only 30 showed up."

When I asked why that might be she said because people are growing pessimistic as they contemplate the direction in which the country is moving. More following Trump than toward moderation.

And then I heard from another friend, Seth, who lives in Washington, DC, who is very bright, well informed, and activated. For months on Facebook he has been posting tough pieces that offer a sharp critique of Trump and his most fervent followers, both those in the government as well as politically-engaged Trumpians. 

In response to something I posted about reconnecting with what had happened during the week in which I did not watch any TV, Seth posted a response on Facebook. He has been a very inventive and successful chef and from that experience wrote--

Here's my two cents--turn the news back off. It isn't getting any better. Reason and logic will not overcome and we are all just waiting til midterms to find out if half the country really do support this administration, or if all the decent smart people just figured that the last election was a wash and didn't show up. 

Anyway, the more important current situation is that morel mushrooms should be popping up in the woods all around you right now. And for me there is nothing that soothes away the politics like a long walk in the woods. 

I have switched my political energy to mushroom hunting--not sure if living in DC makes it easier or tougher to drop out, but dropping out lets me sleep better.  

I am an avid recruiter for the sport of mushroom hunting. I think you will eventually find the coming chanterelle season to hold more anticipation than the Mueller investigation.

I love Seth, I really do, and I understand his feelings, frustration, and inclination to drop out. Especially if that includes morels. And I know he is writing this in part with tongue in cheek. But I also sense that he is feeling politically dispirited and that is not a good thing.

We need Seth and Nancy and Murray and everyone like them who see Trump and his administration to be a dangerous catastrophe to hang in there and fight, particularly when feeling dispirited. Because if we and people like us drop out and turn to our version of mushroom hunting, as a people, as a nation we are cooked. 

If in November Republicans retain their House majority, a walk in the woods will not be sufficient to distract us from what is surely to occur during the next two to six years.

Republicans, conservatives, Trump people will not be out searching for mushrooms. While we are, they'll be marching in majority numbers to local, state, and national voting booths. They are passionate and organized.

This is not the time to feel sorry for ourselves. There's a war going on and we have to engage in it. I'm for walks in the woods and gathering morels but we also have to find the right balance to do what we need to do to maintain our sanity--I get that--but also how to fight and win. 

April 23, 2018--Contortions

It has been painful to witness progressives, Democrats twisting themselves into contortions as they attempt to come to grips with what is happening with the North Koreans.

Their problem is less with Kim Jong-un and the North Koreans than with how to think about and react to Donald Trump's involvement.

Remember how during the 2016 primaries he said it would be his "honor" to meet face-to-face with Kim? He was roundly criticized and mocked by both his Republican and Democratic opponents as being naive and inexperienced in the world of global diplomacy. He was chastised for asserting that traditional forms of diplomacy (which included many months of pre-summit negotiations between lower-level staffs) were the necessary prerequisites to meetings between heads of states. Particularly hostile ones.

Think Kissinger meeting privately with Zhou Enlai before Nixon would consider getting together with Zhou much less Mao.

Failing to recall how neophyte Barack Obama was roundly criticized and mocked by his political opponents (Hillary Clinton leading the pack) during the 2008 campaign when he declared he would be willing to meet face-to-face with the leaders of Iran and North Korea in the search for peace, progressives, opposing Trump now in such ahistorical, knee-jerk fashion are being, well, intentionally forgetful, hypocritical, or both.  

So now we not only have a heads-of-state meeting on the books for late May/early June, but we appear to have Kim making all sorts of preemptive concessions about his nuclear weapons program.

First he announced he was suspending all testing of missiles and nuclear warheads. Then, again without demanding anything in return, he announced over the weekend that he will be shutting down his nuclear weapons research and fabrication facilities. He wants, he says, to turn his focus to the collapsed North Korean economy.

This latter promise is discombobulating progressives. On Saturday and Sunday, for example, on CNN and especially MSNBC, former senior Obama national security advisors and staff have been all over the airwaves struggling with how to think about and respond to these overtures.

First, and most appropriately, they expressed skepticism, warning that the North Koreans for decades have made promises of this sort that they haven't kept. Then they dismissed the evidence that the extra-severe sanctions imposed on the North Koreans, mainly by the U.S. and China, have led to the further hollowing out of the North Korean economy, such as it is, and this is forcing Kim to the table. 

They are ignoring this evidence because, as with Kim's pledge to scale back his weapons program, not to have criticized what seems to be unfolding would give tacit if not overt credit to Trump, as unlikely and crazy and as confounding as what may be happening might turn out to be. 

Liberals so despise Trump that they cannot bear to give some credit, much less offer any praise for his leading the effort to bring this about.

Most outrageously, if Trump pulls this off he would be a leading candidate to receive a Nobel Peace Prize. If the unthinkable were to occur, he as well as Obama would have one. 

Worse--all of us in our heart-of-hearts know Obama didn't really deserve his whereas if we manage to make a verifiable deal with the North Koreans, Trump will have earned his.

Sometimes the world is too confounding to deal with. This may turn out to be one of those occasions.

Kissinger and Zhou Enlai

May 25, 2017--Beat Up

I'm getting beat up by some progressive friends who feel I am again being too easy on Donald Trump.

He's so execrable, they are saying, how can I express anything but contempt for him? When the other day I noted something to take seriously in his speech in Saudi Arabia, I could feel a number of people I've known for years deciding never to speak to me again.

