In Darkest America & The Way Out: The Electoral College

In recent days I have been reading a lot of arguments for, and against, the Electoral College system that we use to elect the President (& Vice-President) of the United States.

Here is my "view from the stands":

The #GodDamnedFascist (#MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain) who LOST THE POPULAR VOTE had railed against the Electoral College in 2012 when he believed (wrongly, as usual) that President Obama would win the Electoral College votes but lose the popular vote "by a lot" - which he deleted when he discovered that President Obama won the popular vote, ahem, "by a lot". About 5 million more votes than were cast for Mitt Romney, actually. OOOPS!

Of course now that he has clearly LOST THE POPULAR VOTE by almost 2 million votes but won the requisite electoral votes to win the presidency he thinks the Electoral College is "genius". Well, actually yes it is, but not for the reason that the #GodDamnedFascist seems to think. He said in a recent tweet:

"The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!"

The reality is not that the Electoral College allows smaller states the same representation as larger states. That would be the U.S. Senate, also called “the world’s greatest deliberative body”, where all states have equal representation and Senators sit for 6 year terms – the so-called "cooling saucer of Democracy". No, the real genius of the Electoral College is that it was specifically designed to keep a populist sociopath like Drumpf from ever achieving the most powerful elected office, literally, in the free world.

In Federalist 68, Alexander Hamilton clearly defines the explicit purpose and intent of the Electoral College system to elect the "Chief Magistrate" of the United States of America.

"It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture."

Here Hamilton says, "...a sense of the people" should be a factor in the choice of President but not that the general populous should have the deciding voice. In fact in the following passage, Hamilton stipulates precisely the opposite view - the "immediate election" be made by a relatively small body of 'electors'.

"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

The "complicated investigations", as Hamilton explains, would be into the direct fitness, temperment, knowledge, experience, judgement and aptitude for anyone "...who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States"

"It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief."

As if to anticipate the potential rise of a Drumpf-like figure in American politics, Hamilton writes:

"Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter [sic], but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?"

Making the Presidential election a 'moral certainty' that a corrupt, fascist, sociopath like “Herr UberCheeto”, as my son calls that GOD DAMNED FASCIST, never gets within a thousand yards of the Presidency was the true genius of the Electoral College:

"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States."

When the Electoral College meets on December 19th to cast their votes that will actually decide who will be the 45th President of the United States they have a clear obligation to act as the buffer that the founding fathers had in mind for the Electoral College.

They have a clear cut path to vote for the winner of the popular vote and respect the actual will of the majority of Americans and give the Presidency to Hillary Clinton - she did win by almost 2 million votes - maybe more by the time the west coast votes are all counted - She may not be the most 'transparent' of political figures in some sense, but then she and her husband have been the target of the Republicans and their neoconservative smear machine lead by then Speaker of the House Newton Leroy 'Newt' Gingrich (which grew into what is now sometimes known as the "alt-right") for some 25 years so there could be a little bit of simple human self-preservation in that mentality. But that not withstanding, if she turns out to be a disaster (possible, but not likely) we could boot her out in 2020. 

The point I am driving at here is that this is exactly and expressly what the founders designed the Electoral College system for. If they are not going to perform the function for which they were constructed and act as that buffer between the populist sentiment of the masses and the best interest of the Republic, then they should be disbanded and the Constitution amended to elect the President by simple popular vote.

As Drumpf tweeted on Nov. 7, 2012:

"More votes equals [sic] a loss...revolution!" - 

Although that tweet was deleted shortly thereafter, there are several that remain on his Twitter feed.

"This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!" (11/6/2012)

"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." (11/6/2012)

If the Electoral College merely rubber stamps this election they are useless fools and the system must be abolished!

  

How'd We Get Here?

I'm Giving This Another Try!

I have been without a computer for over a year and finances have been extremely tight, thus I was not able to renew the domain name registration for "In Darkest America and The Way Out" - Some domain registration company snagged it and was offering it for several thousands of dollars as a "premium" domain name.  I paid $9.99 per year for the initial registration. Had I known, I'd have sold it myself. Oh well, life goes on.

Now that I have my laptop back, I can again think about directing my interest in news, politics, public affairs and popular culture toward something other than talking back to the T.V. during the evening newscasts - okay, yelling at the T.V. might be closer to the description my family would offer, but why quibble?

