February 6, 2020--Enough Already

Before they do more harm to themselves, the Democrats need to get to where they're going. And fast.

By this I mean to their final two. 

After all the polling, debates, and now Iowa, it is becoming obvious that among current strivers for the nomination only two are viable--Bernie Sanders and Mike Bloomberg.

They are making powerful and effective cases for their ideas and electability. And they are the only two who have all the money needed to run a 21st century campaign. No one else comes even close.

Pete Guttigieg is clearly attractive, has some money, but with essentially no support in the African-American community doesn't have much of a chance to be nominated much less win in November. Bernie also has his own version of this problem. As, in fact, does Bloomberg (recall Stop and Frisk).

I do not understand why Warren's support has been shrinking for nearly two months--perhaps because of her Medicare For All ideas and their cost. Bernie has this problem as well and then some but for some reason is getting away with it. Probably sexism has something to do with that.

On the other hand, I think I know why Biden is turning out not to be viable. Mainly because he feels like a fragile old man whose time has come and gone. In addition, recall, the other times he ran for president. Though he was far from old, he was an unsuccessful candidate, securing 0.5 percent of the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire and never rising above 5 percent in the polls. When he aspires for the presidency there is clearly something about him that deters voters.

All the other candidates are mired in or close to one-digit territory. Amy Klobuchar is the one exception, now hovering in the 10 percent range.

In other words, the Democratic candidates are either flawed or politically weak. All the more reason to clear the field and let the final two hone their messages, get out of the business of self-destructive bickering, and compete meaningfully with each other. An on-going crowded field is not helping.

As to ultimate electability, can a 78 year-old Jewish socialist who wants to eliminate private health care insurance win a national election? 

Then, assuming by some version of a miracle Bloomberg can win the nomination (the process is rigged to undermine an outsider's chances to do so), can another 77 year-old New York Jew who is fervent about protecting a woman's right to choose, can he win in enough blue-collar swing states to achieve a majority in the Electoral College?

Bernie versus Bloomberg could turn out to be a great contest with clear and stark ideological differences separating them--can Bernie, the representative of the anti-capitalist ninety-nine percent defeat one of the most successful capitalists in American history (whose most profitable product is financial software) with enough wealth to place him in the top one-tenth of one percent?

I know my friends who are eager supporters of Mayor Pete or Elizabeth Warren will not welcome this ultra-practical suggestion. But we're in a dog fight with Trump, who is very good at this, while  also busy shooting ourselves in the foot.

December 2, 2019--Moderation

I suspect in response to a piece I posted early last week urging Democrats for political purposes to move on from supporting impeachment and focus instead on censuring Trump, I have been chided by some progressive friends who are fed up with moderation in general and me specifically. They feel passionately that we need less moderation of the sort they feel I am promoting and more revolutionary thinking and behavior.

I have revolutionary thoughts of my own, for example, that we need deep structural change in much of our public policy--from education to healthcare to economic inequality--but feel that by pressing many of these issues at this time we would only contribute to Trump's reelection because Trump and his followers would weaponize them by labeling those of us who oppose him socialists and communists. For Trump and his people, we would further fuel this demagogic, potent reelection strategy already underway. 

Our focus, I have been arguing, should be exclusively on denying Trump a second term by all means possible. This is so urgent that it is smart to put the revolution on hold until he is no longer in the White House.

The part of my piece that I suspect was responsible for some of the negative reaction was--

Democrats should condemn Trump's behavior and move on. Take impeachment off the table. Censuring a sitting president is a big deal and would demonstrate to moderate voters that the Democrats are capable of behaving decisively and moderately.

To both disagree and take a poke at me, among other things that came my way, was this from the New York Times. It was posted on Facebook by a young friend. It is an excerpt from Jamie Aroosi's "Are You a Moderate? Think Again"--

As Dr. Martin Luther King understood, the problem he was facing--and that we now face again--is the problem of moral imagination. Moderates might have the “good will” that leads them to acknowledge injustice, but their very moderation is indicative of a “shallow understanding” that is emptied of the pain of those who currently suffer. For these moderates, injustice is a foreign affair, an abstract problem to be solved. Their response then lacks the urgency that a true understanding would bring. Learning how to expand their moral universe--learning how to turn opponents into allies--is just as pressing a problem as ever.

There is much to be said in response to this. Among other things it is absolutist and thus lacks the nuance we need to figure out where we stand and what we need to do to prevail. The Aroosi piece also drives deeper the wedges already separating those of us who should be strategic allies. 

And it doesn't help to compare moderates to the Ku Klux Klan, as Aroosi does in the full piece, when he quoted Reverend King--

"These white moderates were a potentially greater threat than the members of the Ku Klux Klan." 

This kind of talk is enough to dash all hope for rational and temperate dialogue. 

But sadly, this is where too many Democrats are--fighting each other, calling even those who are potential allies names. It is no wonder that this encourages many to seek the comfort of their favorite echo chambers. 

