Mark Kelly for President

I'm not joking at all.  

I realize it's way too early, and there is no need to distract from the current imperative, which is a big victory in the midterm elections in '26, but the moment demands that we consider this man and the possibility. 

For those who consider that the Democratic candidate at the head of the ticket in '28 should be a straight white male, Senator Kelly is your man.  He is a proven national hero, driven by duty and honor, who has braved the worst physical and mental challenges this era produces and kept his sanity and his nose clean.  Shot into space, shot at over Iraq, counseling the recovery of his wife after she was shot in the brain--these are a few of them. 

Most recently, he took on the terror that is Trump 2.1.  He was the front man for a group of military veterans in Congress who took out a public ad to warn our military not to obey illegal orders.  Trump called the action sedition and requested the hanging of all nine of them. Wrong, and not happening, and Kelly has been out front and open, saying both that his group's actions were legal and that he's not afraid of the Wherever Man.  

The veterans who made the ad--one can not call it a protest, nor was it anything more than a repetition of a portion of the training given to all military recruits, let's call it a Shout-Out--have been dodgy about whether they were thinking specifically when they made it about the criminal order to kill the survivors of one of the first bombings of Venezuelan boats on the high seas. They have not called the intrusion of the military into US cities an example of orders that were illegal, either, but they have stated simply that there is reason to think this administration may seek to misuse the military in the future.  No doubt of that, and one can easily think of worse abuses that the White House might order.   Trump may have criminal immunity for such orders, but those who carry them out do not.   We will come back to the "Venezuelan initiative" in a moment. 

Back to the point, though:  Based on his record, Senator Kelly seems to be a centrist Democrat, loyal, but not particularly partisan, and uniquely able to communicate on the need for responsible gun regulation. He is not a career politician, but after some years--he was first elected in 2020, in a special election--he seems to be finding his voice, which is an authentic one.  Not an intellectual-sounding one.  The only issue on which I recall his being critical of Biden's administration was on the lack of action on the border--his border.  Stop me if any of this is a negative.  

 I see only two drawbacks to his chances--apart from name recognition, which is suddenly flooding his way, right in his wheelhouse.  One is that he is not one for self-promotion, and he doesn't show that burning desire for Presidential power.  That, in reality, only makes him more attractive as someone truly fit for the job, but it could keep him completely out of the conversation (present company excepted).   The other is that, prematurely bald, he might seem older than his 61 years. It might not seem young enough for some, but it's hardly "too old". 

 As for being a sitting Senator and thus disqualified based on the recent experience of failed Democratic Senators as Presidential candidates, I think that's pretty bogus:  he's got more than his share of real-world experience, yet enough Washington time to know what is needed.. As far as I know, he is not owned by the corporations, and he has an amazing wife, former Representative Gabby Giffords. 

Maybe I'm wrong, and it won't take a Washingtonian draft movement (as in, George W.) to get him to run.  If he runs, the starting blocks for his run will be a sweeping Senate re-election win in the critical swing state of Arizona in 2026.  I see the argument for his candidacy along the same line as that for Pennsylvania's Josh Shapiro, but Kelly is a superior prospect.  

The Venezuela Gambit

What explains the recent rash of murderous attacks on boats coming off from the coast of Venezuela, heading north?  

The opportunity to drive toward regime change, removing a military dictator and usurper with blood on his hands who's caused millions to flee and impoverished his country?  No, that's more typical of Trump's foreign friends. He would emphatically be against that (then would go to sleep). 

Looking to grab the enormous Venezuelan oil production and/or reserves (nationalized) for himself/the USA?  No, not really any of those variations--we have plenty of reserves, and more being drilled domestically than needed.  The Venezuelans would hardly look to give away their ownership, but instead would look toward better domestic distribution of the proceeds.  Not interested. 

Searching for active kinetic action for  Pete Hegseth to use for military practice (after the domestic use failed to provoke sufficient resistance)?  Without war?   I suppose that is part of it, though why Venezuela? There are plenty of other alternatives still on the table, aren't they? (Greenland, Panama, Canada....) Certainly the continuing search for distractions contributes, and Trump is always ready to take credit for cruelty and brutality. He is also using this series of actions to probe a further extension of his powers to take actions beyond the rule of law and without any authorization beyond his own whim. 

No, I think there is something more involved, something even more sinister.  I look at the relatively minor Venezuelan component of the international drug trade, and its alleged association with current national government officials, and I draw a different conclusion.  These guys are horning in on the existing cartel operations, and Trump/Hegshit are assets working for their benefit against the Venezuelan outlaws.  See also the recent pardon of the Honduran government drug king.  

America > Trump

Of this I have no doubt, or fear.  Though we have allowed this person of the lowest character and subterranean behavior to be elevated to our highest political office, he does not rule over us in the way he thinks. Instead, he clings to the throne with underhanded means, writhing in his self-made bunker as his level of popular acceptance sinks further. Though I am observing him from afar at present, it only makes it easier to see him digging his sinkhole of madness ever deeper. His attempts to distract from his evil past actions only create more damage. Watching his underlings from a distance--imagine how they can possibly remain beneath him!--failing in their appointed tasks and drawing ridicule upon themselves brings gratification, knowing I am largely beyond reach of their putrid scheming. 

Truth be told, America is greater than just the United States of America, though I have covered that subject before.  It holds a great idea, that of the universal human goal of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but the truth that is self-evident in the domain of mankind's affairs these days is:  power.  Nothing more. The USA's power is unmatched (still), but the national government's purposes in this time are not worthy of this great land.  Greed, indifference to the global community, and the shocking, reactionary impulses to subject other nations' to our selfish interests are the unmistakable content of our external actions, mirroring similar foul intent domestically toward those without power or the means to resist. 

Our Own Litmus Test 

Yet we, the people of the USA, do have the means, if we act collectively to fight back.  We have only one effective, substantive way to strip this evil regime of its power, and we must protect that chance with all our own powers of action. Though the forces of oligarchy and incipient fascism seek to make our votes meaningless, we have--so far--still our chance this November. Are we worthy of our unrivalled privilege as a nation? Let's not waste this shot. 

I know better than to appeal to the cause of saving our democracy.  We are far from being democratic--ruled by popular will--in our national affairs, and that appeal failed loudly in 2024--the response amounted to a big, lazy yawn.  Still, we can work within the limitations of our constitutional republic to overthrow part of the system driving us downward and begin the reclamation project.  All the corrupt maneuvering and manipulation is still unable to prevent us from expressing our will, if our numbers are large enough and broad enough.  What drives the electorate may not be such a noble purpose as dethroning evil, but it is enough that our sense of frustration and desperation at the destruction of our economy and the quality of our public life move enough of us for a decisive electoral victory.  

A "litmus test" is an objective measure, in chemistry a device to determine a binary result, acid or base, though it can also have a directionless result proving neither. So it will be with our election:  victory or defeat, though the result could end up less than definitive.  It is easy to define victory in 2026:  gaining control of both the House and the Senate. Plenty of associated results would accompany that victory, not least would be breaking the Trumpist cult's sense of superiority. Getting one and not the other would not be defeat, but it would result in two years of dubious stalemate before another climactic showdown in 2028, which would then be under less-than-favorable circumstances. The good news is that victory in 2026 is feasible; more than that, it is still attainable, despite the enemy's attempts to cheat us of our opportunity.  If the Republicans are defeated in Congress, the forces of authoritarian rule will be checked, put squarely on defense, and defense is something they really can't employ well; their only mode is attack.*

Somehow we will have to muster both our people's warmth and humane nature, and our revulsion at injustice and practical objections, all at the same time.  Both our moral sense and our common sense.  I'm not saying it's going to be easy.  The shape of this battle is now pretty well formed; I will have more to say about tactics in the 24 weeks to come. 

Light in a World of Woe

 Pope Leo's recent words are enough to make me a Follower, if not a Believer with a paid subscription.  I am so proud that our co-national, first ever to that high position of authority and grace, has chosen to speak wisely and confidently for us.  "Masters of war", indeed. Am I allowed to say "our Pope"?  Not from a nationalistic, possessive point of view, but isn't he supposed to be for all us humans, not just the Catholics who are bound to swear allegiance?  Of all the groups deserting the Drumpfenreich's support, it appears that Trump's blasphemous behavior has hurt him lately with religious observants of Catholic and Protestant evangelical faith.  He'd already lost most women, the mass deportation fiasco reversed his gains with Hispanics, and his gross warmongering has undermined him with young men. Surely there can't be enough remaining for him to rig the election in his favor

 

*I give credit to Pete Hegseth for little, but he was right about that when he re-named his cabinet department.  A name is not everything, though, as he has proved that war is sometimes about more than killing more of them than they get ours, something we should have learned long ago. .  

 

 

Domestic Debacles

 Nevermind

 In over their heads, they flounder.  Apologies to bottom fish for the verb; I mean them no disrespect.  After destructive acts toward agency after agency providing services to the public, incompetent reforms, and flat-out hand-outs, they are doing it to themselves, and that's what will really hurt (them). 