What the Hell Happened?!?!?

What happened to the Republican party? Donald Trump is, at the time of this writing, the front-runner for the G.O.P. nomination for President Of The United States.  That was, only four years ago, the punchline to a bad joke. Nobody took Trump for a serious candidate, let alone a serious threat to actually win anything beyond, maybe, the Ames Straw Poll.

How did Donald Trump become the 'sum of all fears' to the Republican Party establishment? What makes Trump so attractive to large numbers of Republican and conservative leaning voters?

In order to answer that question, we have to look at the recent history of American politics. By recent, I mean from the Kennedy administration through the present. Spoiler alert, the Vietnam war had a lot more to do with why Trump is leading in the race for the G.O.P. nomination than you might think. Here is my reason for believing that the roots of the Donald J. Trump candidacy can be found in the political turmoil of the 1960's.

It is interesting to note how those, like myself, whose initial introduction to American politics was the assassination of John F. Kennedy, view the role that "The Government" plays in American society, versus those whose introduction to American politics was during, or after, "Watergate".  Not everybody remembers that the addition of "gate" to the end of a scandal originated with Watergate and Richard Nixon resigning the Presidency in August 1974 - I have a feeling that we may hear about "Nanny-gate", "Travel-gate", "Whitewater-gate" and other oldies-but-goodies from the 1990's.  At least for the duration of the 2016 campaign, if not the duration of a potential Hillary Clinton administration.  

I am old enough to, vaguely, remember when allegiance to the United States of America was more important than allegiance to any political party or more important even than religious belief.  John F. Kennedy had to give a speech in which he assured the American people that his religious affiliation (Roman Catholic) would not affect his policy decisions as president. 

When did we go from everybody being willing to compromise a little, or even a lot sometimes, so we can do what is right for the country and everyone wins - maybe not by as big a margin as we'd like, maybe having to give a little credit to "the other side", occasionally not getting everything we wanted, or perhaps even a little bit less than what we thought we should have. Yet, even with all that said, without "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" - to today's obstructionist mentality that seems to be based upon the zero sum premise, if "the other side" wins, "my side" loses?

Compromise has become a sign of weakness and lack of resolve (if not purity) and stopping the agenda of the other side is more important than working together cooperatively to solve problems that both sides acknowledge and that both sides say they want to solve.  There are judicial nominations being held up for no reason other than the party affiliation of the President making the nomination. This is true for numerous appointments to various agencies and departments that would have, only a few years ago, sailed through with little or no objection.  There are numerous examples where Republicans have publicly expressed support for legislation, programs, ideas and even judicial nominees only to completely reverse their position the minute President Obama states his support for those self same ideas, programs, nominations and legislation. It's been bad before, but nothing like the obstruction for the sake of obstruction that we see in politics all across America, not just in Washington, D.C.

There has always been opposition between Democrats and Republicans, that is simply the nature of politics. Generally, the Democratic party tends to believe that government can and should play an active role in society. On the other hand, the Republican party tends to believe, as President Reagan put it, "...government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."  One of the things I have often heard Republican candidates say is that the Federal government should have as little impact on the lives of everyday Americans as possible. The belief that "government which governs least governs best" is rooted in the very fabric of the Republican ideal. So these two conflicting ideas of how government should look to the citizenry as well as how, why and when government should take direct, influential action which would impact the daily lives of the population.

Those differences have, until recently, been seen as secondary to the overall needs of the nation based on the circumstances at the time.  As much as the Republicans opposed many of F.D.R.'s New Deal programs, they also understood that the need for action was immediate and desperate. The T.V.A., the F.D.I.C. and Social Security are just a few of the programs that most Americans are very happy to have and would not want to see disappear.  In fact, even the most staunch, anti Obama Republican is damn glad that the F.D.I.C. was there to protect their back account balances (up to $250,000 anyway, but I don't know anyone who had more than that in a single bank, or lost even one penny thanks to the F.D.I.C.) - although they'd never admit to being grateful to President Obama for anything.

And there we come to it. What has fueled this obstructionist environment in Washington, D.C.? How did we get here and how do we get out? That is the point of this blog, to try to come to some understanding of how we arrived 'In Darkest America and The Way Out'.

In the coming weeks and months I will explore those questions and try to explain what I believe to be a workable plan for "The Way Out".