June 30, 3017--Lady of Forest Trace

Two days ago would have been my mother's 109th birthday. Tomorrow is the second anniversary of her death.

My emotions this week have been saturated with thoughts of her. And memories. Memories including  her days as an elementary school teacher. She was from that generation of great teachers, talented women for whom teaching was one of the few available professional paths. Those of us who were among their students were more than fortunate.

I know I am not objective, but she stood out even among her remarkable colleagues. Even today I am frequently asked by someone about my age who learns my unusual last name if I am, perhaps, related to Ray Zwerling. Ray Zwerling, who was their first grade teacher, they tell me, and who through her gifts and caring changed their lives.

Mine was affected as well. Daily. Even today.

And now, with her no longer here, in reflection and advancing age, I am reminded about one of her stories. How in her day, if a women became pregnant, she was required to reveal that to her principal (all men) and immediately go on maternity leave.

I have been rereading this week Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States, a progressive alternative to the rosy history we all were taught in public school. In the 13th chapter, "The Socialist Challenge," he turns attention to the limited role of women as late as the early 20th century. To illustrate, he quotes from a year 1900 list of "Rules for Female Teachers" posted by a school district in Massachusetts. A list my mother likely still largely found to be enforced when she began to teach in Brooklyn in the early 1930s--

1. Do not get married. [She married shortly after she began to teach.]
2. Do not leave town without permission of the school board.
3. Do not keep company with men. [I know she ignored this one!]
4. Be home between the hours of 8 P.M. and 6 A.M. [Ditto.]
5. Do not loiter downtown in ice cream stores. [Another rule I am certain she ignored--ice cream was one of her passions.]
6. Do not smoke. [She smoked Chesterfields.]
7. Do not get into a carriage with any man except your father or brother.
8. Do not dress in bright clothes. [She loved bright clothes.]
9. Do not dye your hair. [She did so in the late 1940s when my brother asked, as her hair began to turn gray, if she was "going to die soon."]
10. Do not wear any dress more than two inches above the ankle.

The constitutional amendment that gave women the right to vote was ratified in 1920 when she was 12 years old.

When I left the Ford Foundation, in my farewell comments, I said the reason I became an educator was so I could help all children have my mother for a teacher. If only that could be.

Mom at 102

January 5, 2017--Belief Systems

Here is one more example of the problem progressives have connecting with large swaths of the American electorate--we still think that when times are scary, to quote candidate Obama in 2008, "average" people get "bitter" and "cling to guns or religion."

When I ran this thought by a lifelong friend, who is intelligent and prides herself on being liberal and open-minded, she said, "That's the problem with Republicans--they don't believe in evidence or in facts or, more generally, science. Most of them come at everything from a religious perspective."

"And you don't?" I asked.

"You know, I'm an atheist. Anything that smacks of religion, where you have to believe and not think, I'm against."

"Except the certainty that is a part of being an atheist? The certainty that there is no God, no divine force?"

"Show me the evidence for that and I'll change my mind and believe that there is."

"I'm sort of an atheist myself," I said, "But when I look at the wonder of the complexity and efficiency of my hand or at a flower blossom or a sunset, I'm more persuadable that there might be, might be, some sort of intelligence behind that."

"I can't believe you're saying this. I know you're getting old. The next thing I'll hear is that you've become religious!"

We both laughed at that.

"But you have things that you believe in," I said. "You have belief systems that guide you."

"Not religious ones."

"Let me give you an example," she seemed interested in this, "What's so different about believing in an ideology and a body of religious beliefs?"

"Like if I was a socialist, or something?"

"Great example. You came from a family of communists and you're at least half a socialist. Didn't you send money to and vote for Bernie?"

"I did, but . . ."

"But nothing because full-blown socialism (and Bernie's not that) is a belief system that is not much more empirical or fact-based than being a Presbyterian."

"You'll have to give me more examples," my friend said, sitting back with her arms folded skeptically across her chest.

"A big part of socialism calls for economic fairness and even equality."

"And?"

"How much of that is fact-based and not derived from beliefs that you have? Beliefs that are not objectively verifiable?"

"Well, there's natural law."

"It's not a law in the same way that there are laws in physics that are measurable and quantifiable. Newton's laws of motion or gravity, for example, which are very different than natural law, which is purely a human construct derived from beliefs, not science."

I could see that my friend was giving all this some thought.

"So in your political ideology, which includes a strong belief in social justice, as another example, you have a powerful, not a fact-based belief system that guides your thinking and much of your behavior. Which is fine. I don't have a problem with that, just that I hope you'd fess up to the fact that you are not so different in this than Christian Evangelicals, who you are traditionally quick to dismiss as superstitious and anti-intellectual."

"I'm open to hearing more," she said.

"Does that natural law you mention refer just to laws of nature that you believe are naturally there to guide humans or do they also pertain to the rest of the natural world? I ask because I don't see too many systems out there of natural law leading to cooperation and generosity. There are a few examples in the animal kingdom, among whales, for example, but they do not seem to be widespread. Thus, perhaps for the sake of human survival, we derive laws either from nature or we make them up to keep us from killings each other. We need a lot of 'Thou Shalt Not's. Human's by nature can be pretty predatory. We can be self-sacrificing too--even give up or lives for others--but in the human realm, nature feels quite 'red in tooth and claw.'"