Though I probably deserve some of the criticism, trying to explain myself, to one I said--

For me it's about finding ways to talk to each other because Trump supporters want to influence me as much as I'm eager to understand and have an impact on them. And I am not certain about that many things that I feel they need to agree to in advance for us to engage in deep and productive conversations and friendships. For me, everything begins with understanding. Not agreeing. 

Trump people are as concerned about the country as we. It's just that we disagree about many of the things that concern us. But it is concern that unites us and so we refuse to cross each other off our lists and instead look for ways to find some common ground. It's too easy to give up because we approach things differently. And ruinous, in my view, because if there can't be some healing we're cooked.  

So I try to work on that. I may be naive about this but for whoever claims to be liberal, to me, the test of their sincerity is how open they are (how I am) to ideas about which we disagree. 

Often, it works quite well here in Maine. There are a lot of good conversations among those who disagree, there's considerable listening, and I sense some coalescence around issues that involve poor people, children, and the elderly. With poor being the common denominator. For example, most of the conservatives I know are in favor of food stamps. Actually, many would like to see the funding increased. They also want to see the abuse pruned out. So do I. We've also had some terrific talks about Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and as a result seen some perspectieve shifting.

In response to this another friend said--"None of this matters. He obstructed justice. Period. A criminal offense." 

Then I received this email from Dr. S, the east coast's best audiologist--

Loved your two latest blogs. Your interactions with Jack got me thinking of more than just hearing well again. The deplorable barbarians just want to “tear it all down, start again.” I guess I would ask, what makes one think that building it all up from ground zero would result in a better outcome?  

I give you credit- -I don’t think I would have the patience, compassion, or whatever else is necessary to maintain an effective connection with any of them. Reason is, their decisions will have and have had a negative impact on our collective health, security, and environment- just to name a few concerns.

I responded--

Thanks for the tip of the hat for recent blogs. I am trying to stay sane even while crazily trying in my small ways to seek some common ground among people who are now more comfortable hurling missiles at each other. 

Dr. S said--

I need some suggestions on how to better relate to those who choose self-interest above all, profit over health, ignorance over education, pollution over clean air and water, denial of clear facts over reality . . .    

You do have your work cut out for yourself. I suspect, and hope I am wrong, that most are unreachable.

To that, I said--

One suggestion about the dichotomies you list--don't assume they aren't more bipartisan than we might think or like. Lots of progressives are greedy (choose profit) educated but still ignorant (biased i.e. "deplorables"), and do not do much more than complain about clean air and water. And around aspects of other social issues like health care, progressives are also prone to assert their own beliefs and ideologies over evidence-based knowledge. 

If we start by agreeing that both sides of the argument are not perfect, we have a chance to find some common ground. Which we need to find a way to do.

As my Grandma Zwerling used to say--"We'll see."

May 24, 2017--"It Does Boil Down to Impotence"

In response to my "Vile Scumbag" posting, a good friend who is about as smart as anyone I know, sent me this note--

As I read the headline [to your piece], I thought to myself "Ha! I feel the same way," until I noticed that it was actually a quote from me.  

I am exhausted by the current state of things, I am enraged at the carelessness with which the fate of our democracy is being handled. I am at a loss for how to understand these same Tea-publicans being willing to murder over flag burning, but defend 45's collusion with Russia.  

I am maddened by the poorest, least educated, most at risk, segments of our society fighting for less and less for themselves, and more for the people keeping them poor and making them sick. I am so so tired of radical fundamentalists calling themselves "conservative" when nothing about their agenda is about "conserving" anything, not the constitution, not the rule of law, not the environment, not our foreign allies, not our treaties, and certainly not our reputation and standing as a global leader.  

At this point, to my eyes, it appears that the executive branch is just toppling over anything within arms reach, just to show it can. Then, on top of all of it, this is the most bald-faced cash grab probably ever in the history of the presidency. Not releasing taxes, not divesting from the family businesses, putting close family in executive level positions, massive tax breaks, and the legislative is choking on its own bankrolls rendering it incapable of governing ethically.  

Ultimately, it does boil down to impotence. Impotence and ineffectiveness that have me apoplectic. Why are the progressives still chanting "hey hey ho ho" when it never did anything. Why is there no attempt to bring the moderates onto the side of forward thinking. Why aren't there a dozen super-pacs on the progressive side, matching lobbyists from the dark side dollar for dollar.  

To take the Tea-Party analogy too far, the liberals are the red-coats, standing in formation, defeat after defeat, sticking with the tried and true, while the Radical Fundamentalist wing of the GOP has gone undercover and infiltrated everything in an all out guerilla war. They have [gained control of] state and local government, the judiciary, and now the executive.  

The Democrat response--"Hey let's make another formation!"

Then he added--

Sorry if this was too much of a rant. Generally, these days I am trying to stick to snarky one-line zingers.

Myself, I prefer his essay-long writing. Hopefully, including thoughts about why progressives are in about as much of a rage as Trump's people. All the while, criticizing his supporters for being so angry. I guess it all depends what one is angry about. 

May 22, 2017--"Vile Scumbag"

A friend, referring to Donald Trump, posted this on Facebook--

Vile scumbag. How I so purely and truly despise this spineless sack of shit coward. When will the carnage end? It is just so exhausting.

