BERN BABY BERN: BERNIE OR BUST!

LONG & WINDING ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE

BERNIE OR BUST!

By Jack Random

In the much awaited trial of the president Democratic members of the house took aim at Donald Trump’s manifestly crooked dealings in Ukraine.  In response, the president’s defenders took aim at Joe Biden. 

Both were previews of the campaign to come.  The prosecution of the president was a three-day, 36-hour attack ad against the presidency of Donald Trump.  The defense was an attack ad against Joe Biden via his son, Hunter Biden. 

The mainstream of both major parties presumed that the coming presidential election would be a match of elders, a contest between the corrupt incumbent against the entrenched Democratic challenger.  The smear machines are revved and ready.

Not so fast. 

Bernie Sanders may be elderly but he represents the young.  He brings the vitality, energy and resilience of the young to a stodgy old process that embraces structural conservatism. 

The old politicos had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that a non-politician without governing experience could win a presidential election by exploiting the flaws in an antiquated and eminently inequitable system.  They are having the same trouble with Bernie Sanders. 

In so many ways Sanders represents the existential threat that Trump posed but has not delivered.  Trump plays the game and makes no excuses.  Sanders tells it like it is. 

With his rise in the polls and his victory in the Iowa caucus (where I come from the one who gets the most votes wins) the operatives and dealmakers of the Democratic Party are beginning to panic.  They miscalculated badly by having Hillary Clinton deliver her attack against Bernie.  To this day they don’t seem to realize that Hillary is not popular among the majority of Democratic or independent voters.  Hillary holds the political class.  She can’t hold a candle to Bernie when it comes to political activists. 

Next they managed to persuade Elizabeth Warren to deliver an attack designed to weaken Bernie’s appeal to women.  It backfired.  People saw through the staged maneuver and moved to Bernie’s camp.  Warren may not recover. 

Now, just like the last campaign, the party is working overtime to find ways to stop the Bernie train.  One by one the surrogates step to the camera to deliver a tired old speech:  Bernie can’t possibly beat Trump.  Bernie’s a socialist.  Bernie is too far to the left.  Bernie’s a radical with radical ideas. 

Maybe they believe it.  Maybe they’re just doing their party’s bidding.  They seem to forget:  Hillary was the mainstream moderate who lost to Trump.  Why would they be so eager to try it again? 

After the impeachment trial Joe Biden is damaged goods.  Act One of the trial that wasn’t a trial was an attack on the president.  Act Two of the trial was a counterattack on the integrity of Biden.  The attack ads are already written.  When Biden calls out Trump for his dirty dealing in Ukraine, the forces of Trump counter with Burisma.  How much was it Hunter Biden made?  More in a month than working people make in a year?  What were his qualifications again? 

In the age of Trump it is not enough to be clean.  You have to be above the appearance of wrongdoing.  The old school politicians know this and Biden fails the test.  

When the Democrats finally accept this fact they will look to another option: anyone but Bernie.  There was a time when I would have included Warren on the list of unacceptable presidential candidates to the Democratic machine.  To all appearances she took essentially the same positions as Bernie but something changed along the line.  The party decided they could work with Warren.  Apparently they don’t feel the same about Bernie. 

Why?  Bernie is the most consistent candidate in the field.  Whether you label him a Democratic Socialist or a Social Democrat or an Independent, he believes now what he believed decades ago and he’s held his ground. 

Little noted in the mainstream cable media that looks more and more like a subdivision of the DNC there was a diversion of response to international crises in recent months. 

First came the coup in Bolivia.  Bernie condemned it as a coup and called for an international response.  Warren, Klobuchar and Buttigieg took the standard line, condemning the victim and supporting the usurpers.  It was an insult to democratic values and democracy itself.  Warren came around but only after Bernie led. 

Second came the events that threatened another forever war in the Middle East, this time with Iran.  The candidates tripped over themselves condemning the assassinated Iranian commander.  Only Bernie took a more measured perspective, stepping back from the precipice of war and condemning targeted assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. 

Third and most recently: the Trump administration’s dead-in-the-waters proposal for peace between Israel and Palestine.  Once again Bernie took the lead, calling out the proposal for the farce that it is.  He took the opportunity to call for an end to Israeli occupation and the establishment of two viable states, guaranteeing Palestinian self-determination as well as mutual security.  To her credit Warren followed suit with her own condemnation of Israeli annexation of Palestinian territories.  Buttigieg talked in his usual doublespeak but criticized the deal as one-sided.  Biden engaged in similar talk, criticizing the deal but emphasizing a long-standing loyalty to the state of Israel. 