Though the content of the scandal is merely sordid and hardly mysterious, the rise of the Epstein Files conspiracy at this moment is one of those flukes of history. It has already broken the unity of the MAGA movement, and the power of the raging controversy, due to the ongoing cover-up, may end up rivaling Watergate as revealing a flaw in the Republicans' defenses leading to a catastrophic result. 

The current story cycle arose suddenly when a routine probing question from a White House presser hit a nerve that went straight to our President's lizard brain. His response revealed, in a moment, all that we will learn as facts over time. There's a deeply hidden scar on his record from his playboy days, his political tertiary syphilis.  

   Two phrases central to understanding the Epstein Files Scandal

Pedo-Adjacent -   This label is the minimum we can confidently hang on Trump in relation to this scandal.  It is fact that he hung out with him, not once but over a long period of time, which means that he was fully aware--at a minimum--of Epstein's decadent form of entertainment, and he did nothing about it. The files, whatever they are and what they contain, will confirm all that. Trump was in with a real bad group, whether he was all-in will be determined over time, primarily in the public mind. 

Reputation risk - This is the term for what is at stake for those who will end up implicated in the documents which will come out one way or another.  Saying that, I am assuming and hoping desperately that the privacy of the victims will be protected throughout.  Trump has a lot of public reputation to risk (somehow, after all this), he knows it, and the efforts to prevent the names, dates, and degree of offense coming out are only going to make it worse.  That risk is really the only one that I think is critical here; though there is no statute of limitations necessarily for the kind of criminal allegations potentially arising, there's no evidence Trump's DOJ will cause any charges to be brought.  On the other hand, the possibility of pardon if Ghislaine Maxwell will go the full line-toeing route would bring even more disrespect for the practice of justice in this case.* As for civil suits, maybe additional ones will result, but I think there are quite a few already.

Reputation, though, is what electoral contests are all about.  So, this is something to make political benefit from, with again the caveat that we put the interests of the many victims before all else.  So far, what I've heard, mostly through their legal representatives, is that they want the facts to come out (without their own names, of course).  As for Trump, Bondi, Patel and the loyalists, they are not so avid about disclosing facts, though Trump keeps talking about it, while the other two are trying to stay mum. 

Distraction that Matters 

Epsteiniana is one of those side stories that come to rule the airwaves, but is it just a distraction?  Not if it causes the Drumpfenreich electoral pain in 2026, which I think it will, in the form of reduced turnout for their side in swing districts and among Trump-leaning independents.  So, let it take its full course, and the inevitable secondary industry products as well, like books and movies.  Democrats have little to do besides demand to see more, at every opportunity. 

The Big Bogus Bill, on the other hand, was a colossal waste of energy.  Instead of a simple bill to fund a ramping up of immigration enforcement and military expansion, while leaving the 2017 tax cut and subsequent debt increase, for the same kind of $3.8 trillion hit, they had to mess with everything.  As should be expected, all bad.+  Typical Trump 2.0, furious expenditure of political capital for no good purpose except favoring Trump's allies and hurting those he disfavors. 

Yes, the first is our rich and the second is our poor, but the target that will feel the pain above or below all others is, to use the name given by Peter Gabriel some time ago, our Big Blue Ball.  What is this thing Trump has that makes him so crazy-bad about the environment, or anything that might preserve it?  The damage he is doing will be hard or impossible to undo, and it will take too much time, once it becomes feasible again (that looks like 2029, and that's maybe).   So that is one for which we will all feel the result. 

Like most of his "successful" outcomes, it will be "OK, that's what I wanted and expected" for a few who benefit, but disastrously bad for some. Most, though,  won't feel all the pain right away because many of the effects on the public are delayed or indirect. As for the tax cut, most will not feel anything different, because it won't be different.  Medicaid? SNAP?  Those cuts are for the losers, they deserve it, right? Medicare?  That's a little more tricky, as is Social Security, neither of which is addressed in any of the legislation, though there are apparently cuts in Medicare spending implicit in the projected numbers. On the whole, it's more money doing less for the public, with pork for the human hogs the main product. 

Running against this legislation should yield some results with the working-class voters the Democrats claim to be building their message towards, but because of its subdued short-term effects I don't think BBB will have the visceral impact in 2026 that  Dobbs had in 2022 to charge up their Democrats' own turnout, something which will be absolutely necessary to win back Congress.  There's still time for that killer issue to emerge clearly, but I'm thinking now it will be fear of Big Brother. 

As for the two real winners in the bill--the profiteers of the military and deportation/prison industries--I will take that up soon, in a rant about our foreign affairs.  Both of those are not domestic problems at their root, though we fool ourselves into thinking that they are.  (the environment, too)  

 

 * My prediction would be a partial commutation of her sentence, say from 20 years to 10, after a rather anticlimactic testimony.  It won't please anyone, but any other outcome would not work in this delicate situation. 

+There was one worthwhile thing in the final bill, from my study of what's been reported to be in it.  A deduction of $1000/$2000 (single/joint) is possible for those who do not itemize (now, most of us, except the wealthy and business owners) for charitable contributions.  This will help these charities fill the gap caused by the lack of government support for worthy causes; more people will give.  A good policy for a time marked by stinginess and greed.  

Five Takes on TDS

 

 

 

 I have often seen the acronym misused with regard to those who sense reality, applied incorrectly by those whose motivation is only to "own the libs". I propose several alternative views of it. 

1)  Trump Derangement Syndrome:  According to the Cambridge Dictionary, derangement is defined as the state of being completely unable to think clearly or behave in a controlled way, especially because of mental illness. This applies, not to those who react with anger or sadness to Trump's maladministration, but it is better applied to those who are still under his spell after all these years--the MAGA believers.  These folks are generally still out of their minds and beyond reach. 

2)  Trump Delusion Sufferers:  These are the people who had some rational thought that a change of administration might benefit them, in terms of their chief concerns--say, the economy.  They now realize that the expectation they drew from what was promised was merely a scam.

The way to interact with them is as you would with someone who is a victim of fraud, whether their own credulity caused them to become victims, or just were outwitted.  Sympathize with them for their loss; then you can safely share with them how you, too, suffer from the damage.

3) Trump Depression Sufferers:  These are the many people who have observed what is happening and cannot get over the sadness it brings them.  Depression is very hard to treat; the recourse to alcohol and/or drugs is the wrong medicine.  In this case, it would seem best to try to interest them in something else besides politics, such as horseback riding, a fitness and dieting regime, comedy, or Tai Chi. 

4) Trump Dethronement Schemers:  Some of them are motivated by a spirit of revenge, others from a righteous desire to defend our Constitution, but the common thread is what King Crimson called "Radical Action to Unseat the Hold of Monkey Mind" (album cover illustration above).*  This is all well and good but needs to be put on hold, lest the 8647 Police come to take you away. I will admit that this is the version to which I am most susceptible. 

5) Trumpism Defeat Scenarists:  At last we come to a worthwhile version.  People are coming at this from all sorts of angles. There are various ways to skin this cat, and the only question is to unite around the one script that is most feasible. It must start with taking control of the US House of Representatives in the 2026 midterm elections, then using the control of the House committees to expose the full range of corruption in this administration and the damage its economic and foreign policies are causing.  The goal is a complete wipeout of the Trumpist program in 2028, and then to move forward with policies that will prevent any recurrence of unconstitutional and anti-democratic governance.  The progress will then follow.

 

*Photo from the Wikipedia article about that musical release, by the sterling formation of the 2010's which performed the last live tour of the band.  Highly recommended, as is the more reduced "Live in Toronto" release.  I hope this plug makes up for the appropriation of the intellectual property.

Future Project 2025, Part I

So, "Where Do We Go Now?" 

(I hate Axl Rose and not fond of Guns 'n Roses, but the guitar solo is irresistible.)

 

An Inquiry into the Human Prospect (Robert L. Heilbroner)

This begins a series of posts to develop some ideas about our future, utilizing past studies of the question of our collective future, what they knew and didn’t know, and what we can learn from their analyses,  This first one was written some 50 years ago; most of the others will be from the time around 2000, when the question of the future figured prominently in popular culture.

Heilbroner was a prominent professor of economics at the New School in New York.  He branched out into areas of the history of economics, philosophy, and political economy.  He wrote at a time like ours in many ways, when various national proxy-type wars were being experienced, internal strife in the US was strong, and anxiety was high.  I note also the similarity between the so-called Generation Gap of the time, between the young Baby Boomers and their parents, and the modern gap between those same Boomers, now aging, and the younger Gen Z and Millennials. 

Heilbroner's Theses

In terms of  threats to humanity, he named 1) population growth; 2) the potential destruction caused by wars; and 3) environmental limits to growth and its effect on quality of life.  The fourth development, the rapid progress in scientific and technological prowess, he identified as both an enabler to solve problems and a catalyst for accelerating them.  

In particular, he saw as probable that the relatively easy path to nuclear proliferation raised a likelihood that underdeveloped countries would use their ability to produce them in order to blackmail the developed ones with the threat of nuclear terrorism, in order to demand major economic concessions.