Why We Can't Get Serious About US Economy

Okay, "Pop Quiz" (Answers are at the bottom of the page)

1) What is the size of the US economy in terms of GDP?

2) What is the total US national debt?

3) What is the 2010 US Federal budget?

4) What is the US Federal deficit projection for 2010?

In a recent Seattle Times Op-Ed page Alex Albin makes the case that we don't teach American school kids basic economics along with math and history. I would add that American students are not taught basic political science, either. In a nation where the government is supposed to be built on the principle of government of, by and for the people it is strange that America doesn't do a better job of assuring that "the people" know how their government works and how to tell, in real terms, how effectively their government is representing them.

How well we educate the youth of America will determine how well the youth of America will fare in the realities of 21st century global competition. The fate of the nation always rests with the next generation of Americans. Such is the nature of governance of, for and by the people. I believe that the greatest security that our nation can achieve is for every American child to master the fields of math, science, history and philosophy. An educated population is the greatest defense against tyranny.

If we are going to have a serious discussion about the economic decisions facing America, we need to know what we are talking about. For instance:

What is the difference between the "federal debt" and the "federal budget deficit"?

What does GDP stand for and what is it?

What percent of the total US budget goes to "Foreign Aid"?

How much money does the federal government provide to fund National Public Radio (NPR)?

Just so you know, the total amount of all foreign aid from the US is just over 1% of the total federal budget, and NPR gets no direct federal funding. I have never had anyone answer either of those questions correctly.

Typical guesses on the amount of foreign aid range from 10%-25% of the budget. Eliminating all foreign aid would do absolutely nothing for the US economy and would devastate several countries that depend on US aid. Not exactly a good P.R. move on America's part if you ask me.

So it's going to have to be the "big 4", Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Defense. These 4 items account for over 80% of the US federal budget. We aren't going to truly address our national economic mess until we accept that these four "untouchables" of the federal budget are going to have to be part of the discussion. There can be no illusion that the American economy is in deep trouble. We cannot ignore the reality of our situation any longer.

However, it must also be clear that taxes are going to go up for some of the wealthiest Americans. The top 2%, those whose incomes exceed $150,000 per year, are going to have to give up their 4.6% tax break under "The Bush Tax Cuts". Too damn bad if you can't make ends meet if your taxes go up from 35% to 39.6%. All that means to me, who lives on way less than a tenth of that amount, is that you are living above your means and that is not a good reason to bankrupt America.

It is my belief that we, as Americans, need to recognize and understand that we are part of something greater than ourselves. I find it distressing that far too many Americans are happy to take the rights and privileges of American citizenship while ignoring the responsibilities that accompany those rights. We have an obligation to those that paved the way for us, and we have an obligation to future generations, to guard those rights and privileges. Liberty is priceless, but it is not painless.

1) $14.6 Trillion (2010 est.)

2) $13.6 Trillion

3) $6.4 Trillion

4) $1.4 Trillion

If you got the number to the left of the decimal correct, give yourself one point. The points are meaningless, but at least you won't be pointless. If you got even one right (without cheating) you are doing better than most.

Democracy In The Streets of Egypt?

"If it's Sunday, it's Meet The Press." And for me, it's also "Face the Nation" (CBS), "This Week" (ABC), "GPS" (CNN), and "State of the Union" (CNN).

This week on CNN's "State of the Union", former ambassador and Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte made a statement that I think clarifies the Bush administration and the Republican attitude fairly well. In commenting on the situation in Egypt, he said this:

"I think it's the role of governance to try and introduce a measure of moderation into these kinds of situations. The street is not the government. The street is not democracy. Let's not forget that."

It does make sense, if you think about it, that a Republican does not know where democracy comes from. The only place that democracy can come from, the only place that democracy truly resides is on "the street". It is the voice of the people rising from the street to demand liberty, to demand a say in how their country is lead, to demand their rights as humans.

No Mr. Negroponte, democracy is the street. That is where it started in America and where it will take root around the world. American can't force the issue, no government can. Democracy will come from the will of the people, when they are ready. The best thing America can do is to make sure that when people are ready, they have an excellent example to follow to make it work. If we are going to promote democracy around the world we ought to perfect our own union first.