More and more I am left with the conviction that Bernie is our best hope both at home and in foreign affairs.  He stands ready to make the fundamental changes that our times demand.  Moreover, he is the best candidate to expose the failures of the Trump administration.  For while the Trump years have seen a dramatic decrease in the unemployment rate, well-paying middle class jobs have been transformed into low-paying service jobs.  While the corporations and the wealthy have made a fortune, the rest of us still wonder how we’re going to make it to tomorrow. 

Bernie has been saying it for years:  It’s time for a political revolution.  It’s time to fundamentally transform an economic and political system that works extremely well for the ones at the top but not so well for the poor and the working people. 

I have not given up on Elizabeth Warren.  She remains my first choice as an alternative to Bernie.  But my confidence has been shaken not only by her politically reckless attack on her progressive rival but her stops and stumbles on policy and events in the daily news.  I fear she may be too anxious to modify her policies to please the party. 

Andrew Yang remains an intriguing choice and one that I would not only support but work for were he to win the nomination.  It would take a tsunami for that to happen. 

The other candidates, including Joe Biden, would be a major disappointment to anyone who believes as I do that the next president must enact historic change.  Would I vote for a Biden, a Buttigieg or Klobuchar, a Bloomberg or Steyer over Trump?  Of course.  But would I work for them, write for them, contribute and serve as a warrior for the cause? 

No, I would not. 

I am old enough to know that change happens.  Sometimes it happens when you don’t expect it.  Sometimes it happens overnight. 

But for now:  It’s Bernie or bust! 

Jazz. 

JACK RANDOM IS A WRITER LIVING IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA.  HIS WORKS INCLUDE EIGHT NOVELS AND THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES.

The Progressive Divide: Warren Vs. Sanders

LONG & WINDING ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE

THE NOTORIOUS PROGRESSIVE DIVIDE

By Jack Random

On January 14 of the new year 2020 six candidates took the stage in the last Democratic presidential debate before the Iowa caucus.  In the absence of Andrew Yang, it was the first all-white debate.  It seems the African American vote has gone all in for Joe Biden. 

Objectively, neither I nor anyone else will ever fully understand why black voters overwhelmingly prefer Biden over Cory Booker or Kamala Harris but the margins leave no doubt.  If Biden prevails and becomes the Democratic nominee he will owe it all to former President Barack Obama. 

For me the most poignant moment in an evening only slightly more entertaining than a constant drone was when moderator Abby Phillip of CNN pointedly asked of former Mayor Pete Buttigieg:  Is it possible that black voters have gotten to know you and have simply decided to choose another candidate?

It was clear from the mayor’s expression he was stung by the question.  It rang true despite the candidate’s claims that blacks in his town support him.  It did not help his cause that Ms. Phillip is a black woman.  The mayor was stung again later in the debate by the same moderator who noted that his healthcare plan would automatically enroll individuals who do not want insurance. 

Buttigieg is a master of the old debate ploy used to avoid any answers that might not serve his interest:  deflect and pivot.  After witnessing the practice a few dozen times it becomes obvious even to his most ardent supporters. 

Mayor Pete’s performance was flat in keeping with a presumed non-aggression pact among the moderates.  He is competing with Biden and Amy Klobuchar but all three refused to engage.  It is in a sense understandable with Buttigieg.  He is counting on Biden to stumble.  It is not understandable with Klobuchar.  She sits in a distant third and desperately needed to pick up ground before the impeachment trial took her and her fellow senators off the campaign trail. 

With Biden the bar has been set so low he could take third place in a second grade speech contest and the press would call it a triumph.  I understand that the senator overcame stuttering as a child.  I get that his age is catching up to him.  But we should never elect a president out of sympathy. 

The fireworks of the night belonged to the progressive candidates:  Senator Elizabeth Warren vs. Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until recently it was considered logical for these two to eventually unite their followers against a decidedly more moderate field.  Warren and Sanders stand for universal healthcare in the form of Medicare for All.  They are both antiwar and believe that military spending should be substantially cut to make way for progressive programs and a Green New Deal.  Both are solid supporters of taxing the elite to improve the lives of common citizens.  Both are pro labor and believers in Fair Trade.  While there are differences in policy and emphasis, their commonalities are far greater than what separates them. 