In terms of our internal capability to address these threats, he was quite pessimistic, seeing human nature as basically unchangeable and the framework of nation-states as also next to permanent. In full recognition of the seemingly unstoppable momentum of industrial growth and of the accelerating pace of scientific and technological achievements of  recent decades, he nevertheless asserted that these could not continue, due primarily to approaching environmental disaster and exhaustion of primary resources needed for industry.  In particular, he named climate change as something that would arise and threaten the continuation of humanity, along with exponential population growth. 

The volume I re-read for this post was copyrighted 1975 (W.W. Norton), which reprised his original 1972-73 work but included his own postscripts written shortly afterward.  In these, he noted how events immediately after the initial publication-- the Arab-Israeli War and the oil embargo imposed by OPEC, and the expansion of the nuclear weapons club with India's first successful test-- gave his warnings additional public impetus, but his perspective was much more long-term.  While admitting that he fully partook of the benefits of advanced industrial civilization, his point of view was that, while events in the short-term or even medium-term might vary trends, the long-term reality remained that industrial growth, augmented by the inevitable development in the Third World, could not continue apace.  He mentioned the possibility that conversion toward service industry and that improvements like solar energy could ameliorate the crisis and lengthen the term of our progress, yet he remained pessimistic for the long run. 

His conclusions included the thought that strong authoritarian governments--such as the Maoist China of his time--might be able to both stem population growth and control popular demand for economic growth. He admitted that he loved being in a democratic society with free speech, etc., but didn't find it conducive to the changes that must come.  He acknowledged that people do not think about the long-term result of their daily lives and even might question the need to do so, but he urged us to bear the burden of keeping on with doing the right things for posterity. In the aftermath of the convulsive end to our headlong race to self-destruction, he saw the possibility for something like nationalistic, religious societies to emerge in a "monastic" future civilization.

The View from 50 Years Beyond

It seems now that his pessimistic views of human nature and societal flexibility are more in tune with today's reality than the hugely optimistic view prevalent at the millennium. Three or four big changes came that he did not fully anticipate: 

1)  The collapse of the Soviet Union, with its follow-on developments for Eastern Europe and the evolution of the European Union have been game-changers over the past few decades.  One hugely positive result has been a period with less wars between the powers, conducted through proxy contests. Of course, few if any saw the fall of the Iron Curtain coming until the years just before those events at the end of the Eighties.  This changed the status of socialism; I would point out that the movement toward Euro-Communism, or "socialism with a human face", that was rising in the Seventies, had also faded by then, with capitalism emerging dominant in most of the world.  

Even China found its way toward economic development more like that of capitalism though the Communist Party retained its exclusive hold on power there.   In that sense, modern China has become even more like the kind of political force that can successfully influence the course of society and domestic economy, through coercion combined with massive investment. On the other hand, the supreme power position of the US, leading the so-called Western nations, has endured longer, though its unchallenged reign seems almost over, MAGA notwithstanding, and even assisting in its eclipse.

2) Resource limitations do exist and are apparent in some areas, but the continuing identification of extractable fossil fuels has been a surprise which has allowed ongoing growth of things like heavy industry  (in many parts of the world), the transportation vehicles using them, and the industries that make and distribute those vehicles of individual transport. This result thus continues environmental degradation.

3) Population growth has slowed in most parts of the world, so that we can now foresee a leveling off of population--it is still on the order of 10 billion, as compared to the 3 billion of Heilbroner's time. The ability to provide food for all the world's people is real--which would surprise some of his time-though economic inequality makes its distribution to all a real challenge.  Heilbroner asserted that exponential population growth must end, and that appears to be the case; it may have happened faster than expected.  Some of that was through coercive policies in China and India, but just as much through a natural reduction in the birth rate as more societies achieved full modernization and greater economic security.

In terms of the environmental threat, there is some of the progress that he foresaw as possible, but also setbacks, due to the reason of continued industrial development facilitated by the availability of resources.  An unanticipated effect in a negative sense resulted paradoxically from the reduction of air pollution due to cleaner fuels, as greater absorption of solar energy on land and sea due to clearer skies has actually accelerated global temperature increase. One challenge that he mentioned doubtfully was successfully addressed internationally:  the elimination of the production of the most damaging chlorofluorocarbons.

4) In terms of technology and how it affects the human prospect, the greatest change has been the development of immense digital capability, as computing power has increased exponentially, along with data storage capacity and the density of electronic microsystems.  The effects on consumers of electronic devices have been a combination of greater capabilities, especially in communication, but also societal changes which we do not fully understand yet. The advent of artificial intelligence, which was merely theoretical fifty years ago, has resulted from greater computing power and enormously greater data to train AI programs upon; it presents a frontier in which we are only taking the first steps forward.

And What This Means for Our Own Future...and Beyond

 Heilbroner specifically mentioned the 1.5 degree Celsius increase--even then!--as a known threat to our quality of life and the planet's biology.  That threshold now seems to have been reached or surpassed, with little doubt that the mean global temperature is still on the rise; we do not have a firm idea how much more will be coming, or even that clear of an idea of all the consequences.  There is some reason to believe we can slow that growth, through voluntary means or possibly with the assistance of some technological fixes, despite the current trends in some nations (speaking to you, USA under Trump 2.0) to ignore or go against the needed changes. 

The USA is just one part of the problem, though; some parts of the world are still industrializing and using dirtier means than necessary to do so.  China is both rapidly advancing in solar energy and building more polluting coal plants. There is a real possibility of sea level rise producing dramatic, if gradual, threat to the huge portion of our planet's human population living near coasts. Ecologies are being disrupted, and climate change is also taking the form of more severe storm systems. Our progress in feeding the world could be at risk, too, if our agricultural capability deteriorates. One can envision a future where many or most societies have to "hunker down"into safer areas and reduce activity, along the lines that Heilbroner suggested, but also a different, worse one where relatively few, well-off societies or subgroups within societies can hide from the devastation experienced elsewhere.      

The threat of nuclear annihilation remains, through wars between nations--now re-emerging in comparison to recent decades--or terrorism.  The club of nations with nuclear weapons has expanded some, with North Korea being an especially threatening new member, and that expansion could easily accelerate if, for example, Iran tests a nuclear device.  The limited progress of the past in preventing unlimited expansion of strategic weapons development seems to be receding rapidly, and warfare is becoming ever more mechanized and less restricted. 

Heilbroner was surely correct in his assessment that social, economic, and political structures of the time would be unable to adapt successfully to the threats posed by war, exponential growth, and climate change. So, where do we go from here?  My inspiration is the relative success the world has had in slowing population growth; it has not happened everywhere, but it has happened enough that we can see the light.  I disagree strongly with those who feel there is some crisis because the wealthier countries' birthrates have dropped below replacement level--there are plenty more people to fill the gaps, and the pig in the python will pass through eventually. 

There is a way forward without coercive or oligarchic survival mechanisms. We must first reverse the negative trends in our confidence and find our voice to make smart choices, democratically.  We must figure out how people--all people--can earn a decent living in a capitalist, or mixed, economy in which so many jobs will be eaten up by artificial intelligence programs and robots. Some nations will make more progress toward a successful path to the future, some less, and we must tolerate both.  

The greatest disappointment of the past decades to me is the absence of transnational cooperation.  The United Nations has failed under its current charter in its primary role of ending warfare, though it accomplishes much in humanitarian areas and does provide some means of participation for smaller countries. The climate change conferences produce agreements, agonizingly constructed, that are not respected. Crimes against humanity continue, and the US "exceptionalism" has been exceptionally uncooperative when it comes to international treaties designed to have accountability for them.  I have not lost hope for progress, but it will likely come far into the future.  Until then, our dreams of interplanetary exploration are a sad joke. 

Heilbroner thought religion could help make the necessary transitions.  My response was initially skeptical, when I read his book decades ago:  I am a confirmed agnostic, in that I know that I don't know.  I have seen enough of all the religions to know that they converge on certain ethical and moral principles, ones that, from a game theory or business model point of view, are necessary to share:  how could a belief system that encourages harm to one's neighbor, theft, and deception survive for long? 

I am encouraged by some progressive trends in the Catholic church, and I believe the new pope Leo XIV may make his mark toward reducing warlike behavior, and follow his predecessor's steps in recognizing the validity of other religious beliefs and their followers.  The fact that he is a US citizen (also one of Peru) is significant and may make a real difference in a movement among us toward tolerance, respect for the natural beauty of our planet, and reduced militarism (and, I might add, excessive nationalism).  The church's stance on "allowing" women to have multiple children has been harmful in some regions--it is not alone in that antisocial stance--but has also been overcome, broadly, and as I say, population growth is not the huge problem it appeared to be in the past.  

What Is To Be Done?

Kamala Harris' Presidential campaign, and that of President Biden before her, focused their energy on the cause of defending democracy.  Millions of potential voters turned away.  That, and the betrayal of RFKJr made the difference in a close general election in 2024. 

Democratic post-mortems, of which there have been way too many, proposing a variety of solutions, seem to agree that the problem was the lack of a substantial alternative to that being proposed by the Trump candidacy, that moronic, lying, hateful, fearmongering proposition backed by a narrow plurality, just short of a majority, of those who chose to vote.  And it's true, our democracy, as it is practiced today, is barely defensible.  Defending this status quo proved to be a loser. 