About all other subjects, my progressive friend is an otherwise moderate and thoughtful person. He is also literate. But here he is so in a rage that he's sputtering semi-coherently.

I have other liberal friends, all of whom oppose the death penalty, who are so crazed that they are cheering the death of Fox News' founder, Roger Ailes and they are so excited that he is dead that they are wishing the same fate for Steve Bannon and Rupert Murdock. I am sure others are on their death list.

When I try to get them to tell me why they have these feelings of murderous fury they say, in effect, isn't it obvious. Two words--Donald and Trump.

When I press, some confess that their rage is connected to the anxiety and fear Trump and his presidency have unleashed.

They are afraid about what will happen to the environment and the Earth (the New York Times on Saturday published a piece about the accelerating melting of the Ross Ice Shelf in Antartica--it is occurring so rapidly that many scientists are saying that by the end of the century, sea levels will rise by up to six feet, enough to inundate much of New York City and south Florida); they are worried about their jobs (many are professionals who work for or are funded by the rapidly shrinking government); they have deep fears about what their children will be facing (many are mired in tens of thousands of dollars of student debt and living in their parents' basements); and almost all are panicking about their 401(k)s.

Above all, most are feeling unable to do anything about it.

Rage comes largely from feeling powerless.

These are very efficacious people who are used to helping make things happen. They pride themselves on their ability to take on complicated problems and move them toward solution. They have been upwardly mobile and feel that this is because they have earned their way and deserve to be part of the professional and managerial classes.

Now, as they see things, everything is changing, becoming upended by the barbarians who have seized control. Used to feeling accomplished and even superior, they are now finding themselves being treated disdainfully. Being dismissed. And worse than death, being ignored.

The "deplorables" are in charge. The knowledge my friends have acquired, the history they have participated in shaping is no longer, they feel, valued. And since they cannot figure out what to do, what to think, or how to fight back, rather than dig in for the long haul and devote themselves to a sustained and relentless political and cultural resurgence, when together, they complain, they fulminate.

When I ask them what they think will make a difference, they say joining the "resistance" movement. When I ask what's planned, they say more marches. When I ask when the next one is scheduled, they say they do not know. When I ask how long ago was the last one, they tell me they are not sure. Maybe a month or two.

I tell them I don't think this will get the job done. In the latest polls, last week, 84 percent of Republicans say they think Donald Trump is doing a good job. Considering what he has been up to, we need to figure out why that is. We need to figure out how to push these numbers and, forgive me, figure out ways to reach out to some of them and get them to consider other ways to think about what's going on. About how they are being manipulated and taken advantage of.

In the meantime, some friends say they plan to post more on Facebook.

December 22, 2016--Liberals Need to Fess Up

If we progressives are to rescue our political souls we need to begin by doing some fessing up.

I'll begin and then maybe you will consider doing the same.

Since 1981, Ronald Reagan's first year as president, most liberals have been big beneficiaries of conservative fiscal policy. Especially tax policy.

Though publicly rueing the dramatic cuts he and Congress pushed through, privately and unconfessedly we have done very well.

The Reagan tax cuts followed years later by the Bush tax cuts (re-upped by Barack Obama) were of benefit primality to upper-middle-income people. Not just the top 1-percent but most who were just upper-middle-class. Millions and millions of Americans with advanced education comfortably slotted into the professional, knowledge-working sectors of the economy.

People like me.

These are approximate numbers that reveal how I have fared thanks to Reagan, Bush, and even Obama--

Since 2001 when the Bush cuts took effect, Rona and I have paid at least $5,000 less a year in taxes. Over the course of these 15 years this totals $75,000.

Not bad, not bad at all.

This savings funds a lot of our lifestyle since it is discretionary income.

And the good times for us in this regard, with Donald Trump about to become president, look as if they will continue to roll. Maybe even accelerate. The stock market is so happy that the Dow is about to top 20,000 and our portfolio of stocks in only six weeks, thanks to the Trump Rally, has gone up more than 6-percent.

No bad, not bad at all.

All the time this has been happening, I have moaned and ranted here and among equally-privledged friends about the unfairness of the economic system, focusing my outrage primarily on how, as the result of right-wing fiscal policy, inequality has grown worse.

While all the time I and we have been thriving, millions are being left behind.

This looks and feels like hypocrisy to me.

And among the hypocrites you will find me.

Then, what else has been going on?

Again, since Reagan's time, white working-class and lower-middle-class Democrats have been drifting rightward. When the media noticed this phenomenon, they called these voters "Reagan Democrats," and a few weeks ago these same Democrats became "Trump Democrats," and their votes are propelling him to the White House.

All the while, what have many of us liberals been up to? Trying to enjoy ourselves, leaving the social policy agenda to Republican conservatives who have delivered more to us than the people whom they claim they represent.

I don't know about you, but I haven't noticed myself sending an additional $5,000 "equity" check to the IRS every April 15th with my tax returns.

Instead, at that time, I'm typically planning my next vacation in Maine and trip to Italy.

If we don't begin by taking an honest look at our own lives we will have no chance of overtaking the political forces at work. We used to be the party of "the working man." Now we are the party of self-indulgence and condescension.

More about that tomorrow.

November 28, 2016--Listen Liberals

Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal is a must read for progressives who are confused, frustrated, or just plain furious about why our preferred candidate is not the president-elect, ensconced up in Chappaqua, assembling her cabinet.