In what should have been a non-issue, one largely contrived by CNN, the two senators engaged on whether or not Sanders told Warren that a woman could not win the presidency in a conversation that took place in 2018.  Warren said he did.  Sanders said he did not.  Since it was a private conversation we can presume it was not meant for public consumption.  That Warren made it so is questionable in itself.  She persisted to the point of confronting Sanders on stage after the debated ended.  Refusing to shake his hand she said:  “I think you called me a liar on national TV.” 

When it was picked up by a hot mike and broadcast on CNN it became clear Warren wanted a confrontation.  Both Sanders and Warren being honorable individuals, one would have assumed the incident was a misunderstanding.  It is not beyond question that a 76 year-old man and a 68 year-old woman might misinterpret a remark. 

Now it has become a critical issue dividing the progressive front of the Democratic Party.  Now it becomes an issue that could damage both candidates and open the door to yet another Democratic compromise, probably in the form of old Joe Biden, that will likely lose the White House.  From a progressive point of view that would be a disaster. 

Those who have observed electoral politics over time recognize a pattern.  The guardians of the left are notorious for attacking their own. 

Sanders’ supporters are certainly intense.  In their zeal to boost their candidate they played the cards they had.  They argued what many think but rarely express:  That a woman would be less likely to win against Trump.  I don’t believe that.  Maybe they don’t believe it either.  Hillary Clinton lost not because she was a woman but because she was weak on trade policy, because she came with a ton of political baggage and because her weaknesses played to Trump’s electoral college favor. 

Elizabeth Warren has made a stand and in so doing she has forced us to do the same.  We can stand with Warren or we can stand with Bernie.  We can no longer hold out for one or the other to win the progressive mantle. 

As one who has defended Warren against what I considered unreasonable attacks, I can no longer stand by her.  Bernie’s been with us far too long to believe now that he is anything less than honorable.  Bernie was quick to call a coup a coup in Bolivia.  Warren floundered.  Bernie took the lead in condemning the unwarranted and ill-advised assassination of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani.  Warren wasted time taking the standard mainstream line condemning the victim.  That she eventually found her way to Bernie’s reasoned opposition is commendable but Bernie was already there. 

Strange there was so little discussion of Soleimani’s assassination.  Strange there was no mention of the events in Bolivia or subsequent events in Venezuela.  On matters of foreign policy, military spending and congressional authorization to engage war in foreign lands, Bernie was clearly the best informed and the most principled. 

Warren slips to a distant second on my list of progressive preference.  She needs to back off her attack on Bernie.  Unfortunately, it does not appear that she will. 

It occurred to me in observing this debate that there was very little to engage the curious or challenge the public mind.  Tom Steyer, the newcomer to presidential debates, repeatedly looked into the camera and delivered his prepared appeal.  It did little to persuade.  Steyer may be a good man.  He may have the nation’s best interest at heart.  But he has offered no compelling reason to believe that he is the man to lead the nation in a new direction.  Others can take the lead on climate change and no one believes that term limits is the solution to our problems. 

At least billionaire Mike Bloomberg has held public office.  Neither Steyer nor Bloomberg has managed to make the case that there is anything greater than personal ambition behind their candidacies.  There are far better ways to spend their money and there are far better candidates for their causes.

We have moved on.  The preliminary debates are over.  The senators have been called back to Washington to serve as jurors in the trial of the president.  The strange ritual of the Iowa caucus begins in a few short weeks on February 3^rd.  After that: New Hampshire February 11^th. 

Then the schedule slips into overdrive.  On February 22^nd Nevada will introduce racial minorities, including a significant Hispanic community, into the race.  On February 29^th South Carolina will introduce African Americans. 

The whole contest should pretty much be decided by March 3^rd when California votes along with thirteen other states.  Past that date there will be no pretenders. 

At this juncture, the most likely scenario is that Joe Biden wins the nomination and loses the White House.  I don’t like it but there it is.  On the other hand, anything can happen. 

Jazz. 

Jack Random is the author of the Jazzman Chronicles and Hard Times: The Wrath of an Angry God. 

ANOTHER STUPID WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST

ANOTHER STUPID WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST

By Jack Random

“The stupid endless wars, for us, are ending.”