The answer to Democrats' lack of a credible alternative is not an economic one, really.  The US economy was not so bad in 2024, or in 2016.  In both cases, the Democratic-led administration had made real progress, with its limited real means to control the economy, in digging the country out of deep holes created during the Republican-led administrations of W Bush and Trump I.  It didn't win the election for them. 

There is talk of the Democrats developing some kind of vision of Abundance as a policy to campaign upon.  That's pretty much just apple pie thinking--yes, we would all like to be wealthy, but promising that is only going to backfire in the long run, as the realization sets in that it isn't happening.  The failure of that promise of super-abundance is pretty much happening in real time to Trump's promises of MAGA.  Frankly, the US already has abundance, and the likelihood that it will flourish ever more doesn't look so good as global commerce fades, climate change hampers us, global competition rises around us, and AI eliminates jobs all over.  Just ask the young about the prospects. 

Yes, the economic failure that is coming at us rapidly will likely cause a reversal in the political fortunes for the Republicans, whose hold on government is strong, but electorally very thin, and getting thinner week by week.  That would just be another swing of the pendulum, though, and will not bring us any closer to a more successful, stable polity that we can believe in. 

Bernie Sanders was right when he said, recently, that the US is a "pseudo-democracy".  The fact of the matter is that the policies of this Federal government are not popular ones. I would accept that there are times when the collective judgment of our elected representatives should override the popular whims of the moment and pursue wise policies to benefit all of us, but that is not at all the case now.  The authoritarian, destructive policies being pursued incompetently now are harmful to most, but excessively beneficial to a few who control the power. This is not democracy; it is barely a constitutional republic. 

The Reinvention of Democracy is the Vision We Need

The reforms I suggest below are generally non-partisan (not bipartisan), and some will tend to weaken the Democratic party's power relative to what it controls today; however, because it will work to remove built-in obstacles to people's will, we can expect the Trumpist Republican cult would oppose them fiercely.  I am limiting myself to changes that can be accomplished without constitutional amendment, as that is out of the question in today's political environment, or any that we can foresee in the near future.  Once the people are back in control, though, I would think that we could consider it possible to utilize the Founders' other channel to change the constitution, a new convention, without preset limits.   

Number one of these obstacles to democracy is the obscene level of expenditure for political campaigns now.  There has been an exponential escalation of the costs in the past twenty years, and now it is on a scale where only the rich and well-funded lobbyists can participate meaningfully.  For the others, massive efforts are required, but as we saw in 2024, not sufficient.  For Federal elections, the only choices are accepting the implicit bribery of huge donations, constant fundraising, or, increasingly, self-funding by multi-millionaires.  2024 saw Trump's winning campaign funded by hundred of millions of dollars of support from Elon Musk, who's been rewarded by getting a free hand to steal the nation's personal data and re-jiggering any regulations that get in the way of his profit-making.  For the Democrats looking forward to 2028, their best chance may be billionaire J.B. Pritzker, whon I could support if and only if he agrees:  Ending unlimited campaign spending is the start of returning democracy to our electoral process. 

I realize that in the odious Citizens United case some ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that political spending fell in the category of free speech protected by the constitution, but the lines that were drawn between true campaign-support funding and parallel "nonprofit" organizations' theoretically separate activity have been blurred, then practically eliminated entirely.  "Dark money" contributions have eliminated any accountability for political contributors, and guardrails to prevent foreign interference or produce any limitations on direct contributions have had workarounds making them ineffective.

Congress does have the responsibility of setting the dates and broad outlines of federal elections, a prerogative they need to exercise.  My principal recommendations are to re-energize the moribund Federal Elections Committee, give it increased powers to monitor campaign activity, levying fines proportionate to the danage violations cause to elections--and remove all partisan appointments to it.  Congress should emulate some parliamentary democracies and declare a period of some 60 days immediately prior to the elections in which political activity should be closely regulated.  Restore "Equal Time" provisions for free media, penalize factual inaccuracy (also known as "lies"), and limit direct campaign spending by individual campaigns to some ratio to population (I'd suggest 10 cents per person, at current dollar valuations.)  

I don't have much to complain about the actual methods of voters' registering their choices, or about the counting of the votes; these are controlled within states and localities, and there is something to be said about their being decentralized, and thus not subject to centralized or hacked manipulations.  I do believe that the ongoing debates about voter suppression and voter fraud are totally unnecessary:  Congress should authorize the issuance of tamper-proof Voter ID's to every citizen of age, equipped with 21st-century digital technology and easily transferable between precincts, counties, or states as people move their residence.  Issued universally without charge to the individual, for the first ID at least.  Coming of age would then bring this privilege of citizenry, reinforcing the special, though universal, benefit of suffrage.  I do not believe the issuance of this credential to be a difficult challenge for this nation to achieve, either in terms of the cost or the technology. 

The Electoral College is an ongoing irritant and distorter of the popular will.  In past elections, it transformed close popular votes into electoral vote landslides; now it evidences a much greater problem, reversing the outcome itself with greater frequency, something which undermines the whole prospect of the democratic choice of our top leader tremendously.  It is something fundamental to the original constitutional framework, though, and could never be changed to mere popular vote plurality without a radical set of amendments.*  

What is not at all in the constitution is the "winner-take-all" electoral slate, in which the candidate with the plurality of votes wins all the electoral votes of the state, something in effect in every state except Maine and Nebraska. It is something that developed in the 19th century as states competed to have their votes count more than others, another escalation that distorted popular will.  Now, because of it, 40 states or more have all their electoral votes virtually  put up on the board before the election even starts.  The entire presidential election is focused on a few states, with the resulting effects on policy subtle but clear.  All serious contenders for the Presidency have to focus on the needs of Pennsylvania, above all others, with a few others like Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin getting secondary attention, and the rest--nothing.

I would recommend that a compact of Congress prohibit winner-take-all, combined with enabling provisions. The Maine/Nebraska approach gives two electoral votes to the statewide winner, and the other electoral votes are determined by the candidate winning the individual House districts.  It's a good remedy, and one that would show no favor, if accompanying the measure is a resolution ending gerrymandering:  congressional district boundaries would be determined by nonpartisan analysis considering natural and significant man-made boundaries, trying to build around intact communities and metropolitan areas. 

The political parties' power of over elections, another "feature" which the US Constitution's authors opposed, needs to be reduced, and the narrowing of the field of practical candidates to the two parties' nominees, chosen through primaries which, though intended originally to give power to the voters, has resulted in recent times to intensify partisan division to dangerous levels.  The introduction of ranked-choice voting and instant runoff would address this problem.  In this, voters would be able to indicate the preference, in ranked order, for most or all of the candidates on the ballot (or write-in);  if no candidate gets a majority, then the votes of the lowest candidate, in first-choice votes, would be immediately allocated to the remaining candidates by the voters' second choice, and so on until someone achieves a majority.  It could be used for any and all elections of officials--even the Presidential one, which might head off the prospect of the constitution's infamous resolution method for outcomes without an absolute Electoral majority (voting by the House, with each state getting one vote).

The provision has settled in a few states' elections, but it is not clearly understood by most of the electorate--I would suggest that it is because opposing it is one thing both parties can agree to put aside.  It clearly gives greater opportunity to third parties and independent candidates. Most importantly, it would lead to the end of the discouraging prospect of having to choose between the "less-evil" of two, which so many decry in so many elections these days, with the winning candidate being truly chosen (to some extent) by a majority of voters. 

The final recommendation I'd suggest for now would be to extend the right of representation to all US citizens, through granting statehood to  1) District of Columbia, 2) Puerto Rico,  3) US Territories and expatriates.  Three new constituencies, and if possible, mandating voting rights to those citizens disenfranchised for whatever reason. 

Why should the Democratic party advocate this set of reforms, which as I say seem somewhat limiting to their partisan interests? Because they are necessary for our nation, because they embody the party's name and purpose, and because they will be politically efficacious. This platform for reinvigorated democracy would seem to be something broadly popular, difficult in the extreme to oppose without denying the fundamental principle that the political will of the electorate should not be suppressed or distorted beyond recognition. 

 

*The Popular vote initiative--to mandate that all electoral votes would be allocated to the national popular vote winner--is stalled well short of its needed objective of having 270 electoral votes' worth of states supporting it, and I see no chance of that being reached.  Even if it were, it would not eliminate the partisan firestorm that would occur if a candidate (let's say, Trump) would have 270+ electoral votes from the states under the current system, but the victory denied because of lack of a popular vote plurality. I can just see the rebellion that would result, and the chaos following when the Supreme Court throws out the popular vote-driven result.    

 For the title, I borrowed from Vladimir...Lenin, that is, and from 19th-century Russian idealist Nikolay Chernyshevsky, from whom Lenin borrowed it in his turn.

More Quick Hits

Strategy for Playoffs (Planning Them) 

If you read between the lines in my previous WC comments, I believe that, if they are going to keep this extra playoff round, they should make it more valid.

 Expand the Wild Card round to best-of-five, the Division Series to a full 4-of-7. That would fix it, in the way the NBA Playoffs ensure these contests have their completion (though I personally would advocate "calling it" in any best-of-7 when it's 3-0).