He is the author, recall, of What's the Matter With Kansas? which exposed the truth about how the conservative establishment backed by big-buck contributors such as the Koch Brothers figured out how to hoodwink Kansans among others by promising to make their lives great again--they would deliver on all the social issues that at the time were tormenting traditional-minded voters, from abortion and gay rights to prayer in school but not evolution in school.

If elected, the Republican Party promised it would end affirmative action and the voters would in return agree to tax cuts to benefit only the top five percent.

What of course happened was that the wealthy got their loopholes but average Americans did not have their social issues addressed.

Gays now can marry in all 50 states, evolution is still being taught in most schools, women still have the right to seek an abortion (often sadly having to run the gauntlet to secure one), and prayer in schools continues to be unconstitutional.

So now Frank turns his attention to the collapsed liberal majority. His subtitle says it well--What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?

If you haven't done so, read it and weep.

With a wealth of data and other forms of evidence, sardonically, he lays out how the old Democratic coalition of constituents has slipped further and further behind while progressive leaders offer lip service explanations and support policies that do not even chip away at inequality. In fact, they have voted for policies like the Bush tax cuts that have made things worse while at the same time for the liberal professional elites things have actually gone quite well.

Among liberals, Frank demonstrates, a kind of political ju jitsu is taking place that is spookingly similar to that practiced by Republican conservatives in the heartland of Kansas and the rest of red-county America.

In his words, "A form of corporate and cultural elitism has largely eclipsed the party's old middle-class commitment. For certain favored groups in a handful of cities, this has meant prosperity. But for the nation as a whole, it is a one-way ticket into the abyss of inequality."

And Frank does a good job of vividly describing that abyss--

There was a time when average Americans knew whether we were going up or going down--because when the country prospered, the people prospered, too. But these days things are different. From the middle of the Great Depression [of the 1930s] up to 1980, the lower 90 percent of the population, a group we might call the "American people," took home some 70 percent of the growth in the country's income. 

Look at the same numbers beginning in 1997--from the beginning of the New Economy boom to the present--and you find that this same group, the American people, pocketed none of America's income growth. Their share of the good times was zero. The gains they harvested after all their hard work were nil. The upper 10 percent of the population--the country's financiers, managers, and professionals--ate the whole thing. The privileged are doing better than at any time since economic records began.

The last chapter of Listen, Liberal, rather than the current, "Liberal Gilt," could easily have been, "Why Donald Trump Won the Election." And the chapter after that should be, "It's Time, Liberals, to Fess Up, Organize, and Fight Back."

November 17, 2016--Don't Turn Off Your TV

Many of my liberal friends have been telling me that the results of the election and the current state of the transition are so upsetting that they've stopped reading newspapers and watching TV.

Having similar inclinations, I understand this.

In spite of this, I also feel we have to resist the impulse and make sure we're watching a lot of network and cable news, that we're reading all the newspapers and magazines we can tolerate, that we are spending time surfing the internet for political stories and insights, and are pushing ourselves to talk with each other about our frustrations and, much more important, what happened and what to do, to actually do, to make a difference, to recapture the agenda.

Republican conservatives have been adept at keeping in touch with who their people are and their issues and for decades have been organizing themselves to shape the discourse and gain power from the local to national levels.

Progressives? Not so much. Especially when it comes time to move beyond check-writing and self-referential smart-talk.

I'll be frank--what I've been hearing from liberal friends is that they are tuning off the news because dealing with it is making them unhappy. To quote many, "When I turn off the TV, I immediately feel better."

In response I have begun to say that, "With all due respect and affection, this sounds indulgent. Being an engaged citizen is not about feeling good. It's often about feeling bad and in spite of that, because of that seeking ways to become productively activated."

It's gotten to the point that some people I've known for many years don't want to talk with me anymore. Or, if we talk, want only to speak about happy, diverting things.

But unless more of us who opted out even before the election, pretty much having become disenchanted with politics, leaving the protection of our rights to governments, unless we reengage and get mobilized what we have seen recently is what we will likely experience for the rest of our lives.

One friend yesterday, finally exasperated by my unwillingness to stop hectoring him, said, "OK. I hear you. But what should we do? What should I do?"

Here's what I told him--

• Write letters to the editor and op-ed pieces
• Call in to radio talkshows, especially right-wing ones, and take on their demagoguery
• Write to Democratic members of the House demanding they vote to replace Nancy Pelosi as minority leader
• Write to whomever makes the decision about who you prefer to be the next head of the Democratic National Committee
• Support, volunteer for, send checks to organizations such as the ACLU that are dedicated to promulgating and protecting liberal rights and values
• Consider running for public office--school board membership is a good place to start
• Spend vacation time driving the blue highways of America and talk with, listen to people at the lunch counters of local diners
• Keep the TV on and watch not only PBS but Fox News, especially Fox News
• Get started fighting back
• Never give up!

Richard Nixon

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.

October 24, 2106--A Progressive's Dinner

At a gathering of a group of friends the other night we were talking about . . . what else.

It was after the Billy Bush tape had been in wide circulation and the consensus in the room of progressives was that this would be the end, finally, of . . .

No one was even comfortable pronouncing his name.

And then we slipped into our own not-really-that-funny version of Saturday Night Live where all of us played The Donald role. No one took on Hillary.