Donald Trump, Twitter:  9 October 2019

Of all the lies Donald Trump delivered on his twisted road to the White House the most insipid, nefarious and damnable was the one that promised no more “stupid wars” in the Middle East.   

That was then.  This is now.  Trump stands poised to take a desperate dive into war that so many failing presidents have resorted to before him.  George HW Bush had his little war in Panama and his Gulf War prelude to the War in Iraq.  Bill Clinton had his wag the dog excursion into Kosovo.  George W. Bush dove headlong into the quagmire of Afghanistan and the and the ongoing disaster in Iraq. 

True or not, it is commonly believed that Americans will rally to a president at war and Trump is due to forget his campaign promise and take the dive.  Whether it is his doing or that of his neocon Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the US carried out airstrikes against an Iraqi militia killing 25 soldiers.  The bombings were a tragic and potentially catastrophic mistake.  They were not sanctioned by the Iraqi government.  In fact both Iran and Iraq condemned the action. 

Trump and company justified the strikes on two grounds:  First, it was in retaliation for attacks on US bases in Iraq, one of which killed an American contractor (otherwise known as a mercenary).  Second, the militia is connected to Iran and that apparently is justification enough. 

Whatever the justification, thousands of protestors assaulted the American embassy to express their outrage.  It seems the people of Iraq do not have warm feelings for the nation that attacked their homeland without provocation.  It seems the Shiites have warmer feelings toward their Iranian neighbor than they do for the military superpower that attempted and ultimately failed to occupy their country.  It seems there is some animosity when you terrorize a nation, kill tens of thousands of their people and wound countless soldiers and civilians alike. 

The retaliatory bombing campaign came at the same time the Iraqi government was once again on the brink of collapse.  Its security forces have killed an estimated 500 citizens who have risen in protest against the government. 

America’s recent and sudden withdrawal from northern Syria has left the region in turmoil.  Russia has regained control of her client state, Turkey is emboldened in its desire to crush the Kurdish independent movement and the Islamic State is regaining momentum.  Both the Kurds and the Iranian supported militias have played a crucial role in fighting the forces of ISIS.

Now our naïve president has been sucked into the escalation of American forces.  It begins with a few hundred marines but where does it end?  The Iraqi government has condemned the American bombing campaign as a violation of national sovereignty.  Legislation is being proposed to demand withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq.  What will our president do then? 

Trump continues to view the conflict as one between Iran and America but he fails to understand that the vast majority of the Iraqi people are against us.  We cannot be drawn into another prolonged war in the region.  But rather than pause to reflect on the consequences of our actions, our fearless leader chooses to take the most provocative action possible short of launching a full-scale attack:  He orders the assassination of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani at the Baghdad international airport. 

We are diving headlong into the most stupid war in an era of stupid wars.  It is the supremely stupid war because we have already proven the stupidity of endless war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Now we are proposing a regional war with enemies on all sides:  Iran, Iraq, Syria and the Islamic State. 

It is the most stupid of stupid instigations to war because it legitimizes targeted assassination as a weapon of war.  One wonders if Pompeo warned the president about the dangers of this action.  Even warlike nations have always been reluctant to employ assassination lest the enemy replies in kind. 

We can disregard all the testimonials that Qasem Soleimani was an evil man.  He was a military man.  He followed the directives of his government.  The Iranians do not believe he was evil, the Iraqis do not believe he was evil and we did not believe he was evil when he was one of several commanders leading the fight against ISIS. 

The dehumanization of our adversaries is always prelude to war and this war has all the markings of a supremely idiotic, massively destructive mother of all Middle East wars. 

The president has lied and deceived us far too many times to be believed in a matter so crucial as war.  The president claims an attack on American forces was eminent.  There is a difference between eminent and inevitable. 

If we grant the accounts that the Iraqi-Shiite militias with strong ties to Iran have staged several attacks on American bases, the fact remains that only one American mercenary was killed in those attacks.  Twenty-five Iraqis were killed in the American retaliatory bombing.  And that was before the assassination of commander Soleimani and an Iraqi militia leader. 

When you are operating in a foreign nation, there is a code of conduct and proportionality is a part of that code.  There is a process for settling disputes in other nations.  We could have and should have filed a complaint against the accused militias.  Instead we bombed them.  We killed twenty-five and wounded some fifty others.  We could have and should have consulted our allies in Iraq before assassinating the commander of the Revolutionary Guard. 