"Where are you going with this?" my friend asked, seemingly beginning to get tired of me.

"Just to remind us not to be too disdainful, not allow ourselves to feel too superior to fellow citizens who are religious. Half the reason we lost the election is because our candidates couldn't figure out a way to connect with them. In fact, we did quite the opposite, feeling superior by looking down our noses at anyone born-again. Two-thirds of those who defined themselves as religious voted overwhelmingly for someone married three times who doesn't know anything about the Bible."

"You could be right," my friend said. "I know for one that I'm not that good at being tolerant toward religious people."

"Saying that, acknowledging that means you're at least halfway there. As liberals, doesn't our belief system--sorry about that--mean we're supposed to be open-minded, and tolerant?"

"It does. It also means, if you're right about any of this, if we want to be politically viable, that we'd better figure out how to get comfortable relating to, genuinely relating to people who cling to religion."

At that we both laughed.

January 26, 2016--Waiting For Bloomberg

All of a sudden there's a flurry of interest in Michael Bloomberg. About the evidence that he is exploring the possibility of running for the presidency as a third-party candidate.

Self-financed, of course. He's worth $37.2 billion. A real billionaire in comparison to Donald TRUMP. Like everything else, TRUMP exaggerates his wealth, but Forbes reports he's worth only maybe $4.0 billion with most of it tied up in real estate.

Though real money, he is a piker by Bloomberg standards. But that's half the political point.

With a real New Yorker running, it would dilute the charge that TRUMP is about New York values (actually, he is). Not noted is the fact that Bloomberg was born and raised in Boston, which I suppose is better than having been born and raised in Canada.

If opposition candidates want to rail against a possible American oligarchy, which we sort of already have, Bloomberg will take most of the heat, clearing that lane for TRUMP. And what with The Mike's Jewishness, another lane would also be cleared since probably half of TRUMP's untutored critics think that if he's from New York he must be Jewish. Or, almost as disqualifying, is a nonbeliever.

To blunt that and appeal to evangelicals, this past Sunday The Donald very publicly went to church in Iowa to show that he's really a Christian. This reminded coreligionists that, as a semi-teetotaler, it is in church where he drinks "the only wine" he imbibes. Also, that it is during Communion that he takes "my little cracker." In TRUMP World it doesn't matter that evangelicals don't participate in the Eucharist. It's all about the show.

As usual when it comes to religious matters, TRUMP has church practices all mixed up. But Teflon-candidate that he is, it probably doesn't matter.

But he did leave two $50 dollar bills in the collection basket.

No wonder TRUMP is relishing the thought that Bloomberg might get into the race. This because if he did, enough Hillary supporters would likely migrate to the former New York mayor and thus make it less likely that, if nominated, she would be elected. And since Bloomberg as a third-party candidate would have almost no chance of winning . . .  Fill in the blank.

But there are many moving pieces as Bloomberg ponders how various combinations and permutations would play out. It would depend on who's in and who's out.

I've been hearing from liberal friends who are excited about the Bloomberg possibilities. For the most part they are lukewarm Hillary supporters. Progressives, not socialists, who feel that neither Hillary nor Sanders, for that matter, would make good or effective presidents.

Here's what I wrote back to one--

I think he'd run only if Bernie looks like he's going to get the nomination. The last thing a billionaire wants is a socialist as Prez! But I don't think Bloomberg would run if Hillary looks as if she's winning (I am using the conditional tense since if B is to run he'd have to decide to do so by early March). She has already proven herself as a pal to Wall Street. 

If it's Hillary v. TRUMP and Bloomy gets in that would assure T's election since Bloomberg would likely take more voters from Hillary than T. I don't think Bloomberg prefers TRUMP to Hillary. Quite the opposite. So I see him maybe running only if Sanders and TRUMP are on route to the nominations. If Bernie manages to win big in Iowa and NH it might for Hillary be the beginning of 2008 all over again. Though Hillary's firewall is southern blacks and middle-age white women. That's why she's cynically been wrapping herself so tightly in the mantle of Barack Obama. And of course there are Demi Lovato and Chelsea.

In fact, having lived in NYC during the Bloomberg years, I'm not so fond of him. He cared primarily about Manhattan and the real estate community's interests. I guess he'd be better than most of the current candidates, but he is still more a friend to Wall Street than I'd be comfortable with. If TRUMP would be "a traitor to his class" (which I think is possible) he could be interesting and unpredictable. Just like his campaign thus far. 

Maybe we need a real jolt. Would Bernie provide one? As much as I'd like to thing so, as a socialist, would Congress allow him to govern as a socialist? There's no way Congress, for ex, would go along with Medicare-for-all. That's may be a great idea but a congressional non-starter. Ditto for his taxation proposals.