The President's Reply to "The Drug Question"

A number of people in the medial marijuana community are upset at the response of President Obama to the question regarding the legalization of "all drugs" during the recent You Tube interview. I don't think it was the answer that was the problem. I think the question was flawed. The question should have been specifically about the use of medical cannabis and the rescheduling of marijuana by the DEA.

The legalization of "all drugs" is a long, long way from the sensible steps that can be taken to vastly improve America's drug policy. One such sensible step in this direction would be for President Obama to direct the DEA to reschedule marijuana.

The removal of this "Sword of Damocles" that looms over the entire medical cannabis community across all 15 states and the District of Columbia where the people have, in almost every case, voted by overwhelming majorities to allow the use of - and safe access to - medicinal cannabis.

The will of the people should not be usurped by the government! Oh, wait,isn't that the neo-conservative, T.E.A. Party - and new GOP leadership - mantra? So all those so-called "tenther's" out there should be in full-throated support of the individual states rights to govern themselves without federal over-reach.

The issue for the President isn't whether all drugs ought to be legal, that ain't happening anytime soon - and personally I don't think it should ever happen. Legalization of Heroin is as stupid an idea as putting marijuana on the same level as Heroin in the war on drugs. There is just no comparison in the physical damage that Heroin does to the human body, in the social & economic damage that Heroin does to communities, or in the effect that Heroin has on crime in American society. The issue needs to be laser focused on the laws surrounding marijuana and the medical use of cannabis.

I am heartened that President Obama is at least willing to accept that a discussion of America's drug policy is worthy and, indeed, necessary. Once we get the DEA and federal government out of the picture with respect to the control of cannabis, two things will happen:

1) States can regulate and tax the cannabis industry. Once this is a reality the cannabis industry will become a "cash-cow" in terms of state and local jurisdiction revenue. As soon as the 35 states that do not have medical cannabis laws see the revenue potential in the cannabis industry they will have medical cannabis laws faster than you can say "Jack Herer".

2) Marijuana smuggling pretty much goes away. Seriously, when was the last time you heard of an illegal Scotch Whiskey smuggling cartel being busted? Nineteen thirty-something, I think. Take just that one product out of the war on drugs and that would allow for a more effective policy on the drugs that really are damaging to the nation. Like Heroin...and alcohol.

That marijuana will become legal is not really in doubt. It is only a matter of when and how it becomes legal that is in question. By the time my 21 year old son is my age (I'm 52) this will be done. His 20ish kid will wonder that marijuana was illegal, just as people wonder that alcohol was actually outlawed at one time in America. It is my belief that we, who have the opportunity to help craft cannabis legislation, wither as citizen activist or as an elected representative of the people, that works for all members of the medical cannabis community, have an obligation to do everything we can to pave the way for future patients.

It isn't going to be easy and it won't happen immediately. But it will be worth the effort, of that I am sure. Someone once said, "Decisions get made by those that show-up". Let's be the ones that show-up.

Peace and long life!

This Blog Title Has Changed? W.T.F???

I have decided to change the title of my blog. I wasn't really happy with the whole "W.T.F." thing, it just didn't catch my ear (or my eye) very well but it was the best thing I could think of at the time. The new title comes from an interview that aired on "The Rachel Maddow Show", Nov. 11, 2010, with Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show".

During the course of that interview Rachel asked Mr. Stewart how he sees the role of his show in the media as compared and contrasted with 'serious newscasting'. Stewart claimed a closer kinship to Jerry Seinfeld than to CNN or MSNBC and the kind of reporting that Rachel and others do. Stewart likened his role to as being, "in the stands yelling things, criticizing", putting journalists and reporters (like Rachel) "in the game". I think that Mr. Stewart underestimates his influence.

I believe it more accurate, to continue the sports metaphor, to say that the politicians and news makers are "in the game". The serious, 'hard-news', journalists, reporters and commentators (including social satirists such as Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, among others) are the folks in broadcast booth calling the game.

The play-by-play announcer calls the mechanics of the game, the 'nuts-&-bolts' of what is happening on the field. This is the role that Brian Williams, Katie Curic, or Diane Sawyer might be equated with. The 'color commentator' is the person that gives meaning and perspective to the action on the field. They help the viewer to put together the intangibles and make the connections that might otherwise be missed by the casual fan. The two halves of the 'broadcast team' work together to bring the fan as close to the action as possible, to bring the game to life for their listeners whether they are at home watching on the T.V. machine or are in the stands at the game. I always had my little radio with me at Mariners games to listen to the late, great Dave Niehaus and the Seattle Mariners broadcast team calling the games. Quite often the Mariners were terrible and there were more people on the filed than in the stands, but Dave and 'the color guy' made it seem worth sticking around for - or at least listening to.