The White House has warned members of congress that it expects retaliation within weeks.  That is an understatement of epic proportions.  We have escalated our involvement by sending thousands of troops to the region.  We have made yet another stupid war all but inevitable. 

Congress must rise to stop this insanity.  Barbara Lee, the only member of congress to vote against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, stands poised in the lower chamber.  Bernie Sanders stands ready in the senate. 

To any candidate who desires to be president:  Now is the time to demonstrate your mettle.  If you do not stand up against this war now, you do not meet the minimal requirements for assuming the office. 

Jazz. 

JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES, WASICHU, NUMBER NINE, GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION, PAWNS TO PLAYERS, GRAND CANYON ZEN GOLF TOUR AND OTHER WORKS (CROW DOG PRESS).

LAKOTA MEMORIAL DAY: Remember Wounded Knee!

RANDOM JACK: WOUNDED KNEE MEMORIAL

LAKOTA MEMORIAL DAY

The 129^th Anniversary of Wounded Knee

December 29, 1890

One hundred and twenty nine years ago today, the Seventh Calvary of the United States Army opened fire on an encampment of disarmed Lakota men, women and children.  Employing the infamous Hotchkiss guns – guns that fire many bullets – they killed over 250 Lakota.  Their crime was daring to dance the forbidden Ghost Dance. 

For a hundred years the massacre was christened by the American government:  The Battle of Wounded Knee. 

Twenty-five soldiers died in the massacre and twenty were awarded the Medal of Honor.  No man and no woman of honor should ever again accept that medal until those awarded to the Wounded Knee soldiers are rescinded.  Further, the government should declare December 29^th Wounded Knee Memorial Day. 

In honor of the Ghost Dancers buried at Wounded Knee: 

NOT AT WOUNDED KNEE

In the land of the Lakota long ago

Deep in the winter of the frozen earth

The people gathered in circles

Hand in hand line after line

To dance the dance of the ancestors

I was not in the lines of dancers

I did not sing the sacred words

My spirit did not rise above the land

To look down upon this scene

I did not see the soldiers circle the camp

I did not hear the order to disarm

I did not see them mount their guns

That shower bullets

I did not hear the cry of mothers

I did not hear the thunder

I did not smell the cloud of smoke

I did not see them fall

I was not there to give my blood

My heart did not explode

My body was not pounded by bullets

Nor pierced by bayonets

I did not die at Wounded Knee

I was not buried in a common grave

But I have walked those hallowed grounds

I have mourned and shed my tears

And I have said my prayer aloud

And I have heard the buried dead

And I am sworn to heed their plea

Remember Wounded Knee

From Wasichu: The Killing Spirit: 

Wo Lakota!

How can I explain the sorrow of Wounded Knee? 

My heart has been pierced by a thousand arrows

My spirit is broken and my soul is in flames

The sorrow runs through me like a mother’s pain

And my tears flow like rivers

But it is not for the right reason

Here lies Big Foot in his dance of death

Here lie the Ghost Dancers

The followers of Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull

The keepers of the faith

Here on this sacred hill

I should have no thoughts but this:

The Ghost Dance survives!

Instead the thought that will not leave me

Is this:  It should not be this way

Here on Memorial Hill at the head of the table

Where the father should be

There is a place of worship bearing the sign: 

Sacred Heart Church

So the church of the Black Robes

Lays claim to this most sacred ground

Wo Lakota!  It should not be this way!

[Sacred Lands to Native Peoples!  Free Leonard Peltier!]

Jazz.

RECLAIMING AMERICA: Sticking with the Union

LONG WAY HOME:  DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA

REBUILD THE UNIONS

By Jack Random

“You can’t scare me; I’m sticking with union.”

From Union Maid by Woody Guthrie

Unions are to the economic system what elections are to the political system.  Without a strong union presence, there is no counterbalance to the multi-national corporations.  When corporations have dominant power they use it not only to destroy unions and establish a system where workers exist at the mercy of their employers but also to control the political system through financial contributions. 

There was a time when unions posed a viable threat to corporate dominance of our democratic process.  There was a time when union membership and organizational power could almost rival the power of industry and other financial interests.  That time, however, has long receded into the dusty pages of forgotten history. 