After a few more drinks and lots of satirical laughter one of my friends turned to give me a hard time about some of my blog postings. It didn't take long for a few others, equally well fortified, to join in.

It seems the problem is that they feel in my efforts to "understand" the reasons so many are supporting Trump, in spite of his many outrages, I was lending credibility--one said "legitimacy"--to his candidacy. By taking them and, by association, him seriously.

"He doesn't deserve to be taken seriously," another said.

"What should I be doing?" I asked, a bit agitated, "Turn my blog into a platform of support for Hillary?" This came out hotter than I intended.

There was some indication that some thought this was in fact what I should be doing. The stakes were that high. Fascism was threatening. It was not time for nuance or analytics. There would be time for that after the election. What's called for is partisanship. Every vote counts. I should be helping to bring out potential Clinton voters.

At least that's what I thought was being implied. All hands on political deck until he is defeated, gone and forgotten. So we can settle into four more years of what we have had for the past eight. Not perfect, but better than the alternative. Then there would be time to tweak Hillary's agenda. But only after a few more liberals are appointed to the Supreme Court.

"But shouldn't who are about to win recognize that Hillary will not just be our president but Trump's people's as well?"

"They're bigots, homophobic, Islamophobes, misogynists, white supremacists. You really want to have anything to do with people of this kind?"

"In many ways, I'd prefer not too," I confessed, "But since they're Americans too and there are apparently almost enough of them to elect a president--though I've also been writing that there are lots of Trump people who are none of these things--shouldn't we, who call ourselves liberals, who pride ourselves on understanding life's subtleties, shouldn't we be making an effort to understand more about what is tearing our country apart so that maybe we can help heal some of the breeches and distrust."

"It's a waste of time," a friend said. "These people are not interested in changing. They're dug in in their beliefs."

"I know, Hillary called them deplorables who are unredeemable. That may be what she thinks--those were her words--but I don't. I believe in the possibility of change for almost everyone. But that can only come, I feel, from a deep and empathetic understanding. It may be unpleasant and messy but that's what my definition of being liberal--minded means--being open to even listen to ideas we hate. Especially that. And if we don't take a step in this direction we shouldn't expect those who have very different views will take the initiative."

"This all sounds good but is too unrealistic to make anyone feel optimistic."

"Let me try out one more idea. How many of us have contributed money to Clinton's campaign?"

"Does giving money to Bernie count?" Everyone laughed but only two of ten indicated that they had contributed to Hillary.

"What about active electioneering? Like planning to go to a purple state and canvassing or making phone calls?" No one had done or planned to do that.

"That goes for me too," I said, "I haven't given her any money and I haven't been making phone calls to undecided voters. I'm not proud of that. But I've tried to read everything, talk to people like tonight, and I even to communicate with Trump supporters. But that's all pretty passive considering what's at stake. Having fessed up to that, it's hard for me to feel good about my open mindedness. But one final thing and then let's get back to having fun."

"As soon as possible," one said.

"So you have nothing but dismissive and disparaging things to say about Trump voters?"

"Don't they deserve it? Have you looked at who shows up as his rallies?"

"I do look at who they are. And that's my final point--they also look like those who show up at military recruiting offices. You're not OK with them as voters, but how do you feel about them as soldiers in our volunteer army?" Silence.

"How many of us have friends or family members who signed up to go to Afghanistan, Iraq, or just to be in the army?" More silence. Eye contact had broken off.

"Sorry to bring you down," I said. And to lighten things up again asked, "How do you like Alec Baldwin's Trump?"

October 3, 2106--Armageddon

It surprised me the other morning when Jack said that we are approaching Armageddon.

He's as solid a citizen as there is, totally rational, totally secular, totally progressive. He of all people was talking this way?

It might have been a response to what Joe said. Joe, a Trump supporter from even before Donald formally announced he was running for president.

"I'm for him," he responded when I challenged him at that time, "because he knows how to get things done." This before the full extent of how he actually "gets things done" was well known.

On Thursday Joe said, "If Trump loses the election, or even if he wins, I predict there will be a civil war within 20 years."

"Are you being serious?" I asked, "Or just wanting to be provocative now that your boy is on the path to defeat?"

"I'm being serious. There's so much dissension, so many angry people on all sides, race relations are heading for an explosion. And then there are all those rich people while everyone else is struggling and falling behind."

That's when Jack said that about Armageddon.

"You agree with Joe?" I was incredulous. This is the first time Jack agreed with him about anything, You think we're headed for a civil war?"

Jack who was sending money to Bernie before Hillary won the nomination and since then has been a fervent supporter of hers was being serious, which caused me to be concerned. Not about him but about the possibility of what they both were predicted.

"You talking Armageddon because of what Joe said about race and economic inequality?"

"Basically yes. And of course they're related. On a collision course."

"This feels very pessimistic. You tend, as most liberals, to be optimistic because as a liberal you think things can be improved by human intervention. Including by governments."

"In general that's true. But even progressives are fed up with governments. Yes, there are some things that are working well. For me, at my age, that includes Medicare. Though I know it among other things is bankrupting the country. When the due-bills arrive, that's when Joe's prediction will come true. When the money runs out and people don't get their medical care or Social Security. Then, watch out."

"He's right," Joe jumped back in, surprised to find Jack agreeing to anything he had to say. "It may be a trivial example, but have you driven on the roads lately?"

"Obviously. Even to get here to the diner."