That would mean a long break for those two bye teams in each league, both for good and for ill. The next evolution would be toward a system in which the only bye team for the first round is the one with the best regular-season record in the league--the NFL once again setting the pace. 

Where do the days come from to do all this? By reverting to the traditional 154-game regular season (from the current 162).  Adding those four potential additional games to the length of the whole season (including playoffs) would need this adjustment, though the one I propose would also bring the chance for more off-days and make-up days.  Few would object to this change, except team owners.  So they would need some adjustment, perhaps in their precious cap limits. 

"College football" is in chaos, it seems to me, with professional college, inc. teams serving as money-making incubators for the NFL owners to cherry-pick. The 'conferences", and their championships? Don't make me laugh. There are two that matter (the SEC and the Big 10) for the new, over-expanded playoff system. Those championship games will be life-and-death battles, for seeding? It makes no sense except in the greed, cow-milking one. And I was one of the ones recommending the radical idea of an expanded round! (I meant, to six). 

4X4 for Kamala 

Post-Election Proposals for Popular (mostly non-Partisan) Reform 

1) Remove the income cap for Social Security tax--this will fix one problem, at least. The previous argument for the famous shut-off in midyear for the privileged, that Social Security is but an insurance policy, now paid for the year, is no longer sustainable, as the tide has gone out and we see our wet suits for what they are. It is pay-as-you-go, always has been, really, and this gap for income earners between $140K (or whatever the current calculation for when the tax stops, for the rest of the year), and $400k, which was the Biden going-nowhere proposal, with tax recurring above that, will have to go. Among other reasons, for equity. It can get bipartisan support, and the complete change will save the security-part of SSA. (Above 400k, it can increase, or whatever the system can allow...) She could even advocate this now, if she wanted to show some intelligent diversion from a straight Biden line, but it has risks. 

 2) Direct election of the Speaker of the House

 Yes, but--ARTICLE 1,-Section 2. The House shall chuse their Speaker.. 

So, it would be non-binding, in a different way from chusing our President. Get it? I'm sure the House would, and meaningful challenges to the will of the electorate would be rare. Any of that would importantly take the struggle away from the existential question of the ownership of the White House. The elected Speaker would be able to deal with the Senate and thus with the President as head of Congress, and pull back the legislative authority from the presidency. The over-empowered executive could then focus on its true, huge responsibility for global security, maybe? Yes, and administration, a la- Jimmy Carter (bless him!--his 1976 victory is the key to understanding this election). 

I'd suggest ranked-choice voting, runoff of top 3, low barrier to entry but short campaign (in years with Congressional elections, so every two years). 

Could Donald Trump win this, after he loses to Kamala? I'm willing to see it. 

 3) Do Away with States' Winner-Take-All (Conditionally) - This would be a compact of Congress that would support best practices and induce states voluntarily to switch away from giving all their Electoral Votes for President to the candidate getting the plurality in their state.  This would create more interest in turning out in the large states with partisan majorities, in spite of which there are always contrary pockets, usually in multiple Congressional districts. .

The other half of this would be independent certification that states are not excessively gerrymandering their districting.  Fair congressional districts are within our power to develop; AI could actually be useful here in developing a set of districts maximizing various objectives, in order to present decision-makers with a final choice. This reform would be targeted for the 2032 Presidential election.

4) Start a Federally-Supported Institute for Home Health Training - This is a favorite unopened envelope from the 2020 campaign. It is clear that the best health service for many, the one woman worth paying for, is at home, with varying levels of attention there, from periodic to full-time, depending on the needs and resources of the client.  It is very hard to find and keep active capable home healthcare workers.  A nationally-recognized certification program would allow these workers to move about, as many would like to do, and get work where they go.  So many will be needed.

The Institute should be located in South Florida (this is the partisan part).  That's closest to where the greatest portion of eventual work will be, and it is a good area to recruit future home healthcare workers. 

These are proposals for a Harris administration that could actually be accomplished in a hostile, or hopelessly split (at best) partisan Congress.  Doing any of these would radically change the dialogue and push toward 21st-century-suitable processes to manage one of the most important aspects of our society. If, on the other hand Harris loses, I got nothing for you, US. 

 These would not require constitutional amendments, which are not possible at this time.  Some may need to wait until after the expected post-Trumpian collapse of the Republican party as a viable competitor for national office (as opposed to the Senate, where they will linger on).

Biden Out...For Real!

 First, I refer all to my previous post from last September, "Biden Out", if you haven't already looked upon it. It was a good effort at creative prognostication: I had some things right and some wrong; most notably I never thought President Biden could be convinced that someone else would have a better chance than he to defeat Trump, which was the critical consideration.  Though it would seem at this moment that it is clear which scenario we will have all the way to November, and I certainly don't expect Biden to return to active campaigning for the nomination, it  is still possible for a "Trump Collapse" to occur, for Trump to join Biden on the sidelines, or for "Chaos" to take over the campaign (as it might have done if Crooks' bullet had found its presumed mark, or if the Democrats' attempt to improvise a Harris bandwagon loses its wheels). 

Next, I give full credit to our President for realizing that the dynamics were pushing him inevitably toward dropping out.  The poll numbers did not move immediately after his debate failure, but they were moving, consistently, and his deficit was getting beyond the margin of error.  He commissioned polling on VP Harris to run against Trump, and I'm guessing it was a couple points better than his numbers.  Then, to top it off, he got back out on the campaign trail and immediately came down with Covid, which was being stubborn and which no doubt changes one's mood.  The rebellion of insecure Democratic Congresspeople paused for a few days but was once again mobilizing against his continuing on. In spite of all this, he deserves a huge salute for being willing to do the right thing, and for immediately endorsing his VP. 

There will be a process, and some fool may even stand up to oppose Harris' nomination, but she will get it. There's no time for developing any organized resistance, there's no sign of it yet, and there's no real reason for it.  She can go out and "prosecute the case against Trump" (as everyone has noted, indirectly referring to the prosecutor jobs which made her career) while Biden continues on as President.  I see no chance he will not complete his term unless he has a total physical collapse; he really wants to nail down the end to the carnage in Gaza. 

Initially, she will only get a small bump, if any, but the downward momentum will stop. The campaign will generate a lot of new money, which will make a difference down the road.  I see a lot of potential to bounce right over Trump in the popular vote, though the Electoral College is still going to be a great challenge, and the Senate even more so.  The change will help in particular the desperate effort to get control of the House, the only vestige of Federal power the Democrats are likely to have unless they can defeat Trump. It wouldn't be much, but it would keep some very bad laws from coming into effect.  (If laws even matter, if Trump wins.  I'm trying not to think that way, though, at least today.)

I'd like to see Kamala make a statement Biden was never willing to make (though some falsely accused him of saying it) and announce that she would only serve the one term from 2025-2029.  That would first of all ensure that those hungry Democratic governors who were planning to run in 2028 would not make the mistake of challenging her now; it would keep the focus on defeating Trump, and it would put a finite end on the Obama/Biden/Harris succession and provide some fresh air for the future campaign (which would begin in 2025, no doubt). 

Personally, I have been advocating for candidates for President to show a willingness to serve one term only.  The evidence is pretty strong that second-terms bring poor government; the self-limiting nature of such a decision as President Biden has made is a perfect example for the future.  Generally, anyone who wants to be President all that much (as Trump does, frankly to keep himself out of prison) should never be considered. I would support a constitutional amendment to make the Presidency a single term, of five or six years, and further to create a permanent office with significant powers able to investigate any of the branches of the Federal government, independent of the Department of Justice.  (The New FBI?)

This was a tough day for Joe Biden, but a good day for America.  And that means a bad day for Trump-Vance. 

A Few Outlandish Proposals to Solve Our Problems

 Some ideas I haven't heard suggested lately, and I would like to know why.  Please advise. 

 For Charity's Sake

Contributions to approved charitable and religious institutions should be deductible for those who use the standard deduction, in other words a deduction on top of the regular one.  It is clear that one of the effects of the increased deduction from the Tax Scam Act from the Trump Administration was to reduce smaller-scale contributions from the masses--the big ticket guys had their deduction protected.  Non-profits are suffering as a result.  Smaller contributions are what broaden the public support for these organizations in their missions.  The reduced response rate for mail and email that has resulted make the economics much more difficult.   Ask any financial officer for a nonprofit, and they will tell you.

Yes, there is a big Federal budget deficit, which makes it difficult politically to propose something which reduces government revenue.  It's not that big a difference, though; I would estimate at most about $100 billion a year, which could be covered with an increase in the tax rate for billionaires (which is itself not as huge an effect as one might imagine).   This is a change which Republicans, who have always promoted the non-governmental sources of aid for the needy (at least pre-Trump), could get behind, as well.

The '68 Thang

I will admit there are some clear parallels between the chaotic 1968 electoral environment and this year's one.  In particular, the rebellion among the youth to what they perceive is a lack of a viable choice in the two party nominees, the antiwar movement, a Cold War-type foreign affairs situation with Russia threatening Europe, a Democratic incumbent who fails to convince and the Republican challenger who is well-known, untrustworthy, but politically potent.  

We must learn from history and elect Humphrey, not Nixon, this time.

 Do not let the tragedy of '68 become the farce of '24.