 One of many broken promises of the Obama administration was his failure to pass legislation that would protect the right of unions to organize in the workplace against an onslaught of union-killing statewide “right to work” laws.  In the history of organized labor, never has there been a more effective weapon against unions.  The so-called Right to Work mandate is really the right to work in a union shop without joining the union.  It is the right to benefit from union membership without having to pay union dues.  If you don’t have to join the union to gain the benefits, why would you?  From a purely self-interest perspective, only suckers would join the union.  In other word, the “right to work” is the right to freeload on the backs of union members. 

At last count there are 27 states that have enacted such legislation.  They are predominantly red states but include some purple states like Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Virginia and Nevada.  They also include states that are moving in a more progressive direction like Georgia and Tennessee. 

In August voters in Missouri rejected a Right to Work law passed by the Republican legislature with a resounding 67.5% of the vote.  Missouri became the first state to overturn a Right to Work law by referendum. 

The fact that RTW lost in a traditional red state by such an overwhelming margin suggests that when the issues are effectively explained, the people will vote them down.  It also suggests that the tide is turning on anti-union sentiment and that labor rights, including the right to organize, are potentially powerful issues to bring before the electorate in 2020 and beyond. 

Why should voters choose to ban Right to Work laws?  Most recent statistics suggest that workers in RTW states earn at least three percent less that workers in other states.  That is a margin that will only increase when a union movement gathers strength and builds momentum.  At present only an estimate 10.5% percent of workers nationwide belong to a union compared to approximately 20.1% in 1983.  The rate of union representation is 6.5% in RTW states and 13.9% in non RTW states. 

Clearly, where the right to organize is upheld and Right to Work laws are struck down, union membership, wages and benefits go up.  Corporate interests have invested great sums promoting misinformation to pass RTW laws with great success.  That success is at least partly due to the absence of labor rights as a real force in major party politics. 

There was a time when unions represented nearly one third of the American workforce.  The year was 1964 and unions were a viable threat to corporate interests in both electing our public officials and investing in the legislative process on all levels.  Since then union representation has been in steady decline and union influence has declined accordingly. 

The fact is, despite repeated claims by the corporate right, unions have never been a proportionate counterbalance to industry and financial institutions but at least they were a presence.  When combined with their representation of workers and an effective turn-out-the-vote operation they could often tip an election. 

The truth is if we had reasonable restrictions on money in politics we would not need to rebuild the union movement.  Without corporate money both our democratic institutions and organized labor would thrive.  But corporate money has so polluted the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government that we need strong unions just to fight back. 

Increasingly conservative and corporate courts, including the Supreme Court in Janus vs. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, have upheld a state’s right to enforce RTW and other anti-labor laws, leaving action by congress and enforcement by the executive branch as the only viable remedy. 

The Protecting the Right to Organize Act would not only reinvigorate a union movement, it would put an end to a decades-long avalanche of anti-labor legislation.  Former president Barack Obama promised to push through the act in his reelection campaign but he never got around to doing it.  He never really tried.  His failure points out the futility of repeatedly nominating corporate moderates as Democratic candidates for president.  However else we may feel about them, they inevitably abandon significant pro-labor change in favor of corporate friendly compromise.  They pay lip service to labor, environment and income inequality but they fail to deliver lasting change. 

Until the people demand real and systemic change, we will get more and more of the same.  Until workers stand up for the union, employers will rule the day.  Until we stand together both in the workplace and at the ballot box, we will slip further and further behind.  The income disparity between the CEO and the lowly worker will only increase.  The protections of labor and the benefits extended from the generosity of employers will only erode. 

There is a reason organized labor has always stood for democratic reform.  There is a reason organized labor fails to take root in non-democratic nations.  Labor and democracy go hand in hand and each must stand for the other or both will fall. 

“Right-to-work is wrong for Missouri.”  By Janelle Jones and Heidi Shierholz.  Economic Policy Institute, July 10, 2018. 

“Right to Work States Still Have Lower Wages.”  By Elise Gould and Will Kimball.  Economic Policy Institute, April 22, 2015. 

“The Workplace Legacy of Barack Obama.”  By Michelle V. Rafter.  Workforce, January 17, 2017. 