"Didn't you tell me that because of the condition of the roads you had to get your tires aligned three times in eight months? And that you had to replace all four tires after a year and a half? Michelins? How much did all that set you back?"

"For all of it," Rona said, "more than a thousand."

"Who is responsible for the roads?" Joe asked.

"I guess the county."

"And what is the county?" Not waiting for me to answer he said, "Government that's what it is. Government."

"Your point?"

"Among other reasons, that's contributing to making people crazy. Fortunately for you you can come up with the thousand, but for a lot of folks, including right here, that's a month's take-home pay. And then, like it or not, agreeing with me or not, when they see people with food stamps and subsidized heat, and all that, the resentment builds and will, as I said, boil over when things get scarcer and more unequal. Civil war, pure and simple."

"Armageddon pure and simple," Jack chimed in not smiling so I knew he was being serious.

When later in the day I told another, even more progressive friend about this, he pulled me close to him and whispered, almost  as a non sequitur, "We never should have sent troops to Iraq or anywhere else in that region. What we should have done, what we should do, is announce that anyone that attacks Israel will get nuked."

Incredulous, I said, "Nuked? That would lead to Armageddon, wouldn't it?"

He thought for a moment, shrugged, and said,"That's where we're we headed anyway so . . ."

September 13, 2016--The "Deplorables"

Candidates for the presidency should stay away from private fundraisers.

Or if they do attend (and they all seem to feel the need to) they should not make comments but just go around the room and say thank you a lot.

First of all, these bundler-sessions are not private. Anyone running for the highest office in the land who doesn't know that with smart phones nothing is private is not qualified to be commander in chief where at least a few things should be secure from Russian hackers.

Second, when hobnobbing in 15,000-square-foot houses with fellow one-percenters, they are prone to utter what they really think. And telling this kind of truth can be fatal to one's aspirations.

Hillary stepped in it last week at a Manhattan big-bucks fundraiser just as Mitt Romney did in 2012 in Boca Raton and Barack Obama did before him in 2008 in Beverly Hills where among like-minded folks he thought his remarks about average people "clinging" to their guns and religion were off the record.

Romney did him one better when he opined about the "47 percent" of Obama's supporters who were "takers," "dependent" on the government for their sustenance, while the well-oiled Floridians and of course Mitt himself were the "makers."

And now Hillary will forever be associated with her comments that "half" of Trump's supporters fit into "a basket of deplorables"--a presumably unwashed species of the "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic--you name it."

Those who shelled out $10,000 a pop to see her, the New York Times reported, applauded and laughed.

A few things to take away from this--

When will we hear equivalent outrage from the same progressives who justifiably condemned Romney for his 47-percent calumnies?

I think of my colleague progressives as fact-based thinkers who also strive to be openminded and fair. If I have that right, after they get over how to think about Hillary Clinton's alleged pneumonia and why she didn't tell the truth about it for 48 hours (when she was contagious, by the way), what will they have to say about her castigating "deplorables"? I suspect, alas, not very much.

Also, will they have anything to say about what the "clinging," "47-percent," and "deplorables" comments have in common? About how when members of the elite condescend and look down their noses at the underclass it makes those pt-upon people crazier and motivates them to embrace Donald Trump even  more fervently.

Then, as a matter of political strategy, candidates should be careful not to too lightly turn adjectives into nouns--

I suppose unsavories and amorals and obtuses work in some clever circumstances, but transmuting deplorable into deplorables can lose one the election.

March 10, 2016--Dangerous Election

The most recent issue of The New York Review of Books includes a cautionary article by Michael Tomasky about the presidential election, "The Dangerous Election."

He attempts to ferret out and explicate the concerns of voters from both parties.

Here is the heart of what he has to say--

The developments within both parties reflect the long-standing anxieties that liberals and conservatives feel about the country, anxieties that have only grown sharper as time has passed. For liberals, the chief concern for thirty-five years now has been about the unfairness of the economy—virtual wage stagnation for most workers, huge gains for the top 1 percent, and the lax regulatory and enforcement regimes that have permitted those outcomes, along with slow recovery from the most recent recession. 

For conservatives, for about the same period of time, the main worry has been what is broadly called “culture,” by which we really mean the anger and resentment felt by older white Americans about the fact that the country is no longer “theirs” and that their former status and authority no longer seem what they once were. This rubric takes in a number of issues—immigration, especially illegal immigration; same-sex marriage; a black president in the White House; all the things that conservatives bundle under the reviled label “political correctness.” In their minds it is some sort of taint that has infected every institution in this once-great nation and is destroying it daily before their eyes.

What's wrong with this is that it is full of stereotypical thinking. 

As common on the left as the right.

According to Tomasky, liberals are interested in economic issues while conservatives are concerned primarily with those that are cultural.

This is so oversimplified as to make his analysis useless. Actually, harmful.

Conservatives are as interested in economic issues as Democrats. Manay may have a different perspective--less focused on inequality and more on tax policy and deregulation--but since by no means are all conservatives affluent, those in the middle class have also experienced wage stagnation since the 1970s. And are as frustrated about this and feeling as betrayed as those on the left.

And to imply that liberals do not have passionate cultural concerns suggests one has been oblivious to the powerful agenda pursued by Democrats to assure equal rights to women--the right to choose is as cultural an issue as the fight to overturn it. Further, the ongoing campaign to expand and protect the rights of various minorities from people of color to those from the LGBT community are also cultural  Affirmative action and the right to marry who one loves for many progressives trumps economic concerns.