For the Intractable Middle East

As we bring aid to Gazans with this new proposed port, we should take some people out who want to go to live in the West Bank.  I read of a perfectly nice Palestinian settlement that needs people (Rawabi)  Of course, the Gazan evacuees need to be vetted (Israeli checkpoints) and have a clean record.  Families preferred. 

Israel should accept any offer of a ceasefire of indeterminate length, not just the short time needed to exchange hostages, furnish emergency aid, etc. Any such deal which gets all the hostages out is a win.   Israel would maintain Gaza locked-down (hopefully helping with the above evacuation, but that would need a new government), and breaking the truce would be a fool's mission:  Hamas would do it anyway, but probably not right away.  Israel could use the time to get a new plan; right now they haven't a clue what to do.  Maybe have an election?

The ME/NE Option

Winner-take-all Is the Enemy....

It's unfortunate no one in New Mexico listened to my suggestion that we consider going the Maine/Nebraska route in '24.  Each of those states has one district very much out of line with the state as a whole.  To preserve domestic harmony (as relates the Presidential election in far-off Washington, D.C.), they agree to allocate their Electoral vote winners at a Congressional district level (with two for the statewide at-large winner), even though there's a fair likelihood that that district will go against the state as a whole, losing a vote for the winning side.  

Now, in Nebraska, there is a move to cancel that law, and to vote all the state's electors as one.  The first attempt failed, but there is a second afoot.  Maine has countered with a law proposed to counter whatever Nebraska does.   

What I argued was that there was an opportunity for New Mexico, equally far from the Federal overreach in our ranch, to grab some of that attention.  In particular, it would be the 2nd Congressional District's time to shine. It's inconspicuous, on the border with Mexico but not an area with border fence nor migrant crisis--with a very close vote likely on the Presidential election.  

This change would not be in Biden's favor, as the risk in the one district would be much higher than that of losing five Electoral Votes statewide,  so why take the risk? The answers are two:  one is to increase democratic participation, which would gain the area more attention to its needs; the second is to increase  turnout in that district, one of the most at-risk Democratic holds in all House races in the country.  

The counter, of course, is the nightmare scenario where the change comes in NM and goes badly, or instead, if NE-2 doesn't come through for Biden, and he ends up at 269.  Which is a loss.   

There are such scenarios, but they are no more probable than a host of other numeric outcomes, once we consider that the Electoral College vote is a throw of crooked dice. It's  a random walk from the starting point of 303-235 that is the 2024 (post-Census reallocation) version of the 306-232 of 2020 and the same electoral result of 2016. Prove to me that any predicted outcome is more likely than that. 

Home Health Care - I still think President Biden should announce the establishment of a Federal showcase educational institution to train home health care workers. 

 In Florida.  It's not too late--there is something to gain, as the repulsive Rick Scott is an attractive target for the diverse opposition, and maybe they finally have a decent candidate to oppose him.  Florida is one of the best Democratic states to target an upset, after North Carolina. 

Immigration: Finally, the long-term solution to the immigration/Southern border migrant challenge:  move the critical decision point away from the border, into Mexico.  The US pays for land, building housing for temporary residence of applicants, does a major airport upgrade and employs both locals and US Border people to screen people who arrive at a safe point, under controlled conditions.  Then, if their application is acceptable, they stay while their transfer is finalized (which is done through air traffic).   If they are turned away, train fare to the coast of their choice to be deported. 

This is a big-ticket deal to be negotiated with Mexico, but as allies and friends.  I think we have the best chance for that, ever, with President Sheinbaum.  It does seem expensive, but think of how much we spend today--this is a chance to displace that expense and thereby reduce it and remove it as a domestic political problem.  We need to see it as our local version of a global problem with increasing peril for our stability Like climate change, and it is closely related. 

I'm thinking somewhere like Monterrey, but I don't know.   Correct me and propose some other location. 

Social Security:  Just don't cap the contribution at any income level.  That cap makes today's tax regressive. 

 That fixes it, but I do have a cockamamey idea that could help:  Those who have sufficient resources can make an irrevocable* decision to give up their payments, in return for which they get land.  The land would be from Federal land, like BLM, or forest, and they would receive to a measure commensurate with their contribution history.  There would be various covenants on the land thus received, that would survive the recipient to their heirs and be binding on those who purchase it.   The recipient gets, effectively, a title and a badge.  And any net revenue from the management of the land.   

What's the point?  Broaden ownership of protected land getting better management, save payout expense on people who don't need it. A legacy, like the old stakeholders.  An example of "less government" that the Democrats could support.  

*  Of course, like an airline flight, you can make changes, but there's a penalty.  I actually think Medicare and Social Security work extremely well. 

As I Rescue the Biden Administration Once Again

This is a problem with a solution, this duel of infrastructure bills.  After you, Alphonse.  No you, Gaston.  

The hard parts are the votes 49 and 50 in the Senate, as it seems no Republican dares to cross Mitch on this one.  This gives Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema inordinate power over the content and timing, and they are making the most of it. 

This whole big thing about the price tag is a bad PR joke come to life.  The simple answer is to shorten the time frames, strategically, so as to remain more or less equalized in expected revenues and expenditures (so that the true price tag, in terms of additional deficit, is minimal) and expire certain of the "entitlements" proposed.  The bill should allow those to be re-authorized by majority vote under the reconciliation process. 

Finally, the cloture vote on a continuing resolution and debt limit increase was a rude thumb-nosing, and should be countered by a similar fart in their general direction.  McConnell has said he would allow a "clean continuing resolution" (dirtied only by emergency relief, a demand we will be hearing a lot more from our Southern GOP Senators) to pass.  So, do that, then immediately after change the Senate rules to allow "future" debt limit increase motions to go to immediate vote with a simple majority, then make the motion.  In other words, make another crack in the filibuster for a "clean" debt limit increase measure.   

It's either that, or put it in the BBB Big-Ass Biden bill.  Which is just normal sausage-making, really. 

Again, the hard part is discerning how to accommodate what Sens. Manchin and Sinema require to support the final bill.  Beyond the simple price tag sticker shock of it all,* of course.   Manchin seems to want some pullback from the Green New Deal-ish aspects of it--there are credits for energy savings that push aside fossil fuels.  So, I'd say give him money to start a major "clean coal research" facility in Morgantown.  There may be no practicable way to make coal clean, though from what I remember, certain varieties should be easier to take off their impurities.  The big plus would be meaningful improvements in carbon and methane sequestration, which would be required on a high scale to make coal burning not release CO2 and other greenhouse gases.   And the learning could pay off in the future. Just a few billion, or a few dozen billion, it wouldn't be that bad. 

As for Sinema, the scuttlebutt is that she doesn't like the tax increases on the rich folk.  (The scuttlebutt on Manchin was similarly that the corporations that have bought him didn't want the increase.  I will come to this momentarily.)  I would say that her key constituency is the striving class, middle and upper-middle, professions of various kinds, in Maricopa County and thereabouts (and a similar group in the Tucson area).  What those people won't like, and where the rub is going to lie, is in the reversal of the SALT limit imposed by the Trump TaxScam that is a hardcore demand of Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.   

Why is that?  The limit hits those with higher incomes in taxes with relatively high state income taxes.  Arizona is a no income-tax state.  Though sales tax is a different issue, this is one of the big areas of appeal to put up with its infernal summers (it's gorgeous winters are also another, obviously).  So, the invidious comparisons would suffer there. 

The remedy will have to be some other kind of monetary concession, and I think Sinema has communicated what that will be.  I'm guessing military tech spending of some kind. 

As for Manchin, he is dealing directly with President Biden.  My belief is that he has privately assured Joe that, when the time comes and he has satisfied himself, he will vote for the deal.  He also gave him the size of sticker he could really support, after all the back and forth.  And, importantly, that he would not oppose the corporate tax increase to 27%, which is what Biden promised.   

Manchin has been giving clues all along, though:  his voiced reluctance to add new entitlements really is pointing toward the sunset approach I suggested above.  Again, in five years we should be able to take a new look at these, to see then where our priorities for investment should lie. 

My over-under number for the tag is $2.31T, that last .01 T (ten billion dollars) being the Manchin Concession.  

* (yes, $3.5 T is a big number, no doubt, though for a 10-year markup it's a slower rate than $2.0 T for an average of six years).   

Assuring Election Integrity 

In some of the comment areas of websites I have visited, I have seen that phrase used by those seeking remedies for the purported electoral abuses of 2020.  I ask, what is election integrity, but this:  

"ready access to the vote for all adult citizens, which is then counted, and reported, efficiently and accurately"

Question mark.  So far, no one has disputed this formulation--I cannot see how one could. *

Frankly, it doesn't seem that much to do:  nations in all parts of the world have managed it.  Not all of them, mind you--the main requirements seem to be up-to-date use of technology, the will to use it, and precautions against its misuse.  They have one tool, though, that we do not have:  a standard national ID. 

I guess it's too late to bundle that into the reconciliation, too, though there's every reason it should have been included:  "election infrastructure".   But maybe there's a way to make it "bipartisan", as I have suggested. 

* I use no shock quotes around the phrase because it's not  masquerading as another thing; it is the thing itself. 