RECLAIMING AMERICA: SUPPORTING GLOBAL DEMOCRACY

LONG WAY HOME:  RECLAIMING DEMOCRACY

SUPPORT GLOBAL DEMOCRACY

By Jack Random

Mark it post and save:  On November 28^th President Donald Trump did the right thing.  He signed two bills establishing American solidarity with Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement.  Curiously, he stated he was doing so out of respect for President Xi of mainland China when in fact it was directly contrary to Chinese interests.  It may prove a sticking point in the ongoing trade negotiations between the two economic giants. 

The truth is the legislation had veto-proof support in congress.  The president nevertheless should be applauded for standing up for democracy.  Only weeks before he signaled his support for a military coup in Bolivia – likely instigated and organized by the Central Intelligence Agency.  We have no way of knowing whether the agency acted on Trump’s direct orders or in continuance of long-standing policy but when he applauded the action he also forecast possible future operations in Venezuela and Nicaragua. 

In the contest between democratic and non-democratic forces, the president has not often sided with democracy.  He is proud to stand with the increasingly ruthless authoritarian President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines who disregards the rule of law, summarily executes accused drug dealers and declares war on the media.  He stands with President Recep Erdogan of Turkey who conducted one of the greatest purges in modern history and regularly imprisons political opponents on trumped up charges.  He stands with President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a strict authoritarian who suppresses opposition voices and controls all sources of political and financial power. 

When the United States of America praises dictators and gives generous support to authoritarian despots in every corner of the world, the incentive to build and strengthen democracy is lacking.  It is far easier to establish military rule or governance by the corporate elite and hold on to power with the strong arm of oppression. 

In recent years we have had opportunities to make great progress in the cause of global democracy but we failed to seize the day.  Because of our ill-advised alliances in the Middle East, we failed to provide adequate support of the Arab Spring.  We failed to support the rise of democratic movements in Latin America because they chose to couple democracy with a socialistic economy. 

Let’s be clear, America has long earned a reputation of hypocrisy when it comes to supporting democracy in foreign affairs.  Ho Chi Minh pleaded with the United States to support Vietnam against the French in the spirit of freedom and equal rights.  The United States under Harry Truman was not interested.  Imagine if we had accepted his offer of alliance and guided Vietnam on a path to democracy.  Millions of lives would have been spared.  If we had stood firm in our support of democracy, countless military and covert operations would not have been necessary. 

America’s history is stained with the support of despots, military juntas and dictatorships around the world.  We have given lip service to the cause of democracy when in fact we have supported our own economic and strategic interests.  We have been cursed with shortsightedness.   Had we built a coalition of republics we would be far better off today.  If we are to be the beacon of liberty that our mythology describes then we must alter our course.   

Unfortunately, we seem to be embarked on the same old course without the embellishment of good intentions.  According to the Global Democracy Index, a rating of democratic fulfillment by the Economist Intelligence Unit of the United Kingdom, the state of our democracy is in decline.  Far from the shining beacon on the hill, we are no longer considered a full democracy.  Rather, given the deterioration of our fourth estate, corporate dominance of our political process, declining participation in our elections and a general acceptance of anti-democratic practices – such as mass disenfranchisement – we are now considered a flawed democracy. 

We can question the methodology if we wish but the stone cold fact is that this nation, the very first sovereign republic on earth, should be rated by anyone as low as twenty-fifth on any list of democratic achievement should give pause to every citizen.  While we pay tribute to our founders and applaud Broadway shows that glorify them, we have betrayed the foundations of democratic government. 

Democracy does not exist in a vacuum.  It exists in a world where despotism, fascism, dictatorship, oligarchy and theocracy have taken control of governments and fight for ever more power and wealth.  For democracy to survive, democratic nations must join together and support each other to achieve economic prosperity and security for all our peoples.  Our trade policy should reflect our democratic values and our foreign policy should always encourage and defend the principles of democracy. 

I am not advocating war for democracy.  I am not advocating covert operations to overturn every dictator and despot in the world.  I am not advocating covert operations or military interventions at all.  As Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa once said:  “We wanted help; we did not want bombs!”  The boycott and divestiture of the government of apartheid South Africa was of immeasurable assistance in paving the road to independence.  That example should serve as a model for our foreign policy. 

We should establish an independent body – as unbiased as humanly possible – to rate governments on the scale of democracy.  Once we have improved our own standing to a fully functional representative democracy, we should invite all full democracies to form an alliance of democracies for preferred trade relations.  Each member nation would agree to impose no tariffs or other restrictions on trade with fellow nations. 