It is important not to mischaracterize those with whom we have differences. If we want to heal the social divide and find ways to work with those with whom we disagree, we need to avoid such superficial thinking. 

If we feel that there are social maladies that require addressing, that this, in Tomasky's words is "a dangerous election," it is essential to begin with a carful diagnosis. Promoting stereotypes is the opposite of being helpful.

December 16, 2014--Ready for Elizabeth Warren?

Elizabeth Warren has the perfect job for her. Senior senator from Massachusetts.

But like another senator, this one from Illinois, though she has served in the Senate for just two years, already there is a groundswell of interest in her running for President in 2016.

We know how the former junior senator from Illinois who in 2008 did manage to be elected President worked out.

So this is just what we don't need--another Harvard Law School professor as a potential President.

But support for her is growing exponentially since she took the lead in opposing the recent appropriation bill to fund the federal government. As an academic specialist in bankruptcy law and a progressive she was the ideal person to take the lead. Her objection to the bill was because buried in it was a provision to gut that part of Dodd-Frank that is designed to rein in big banks' ability to invest in risky derivatives, the loses from which would be covered again by the taxpayers, just as they were six years ago when these very sort of practices nearly bankrupted the country and cost us many billions to bail them out.

But President Warren?

She is adamantly denying that she is running or has any interest in running. And as long as Hillary Clinton is healthy enough to run, Warren undoubtedly will be true to her word. But if Hillary is seen to falter or falls down again and hits her head on the bathtub, Elizabeth Warren will be first in line to announce her candidacy.

In my work I have known hundreds of professors and the one thing they love more than anything is professing. Professing before as large an audience as possible.

Considering that whoever runs and ultimately gets elected will face so much resistance from Congress to any legislative agenda that nothing but the minimum will have any change of becoming law. There is that much rancorous partisanship on both sides plus a powerful antigovernment movement within the Republican congressional caucus. Thus, what we should be looking for in a potential president is someone who knows how to lead and, especially, run things.

Run things such as the Pentagon, the veterans administration, the IRS, the C.I.A., the federal health care system, federal involvement in education policy, whatever environmental protection programs that will manage to survive, border security and immigration policy, and of course our various global diplomatic and military involvements.

Is Elizabeth Warren ready for all this and more? Has she demonstrated any capacity to take on any of this? I think not.

But among progressives who want an ideologue in the race there is a growing ReadyForWarren movement that parallels ReadyForHillary. And money is flowing in, mainly from the West and East Coasts. Again, just what we don't need.

Above all, if we want an effective president, not just one who makes us feel warm and fuzzy and affirms our pieties, we should be looking for someone who has a demonstrated track record of actually having run something big, run it effectively, and one  who, like Warren to her considerable credit, knows that this time around, "It's the middle class, stupid."

September 4, 2014--Fear Itself

Reading Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, the first of Rick Perlstein's monumental trilogy of books about the contemporary conservative movement, there is this about Fred Koch, the Koch Brothers' sire, and his comrades in 1960 when they were working largely out of view to promote the conservative movement. Specifically about the role of fear in American politics:

. . . Conservatism was a conservatism of fear. They harped endlessly on the "communist income tax," how the economy would be decimated by inflation every time a worker got a raise. (Taft Republicans, joked The Nation, feared "only God and inflation.") Their scapegoats were unnamed subversives who were invisibly destroying the system from within: "I am at a lose to understand the current public attitude deflating the inflation psychology," Fred Koch wrote in a self-published pamphlet. "Perhaps it is propaganda, of which we have been fed much of late--pink propaganda, in as much as, in my opinion, Russia's first objective is to destroy our economy through inflation."  

Politically the philosophy lost when it won [my italics]: if you removed the fear of subversion by catching subversives, you ended the fear that brought you to power in the first place--although, of course, you could never catch all the subversives, for the conspiracy was a bottomless murk, a hall of mirrors, a menace that grew greater the more it was flushed out. 'The Communists have infiltrated both the Democrat and Republican Parties for many years," Koch wrote. "If we could only see behind the political scenes, I am sure we would be shocked."

Thinking about this early the other morning, I speculated that there are basically two underlying sources  from which political power derives--

Fear is one force. Real, imagined, and often, by politicians, manipulated. Recall that during the 2008 primary campaign Joe Biden, famously calling Rudy Giuliani out as a fear merchant, said that everything he says is made up of a "noun, verb, and 9/11."

When looking at the social psychological reasons why people, without coercion, will give up their freedom to authoritarian leaders, Erich Fromm in Escape from Freedom, offers evidence that they do so because they either have real things to fear (economic collapse, external military threat, discrimination) or are fear-driven in their orientation. Like the Kochs they see threats all around even when they do not in fact exist.

Progressives, on the other hand, are willing to give up some of their autonomy--freedom, if you will--for the collective good. At least the collective good as they perceive it--that no one should go homeless or hungry or untreated if they are ill. Seeking the greatest good for the greatest number is what drives them politically.

As with conservatives, there is with them also the possibility, and often the reality, of self-delusion. And they have not always been reluctant to embrace their own manipulative methods. What one may claim to be the greatest good for others is not often put to the test--asking those for whom decisions are being made if they perceive them to be in their best interest.