The news can be complicated and confusing when simply presented as a serious of facts and events. Often people are left wondering how the events covered on the evening news actually impact their lives. What does it mean to me and my life right now? This is where Jon Stewart, along with other satirists and humorists, is able to bring together the connections that are often just out of reach until someone puts it in terms that have relevance to our personal lives.

Most people that watch sports as casual fans really do need the announcers and analysts to follow the games. There are some, like me, that can watch a baseball, football or basketball game without a soundtrack and not miss a thing. There are some that only catch the scores and highlights on the news and never go to actual games. There are some people that never watch or pay attention to sports at all. This is true with respect to the news, too.

I am a self-confessed news-junkie and political nerd. I can safely say that I am not the average American in this respect. Most Americans, it seems to me, are like the folks that catch the highlights on the late news after the games have been played. Unfortunately the numbers of people that don't pay any attention at all is growing. This is a seriously dangerous situation, as it has been said, all that is required for evil to succeed in this world is for good men to do nothing.

As I see it, it is guys like me (and readers like you) that are in the stands. We go to the games, so to speak. We follow our favorite teams, we know the standings, we know how our favorite players are doing and how the playoff picture is shaping up. We are the people that read our newspapers, watch "Meet the Press", etc. We are not, as I have previously mentioned, average as it pertains to our awareness of the world around us.

I hope to make this something that will appeal to all levels of interest. It is my ultimate goal for this blog to start, and to maintain, a conversation about the issues that face our country and our world. I have started to add links to some of the blogs that I read and some of the issues that are important to me. Please feel free to comment as you read, but do remember to be respectful to individuals.

The point of this blog is to give myself an outlet for my opinions and observations, to allow me to present my 'view from the stands', so here we go and thanks for reading.

I Read The News Today...

Thirty years ago today we heard the terrible news that John Lennon had been murdered outside his New York City apartment building. It is also thirty years since my best friend Ray, he was known mostly as 'Wizard' around north Seattle, was killed by a drunk driver. We used to call ourselves "Twin Sons of Different Mothers" (even before the Dan Fogelberg and Tim Weisberg record came out in '78). I still feel that loss acutely and I miss him every day. Yesterday, December 7th, a date which will live in infamy, is also the anniversary of the death of my son, Joshua, in 1996 whom I miss as dearly. The loss that I feel right now is immense and acutely painful.

While The Beatles were the big deal when I was a kid and I liked their music, it was other bands that would capture my devotion and imagination - The Yardbirds, The Who, Led Zeppelin, and on March 27, 1976 I discovered what would become, and remains to this day, my favorite band: Rush. It is important to understand that none of what would become "my music" would have happened if John Lennon and the Beatles, had not happened first, and the Beatles would not have happened unless Elvis happened first, and Elvis would not have happened unless "The Blues" had been around first.

In fact none of the music that we know today as "Rock & Roll" would exist without the influence of American Blues. "Skiffle" was the music that inspired a young John Lennon and James "Paul" McCartney to pick up guitars in the first place. "Skiffle" is generally thought to have originated out of the early New Orleans jazz scene due in part to it's similarity to traditional "Dixieland" jazz from the early 20th century. The New Orleans influence is largely thought to be overstated however. "Skiffle" is generally thought to have derived from merging Blues with influences from western European folk music, mostly Scots-Irish throughout Appalachian areas, as well as Caribbean and western African influences from the slave markets and New Orleans famous "Congo Square" where many of these disparate influences came together. There is a common ancestry and a common heritage shared across generations, cultures and geographic boundaries. This is what music does better than almost any other form of human communication and John Lennon was better than most at speaking to our collective souls about things that still matter thirty years after an assassin's bullet took him from us.

Today is a day, at least for me, to remember and be thankful for the time that I had with the people that I miss and for the legacy that remains for all of us from those greats that have passed on. As the Righteous Brothers sang: "If there's a Rock & Roll heaven, you know they've got a hell of a band" - This is an updated cover version, very well done and an excellent video tribute to some of the greats that died too soon.