Heterodoxy, Pt. 1

The Triumph of JFK's Legacy Is Joe Biden  -  

I really don't see how others have not pointed this out, as far as I know.  

Another way of putting this would be that Joe Biden is Camelot 2.1,  the Kennedy-dynasty Presidential successor who never happened.  Which America longed for over decades, before finally first, forgetting the idea, then fulfilling it--without even knowing it had done so!

The comparisons I've seen between Biden and  FDR, or Teddy Roosevelt, or LBJ all seem off the mark to me. 

OK, I do know why people aren't seeing this JFK aspect:  John Kennedy died so young (47), while Joe Biden didn't even make the White House until he was aged 78.  So they don't seem similar in the sense of the arc of their careers, or the visual images they provide us, but I think a few moments' reflection will show countless similarities in character, political ideology (or lack thereof), dedication to public service, pragmatism mixed with purpose, and of course the more superficial similarity in both being Irish Catholics. 

On that last point, JFK's preceding JRB made Biden's Catholicism much less a campaign issue (none at all?).  Biden managed to avoid the traps which befell RFK, Teddy (to whom Joe was close), and JFK, Jr. Joe's own transgressions (plagiarism probably the most egregious) and errors were not permanently disqualifying, unlike the way assassination, and driving or flying unsafely, turned out to be.  

I think it's all to the good with Our Joe (JFK's dad's name, lest we forget).  Joe Biden's persistence is heroic, as Kennedy's actions are seen to have been.  A profile in courage, to borrow a phrase. 

On Democracy 

 I think it is time to call the bluff of those opposed to expanded Federal guarantees of the right to vote.

The phrase I'm seeing a lot of the right-wingers cite is "election integrity".  Well, what is election integrity in the US but "all citizens having ready access to their vote, which is then accurately and efficiently counted and reported"?   I can hardly imagine anyone publicly objecting to any part of that; it's not just "bipartisan" in its expression, but non-partisan.  

The one thing that phrase is not compatible with is a fear of democracy.  It's time to flush those people out, because they are an immoral minority.  

Accepting the phrase means a lot of things, though:  along with a national Voter ID with 21st-century technological support (yes, that again!), optional methods of voting  based on local consumers' expressed preferences (easy to survey), full support for addressing all voter handicaps or language barriers, major revisions to operating standards of voting machinery (though not to make it all over-centralized; that would be too vulnerable), and a national holiday on Election Day.  Not to mention a greater commitment to support for local instruction on civic virtues, our government and its Constitution. 

The tricky part is the constitutional assignment of the executive power of elections to the states, who as a group are not up to the job.  There are some exceptions, states that conduct their electoral business adequately well, but those states' voters are furious at those other states' failures, which just adds to the divisiveness of what should be a consensus.  The way to get past that sticky issue of states' rights is with money, enough money per state that none can resist.   For an example of how that works, see (late 70's) how the Federal government got every state to agree to make age-21 alcohol use part of their law by threatening to hold up Dept. of Transportation money. 

So, yeah--let's do it.  It's all germane to the "infrastructure" question.   Then we can tackle those knotty problems with our system of representation, but we need an empowered and informed electorate to demand and oversee improvements.  

On Packing the Supreme Court

I saw Mitch McConnell gloating about how he denied confirmation to Merrick Garland in 2016, that being his "most consequential achievement as Majority Leader".  I have a suggestion for payback to Mitch: 

What the Democrats should do, in this Congress and with Biden's collaboration, is to put forward nominees for the next two Supreme Court seats, hold hearings for them, and "pre-confirm" them, with VP Harris providing the tie-breaking vote as needed.   Then, whenever Justice Breyer and Justice Thomas get around to resigning or dying, their replacements will be at hand immediately.  

The way I see it, and this can be part of the bill, Justice Amy "the Barbarian" Barrett was actually Justice Thomas' replacement, pre-confirmed and even seated in advance of that fine day when he leaves.  This means that Justice Ginsburg's replacement and the prospective Breyer one still should be filled, so as to preserve continuity and smooth operation of the Court. 

This would gall McConnell heavily. I look forward to seeing him express genuine emotion when this "victory" is taken from him; however, this is not just seeking partisan advantage, as he did.  This could be a permanent feature of the landscape, and could extend even beyond the Supremes, with a roster of approved candidates available for several levels of Federal judgeships when vacancies occur.  In the end, I think it's constitutional, the Senate merely fulfilling its duty to fill vacancies, but doing it proactively, something anyone in a well-run sizable business should understand.  I have no idea about the legality of it, but I firmly believe it's the right thing to do, and an improvement over the effective veto the Senate Majority Leader has, which is not consistent with the Constitution. 

And a Borrowed Idea--Thanks to Lula!

Former Brazilian President Lula da Silva has emerged after his prison sentence (undeserved, some say) and appears to be ready to run against incumbent Jair Bolsonaro next year.  He has been outspoken in his condemnation of Bolsonaro, particularly his spectacular failure with regard to the Trump Variant (of the COVID-19 virus).  Jair relied on the Dickhead45 version of epidemiological non-science for his public and personal policy and thus contributed mightily to his nation's excess death toll. 

This kind of abject failure in such a large country (speaking of Brazil, but also of the US) has ramifications going far beyond national borders.  Lula, quite rightly, says that the global community has a right--a necessity--to limit national sovereignty for this type of international security threat, even within nations, and mentions the words never heard these days:  "World Government". 

In this era of reflexive rejection of globalism, this would seem to be swimming against a strong riptide.  Some might say that more remote bureaucratic authority would be the last thing we all need in our efforts to combat our many problems; the truth is almost the exact inverse of that.  Humanity needs coordinated effort to combat climate change, to handle the flood of refugees from states failed due to environmental or political catastrophe, to deal with the current pandemic and future biological challenges, and to seek long-term progress against massive economic and political inequality. 

I'm in favor of a League of Democratic States, which would be able to tackle some problems the UN could not (though, after Groucho Marx somewhat, I'm not sure the US is worthy of membership in it at this point).  There is the Security Council, but we now see all its limitations, due to its original conception in the WWII post-war era that has never been changed, and which seems impossible to find agreement to change now.  This is different, though; we cannot allow geopolitical deadlock.  It requires the participation and support of all nations (read: the UN General Assembly).  They should empower a new permanent Committee for Domestic Tranquility (or an updated branding phrase of that nature) that has limited ability to overrule national sovereignty in certain specified situations and has subcommittees of subject matter experts working with respected international public servants.  Then we can go from there. 

Politics, Then and Now

I am prompted to action by the news of the passing of Walter Mondale, 93.   A fine example of  an American statesman, who should be defined by his successes more than for his famous defeated run for the Presidency.  

"Former Vice President" is the title of respect that will be used (in the Carter Administration, 1977-81), and he was by all accounts a breakthrough VP in the level of delegated responsibility, but his service was much broader than that.   During the Clinton Administration, he served as Ambassador to Japan; he was a two-term Senator from Minnesota before Carter promoted him as his running mate.  He remained dependable, loyal, and quite willing to serve, even stepping into a desperation two-week campaign upon the sudden death of Minnesota Democratic senatorial candidate Paul Wellstone (losing narrowly to future narrow-loser Norm Coleman). 

It is necessary, and no longer painful, to think back to that red-letter year, 1984, the year that Mondale was trounced by Ronald Reagan for his re-election.  The country was divided, with a solid Democratic majority in the House but Republican control of the Senate (sound familiar?)   The mood was very different, though:  the economy had regained its footing from the stagflation, skyrocketing interest rates, and recession of the Carter/Reagan transitional period.  George Orwell and his dystopic novel's awareness was everywhere, but the RR=BB (Big Brother)  connection never quite clicked with the electorate. 

The task for any Democratic nominee in '84 was nearly impossible: against Reagan (at that time, the survivor of the assassin's bullet, not yet revealed to be senile, not yet ensnared, also near-fatally, in Iran/Contra) there was no easily identifiable pathway to victory.  The early favorite to challenge him was Ted Kennedy, but he decided--early--to take a pass. My pick was Sen. John Glenn of Ohio--swing-state gold, and a true hero, as opposed to a phony one--but his bid flamed out quickly.  Jesse Jackson impressed, but we all knew he was not getting it. I think there might have been a Gephardt or some such moderate in there, but Mondale was the most substantial.  It was during the primary campaign that he capitalized on the lack of substance in Gary Hart's platform, borrowing the attack line from Wendy's Hamburgers (then much better, I insist) and asking, "Where's the Beef?"

It was enough to get him the nod, but being honest, capable, and above all, liberal, was not the formula to compete with Ronnie.  Neither was the inspired-but-premature bid for a breakthrough by selecting Rep. Geraldine Ferraro as the first-ever major-party national woman candidate. Ferraro could not inject the pzazz the Democrats needed to counter Reagan's star power and Teflon. No 21st-century Electoral College fluke, Mondale-Ferraro won in his home state and D.C. and that's it.  The popular margin was just as one-sided. 

"Fritz", as his friends called him, never achieved a distinctive public personality.  My own perception of him included a sense of humor,  a sensitive streak, and a lot of attention to family.  I see him as the 50-year continuation of the legacy of his mentor, Hubert Humphrey, who also achieved the rank of Former VP. 