So, in the first instance the instinct for a version of survival drives belief and behavior and in the latter case arrogance can take hold as those with power decide for the rest of us what is supposedly in our best interest.

August 12, 2104--Midcoast: Peggy Pays a Visit

"Don't you find it frustrating to be living here among so many conservative people?" This from a visiting friend who is very progressive and politically-minded.

"Actually, I find it both challenging and interesting." Peggy looked at me skeptically. "Really, the challenging part is obvious. It's always difficult to converse with people with whom you have deep disagreements. But the interesting part is more important."

"Interesting?"

"Well, I learn new things if I can manage to keep my mouth shut and listen. And in spite of what you might think, not all conservatives are ill-informed or rigid. That is, no more rigid that you or I." I winked at her.

"But don't you find that when talking about, say, food stamps, you immediately run right smack into a brick wall--they're dead set against it while you'd like to expand it?"

"Maybe. Or at least that may be where we start--with them (usually a him) wanting to eliminate it while, you're right, I'd probably put more money into funding it."

"And so? That's it, right? Dead end?"

"Well, no."

"No what?"

"No, that doesn't always end the conversation." She continued to look at me out of the corner of her eye. "And that's half the point."

"What is?"

"That it's a conversation--at least we try to make it one. Not a shouting match or a series of pronouncements that go over each other's head."

"I'd believe that when I see it."

"You'll have to trust me." She folded her arms across her chest and took a deep breath. "But let me give you an example from last week. It just happened to be about food stamps. This friend, Willy, was going on and on about how he was at the checkout counter in Hanneford's and ahead of him was this guy who was paying with a SNAP card. Willy said, 'I know him. He lives in a $500,000 house and drives a BMW that must have cost at least $60,000. He shouldn't be getting food stamps.'

"I said, 'If that's true, I agree with you.'"

"'You do?'

"'Absolutely. I'm against anyone ripping off any government program, be it food stamps or Medicare.'

"Surprised at that, he said, 'But I thought all you liberals want to give everyone a free ride--food stamps, housing vouchers, disability, heating oil, the whole works.'

"I said, 'I don't know about others, but I'm pretty progressive and don't want to do any of that. I'd like to see more money in some of those programs, true, but I'd put in jail anyone who rips them off.'"

"You said that?" Peggy said, "You believe that?"

"Indeed I do. Shouldn't we liberals be the first ones to call for the end to waste and abuse in our favorite programs? If we believe in them and want to see them continued, we should be in the forefront of critiquing them and cleaning them up when they go off the rails and not let the conservatives have a field day, attacking them like Willy, based on a few bad examples. We should protect what we believe in by being extra vigilant and out front about problems."

"So that did the trick? You agreed with him about the guy with the BMW and now Willy's in favor of food stamps?" She was mocking me.

"Not exactly."

"What happened next?"

"I said, 'Let's try to narrow our differences.' Willy nodded, indicating he was OK with that. We had tried to do that before about other issues with occasional success. So I asked him how he feels about children not being properly fed. He said no child should go to bed hungry or to school without breakfast. I said that I agree with that but asked how we should make sure kids get food if their parents either can't afford it or are irresponsible.

"He at first didn't have an answer to that. Then he said, 'We have this Caring for Kids program here. Local people contribute money to it so students can have healthy snacks during the school year; and during the summer, when they can't get lunch in school, they provide it at no cost.'

"'That's a good example,' I conceded, 'of how people, not the government, can help those with needs. But,' I pressed, 'I know about the program, which is very good--I contribute to it--but it's reach is limited and they can't provide other meals to kids. Dinner, for example. Or during weekends. For that, I think, we have to have something like food stamps because the need is so great and only government can cover the costs. The whole program costs $75 billion a year.'

"He said, 'For that I'm all right with a government program. To make sure children are taken care of. It's not their fault if there isn't enough charitable money for that.'

"'I'll tell you what I'll do,' I offered, 'Neither one of us, of course, has a smart phone . . .' 'Another thing we agree about,' he said. 'Touché,' I said 'But let me check on the Internet later today to see how the food stamp money is distributed. How much of it goes to children. Than we'll see where things stand.' He reached across the table to shake my hand in agreement."

"So what did you discover?" Peggy asked.

"It took me just a few minutes to learn that there are about 22 million kids who receive food stamps and that this represents 48.7 percent of all food stamp recipients. Nearly half. More than I had thought."

"What happened next?"

"Well, Willy was waiting for me at the diner the next morning and without ado I told him what I learned."

"And what did he say when you told him this?"

"'I trust you and . . .' and then he got quiet.

"'And?' I probed.

"'And, so I suppose about this we're in 48.7 percent agreement.'

"'Let's work on the rest,' I said. 'Disabled elderly people, for example, get about 8 percent of the food stamp money. Are you OK with that?'

"He said he was. 'And about 19.8 percent are seriously disabled adults. He said he was OK with that too.

"'If I know my arithmetic,' I said, 'this means that maybe in regard to food stamps, we're in more than 75 percent agreement.'

"'76.5 percent,' he said with an exaggerated wink.

"So there you have it," I said to Peggy. "How up here we try to talk about even controversial things and at times manage to find some common ground."

I think Peggy was impressed. "I want to meet this Willy character," she said.

"Only if you promise to play nice."

"I'll think about it," she smiled.