Nonpartisan Initiatives, Pt. 3:  Quick Hits

I emphasize all my solutions are nonpartisan, not merely "bipartisan", which seems to be the highest possible aspiration of the unlikely unity seekers.  Rather than seeking all-encompassing solutions to these perennial social issues, I suggest simple fixes for the immediate problems in these areas to defuse them as issues for the '22 elections. 

Gun control - at this point, I will accept anything the Republicans will take onto themselves as well.  Unilateral action is out of the question, but I caution that it is much too late to just reduce how far open the barn doors remain.  

There are so many possible improvements.  For example, a friend argued to me the other day that the solution is a simple one: Federal law to require liability insurance for gun owners.  Insurance companies would do the rest, and surely what would happen is that those most-dangerous weapons would cost an arm and a leg to insure.  

Many would seek to evade, just as health plans that fail to meet minimal coverage levels have arisen to fill ACA requirements. We all know insurance companies find it better to invest in bureaucracy, lobbying Republican Congressmen, and legalities than to pay out "awards", but the net result would surely be less guns. And hatred of insurance companies (leading to Medicare for All, probably).  A net benefit, as the Chicago School of Economics might predict, but it won't keep loser incel shooters out of gun stores.  We have to follow Nancy Reagan and "Just Say No" when they try to buy, and be prepared to follow up with the authorities if necessary. 

Immigration - Free the DACA's, and on a limited basis, their families, with fast-track citizenship.  Set refugee numbers to increase gradually, but a one-time cleanup of the backlog is necessary. Stop exuding confusing wall signals. 

Minimum wage - What is this obsession with $15.00?  Why not $14.50?  It should be set based on local cost of living in rented quarters and adjust according to inflation.  In some places, $15 is not even enough, but here, it would be a job-killer if enforced. Which it wouldn't be.  

Abortion - OK, we just want to postpone this one and meanwhile reduce incidence of abortion through voluntary measures.  I suggest morning-after pills available in vending machines in women's and unisex bathrooms. 

Police reform - People forget, but somewhere in the back of their mind they remember, that calls of "police brutality" and references to "pigs" were once quite frequent.  The police seemed to win that round, helped by all the TV shows that demonstrated police were always the good guys, something that has only metastasized.   The revisionist theme of the corrupt or depraved cop has had its monstrous moments also, but I prefer just a lot less of all of it--I recommend severe cancel culture attacks on those shows as being destructive to our actual security.  Our minds will follow, and justice maybe a whole lot later.

Nonpartisan Initiatives--Pt. 2

(The first part of this series was my proposal for a National Institute of Home Health Work, which I would re-purpose as a nonpartisan initiative. Disclosure: It was originally partisan in my motivation, supporting Biden's chances in Florida--which is to say, basically nonpartisan.)

The January 6 Rejectionist movement will not succeed. This is not 1876, much as that bunch of reactionaries would wish it were. 

Once this Drumpfenputsch is rebuffed, Biden should immediately turn around and announce a commission to "recommend electoral standards reforms", making every effort to make the composition of commission members diverse, with true nonpartisan representation--and third-party advocates.  It won't be hard to find takers. 

Here are my suggestions for recommended Electoral Reforms.

$$ -Catalyst for Reform No one of any political stripe, or of none, should doubt the need for change.  What happened with this election should make that crystal clear:  we are as transparent as artificial mud.

But the Constitution mandates states' responsibility and power to conduct elections, which even applies to the Federal elections (President and Congress).  Ultimately, the choice to adopt the recommendations will belong to individual states, but funding to implement the needed reforms is the kind of incentive which will win acceptance of the standards package.   As we do with safety or with environmental protections.  Or, memorably, as the Department of Transportation (Buttigieg's new gig) did with the drinking age for states. It's just hygiene.   

How much are we talking about?  A few billion, at most.  Less than the PAC's will waste in the next midterm.  

I.  The Simple Compromise - Voter ID,  Ready Access, Election Day holiday.  

The tricky part is the voter ID part; there was legislation passed a generation ago (the NVRA, or "Motor Voter Act'), but it lacked enforcement.  The passport license update mandated for this year has been postponed; it's time to get security into the 21st century, and noot based on driving a car.  With any limitations on its use as ID specified, but clearly establishing citizenship, or, if not that, the legal status.  That's what you need to present when voting, like a $20 bill (or just bring your phone close) if you wanted merchandise.  (All persons can get replacement ID's, restoring the information from our national systems; replacement requires something like a retinal scan to preclude future abuse.)  It might seem shocking, but it's the minimum requirement, really. 

The basic standards to facilitate the process involve an adequate but not excessive time period for Early Voting, a similar, different one for necessary absentee voting, and the standards must account for accessibility in terms of hours, ADA requirements, protection from hazardous conditions, etc.  So, this is not a simple task, but not one that is political in intent, except to honor the principle of allowing all possible legal voting. Something very hard to oppose in these terms. 

2.  A More Elaborate Reform - 

The Electoral College, and all its procedures, resembles a petrified sketch on the back of an envelope, written in pencil and laminated. No Constitutional amendment of any kind is needed to fix it, though.   I wouldn't dare advocate changing that: Something like that, or regulating dark money contributions to elections, is an Impossible Dream at this time.  The media would not allow the latter, for one thing, and the amendment process is difficult even with bipartisan support.

Instead, take development of the standards regime described above.  Throw onto it another, optional enticement (with additional money) for two, linked reforms:  

a)  Go the Maine/Nebraska route! 

b) Accept non-partisan Congressional districting in the next four years!

a) The fundamental problem with the Electoral College, apart from  all its clunky processes, is the winner-take-all nature of states voting "to maximize their influence".   This is simply bad Game Theory; it names a few winners, with the rest having next to zero effect.  

Even those who vote for the ticket(s) winning in most of the big states feel useless, as their electoral votes are taken for granted (unless you are Florida, or one of the Rejected Six).  California Republican voters (all of them, useless) feel little differently from Texas Democratic ones, but also little differently from New York Democrats (whose votes are taken for granted), let alone New York Republicans (useless, even if in favor of those they only despise).  

The answer for all these big states is to represent their vote more accurately, allocated by Congressional district winners (along with the two statewide winner-take-all votes, as is done in the two states currently using this approach, Maine and Nebraska).   Contrary to conventional wisdom, that will increase the significance of voters in those states, though it will only work if done in concert. 

As for the smaller states, they still may see a mirage of having their relative importance magnified in the current system, due to their disproportionate representation (compared to population).  It is a mirage, as their importance is illusory:  Nevada's case illustrates that in this Presidential election; nobody really cared too much about undoubted irregularities there, because it was not in a position to influence the outcome--six Electoral Votes is too small to matter, let alone for the many states with 3-5 EV. 

It shows just how important this reform can be for otherwise unimportant voters' new significance, though,  that the EV chase brought Trump-Pence to Maine's Second, and Biden-Harris to Nebraska's Second.  Both campaigns won the district, countering the statewide result.   Neither state would draw the slightest attention from either campaign without that provision. 

Obviously, all these improvements require serious attention to the technology required to implement, which is money well-spent, as it will protect our republic from some of its self-destructive impulses.  I have been advised that Floridians and Texans have already upgraded their systems, so all they need to fix are their voter suppressions. That's how this thing works. 

b) The necessary reform to accompany this change to district-based Presidential voting must be having a nonpartisan approach to determining congressional seat boundaries.  There are methods already in some states; those would be the model for those being gerrymandered most recently. These objectives would be the basis for the money offered to adopt this additional package, which should be generous.  

Many states would take this offer right off the bat, final terms unseen:  the small ones have to change little to nothing, but get their systems upgraded.  Many of the large ones would see the benefit; the terms could be couched similarly, but better, to the approach taken with the National Popular Vote Act* (only taking effect in their states when 270-X have adopted, X being the number adopting conditionally).  The states getting all the attention currently would "get less attention", which most people in those states would consider a benefit, and the side perceiving itself on the short end in those states would still have some voice. 

OK, I admit some states would choose to make stupidity a virtue, as for example some have done with the Medicaid assistance coming out of the ACA.  But consistently defeating bad policy could become a habit once more in America (some steps in forming that habit have been seen in 2018 and 2020). 

I am generally opposed to magnifying the effects of our broad powers still reserved to the states ("States Wrought") , but here I have to give credit to states for innovating meaningfully.  The thing is, I want those good state innovations to be brought broadly to the nation, but without permanently disempowering the states' own true responsibility. ++

 

*Can you imagine if we had the National Popular Vote Act in effect?  Well, we couldn't have had that and the current Rejectionist party, which may be good, but what if Trump had won more electoral votes than Biden with that thing in place?  It would only have been worse.  

++Note: Ranked-choice voting would be a small addition to this package that would assist the significance of independents and third-parties, to satisfy nonpartisanship requirements, and would eliminate additional cost.  So would 'jungle primaries' or 'jungle general elections', but those are bit more demanding bargaining chips, once commissioners sit down and work things through.  Kudos to Alaska for moving on ranked-choice.