Member nations that are thriving economically should provide assistance to those nations that are striving to improve their democratic status.  Nations that discard democratic values or interfere in the democratic development of other nations should face targeted economic sanctions and trade barriers. 

Of course there will be instances where economic consequences impose hardships on innocent people.  Humanitarian considerations must always be a part of any democratic decision making.  But we must apply pressure on governments that oppress their people.  In the current state of affairs, despite strategic interests, the government of Turkey no longer meets the minimal requirements of a developing democratic nation.  Turkey should be expelled from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for its brutal oppression and democratic backslide.  Its leaders should be subjected to the stiffest penalties.  The same holds true for China and Russia. 

To the detriment of the world, we have chosen capitalism and Free Trade as the guiding principle of international relations.  We have created the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to support nations that adhere to and punish those that violate the mandates of Free Trade.  In doing so we have rendered human rights and democratic values secondary or even tertiary considerations.  This is a grave error that should be corrected. 

Democracy and human rights must be established in their rightful place as the foundations of international relations – at least from an American and western European perspective.  The omission of democratic values in trade agreements has virtually assured the decline of global democracy.  Reversing the polarity of Free Trade and human rights – one of which is the right of individuals to choose their government officials – will assure the rise of democracy and lead to the rise of Fair Trade.  The principles of democracy and representation of labor go hand in hand.  One encourages the other.  The IMF and the World Bank are powerful structures that can be reformed to reflect these new values. 

Attempting to establish such a framework for global affairs would meet with stiff resistance for it would threaten the long-established dominance of corporate wealth.  Any candidate for high office who proposes such reform would be attacked with the full force of corporate propaganda.  Any political party that adopted a Democracy First approach to international trade would find itself accused of every conceivable offense: corruption, fraud, extremism, terrorism, mob rule, radical economics, communism, socialism and anarchism. 

None of it would be true, of course, but that hardly matters.  When you threaten the core sources of international power, you will be tarnished by all means and methods.  Democracy is in fact the most radical and dangerous concept on the planet.  True democracy is a threat to the very foundations of global wealth. 

Of course, this is only a dream and will remain so as long as our own political system is dominated by two parties that both answer to the same overlords of corporate affluence.  Advancing global democracy is not possible as long as our government neglects its own democratic values.  This is not what the better of our founders intended. 

Granted, our democracy was flawed from its inception.  But the more enlightened of our founders knew it was a work in progress.  The better of them knew that women would one day be granted the right to vote.  They knew that slavery was an economically motivated abomination that would tear the nation apart.  They knew that the wealthy and privileged would attempt to control the masses by controlling the flow of information.  They knew that foreign nations would try to influence our elections and sway our electorate.  They knew that the press would be biased and politicians would be corrupt. 

They knew that the system they prescribed was seriously flawed but they trusted that those who followed them would be dedicated to the principles of democracy.  They trusted us to build upon their work.  They trusted us to correct their errors and make changes that would move the nation forward toward a more perfect democracy.  They had a dream and they placed that dream in our hands. 

It is up to us to take that dream and move forward.  Once we have repaired the damage to our own republic and fortified its defenses, we can begin to lead the world in progress toward the establishment of worldwide democratic principles. 

As the revolutionary founder Thomas Paine once wrote:  “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”  Let us not neglect that solemn responsibility. 

“United States Doesn’t Even Make Top Twenty on Global Democracy Index.”  By Andrea Germanos.  Common Dreams, January 11, 2019.   

Common Sense.  By Thomas Paine.  Circa 1776.   

RECLAIMING AMERICA: EDUCATION REFORM IN THE AGE OF TRUMP

THE LONG WAY HOME

NATIONAL EDUCATION REFORM

By Jack Random

As a former educator I have long defended public education.  I have argued that teachers are among the most dedicated professionals in the nation.  They are underpaid and too often underappreciated in that they are made scapegoats by far too many politicians who have little to no understanding of the difficulty teachers face. 

I stand by that position but the election of a president who is by every measure unqualified for the responsibilities of high office compels me to realize that our educational system has failed.  Until the election of Donald Trump, I would not have considered it possible that the American people as a whole – even with systemic flaws in campaign financing, foreign interference and the Electoral College – would elect an obvious con man who rejects the basic tenets of democracy and acquired knowledge.  I would not have considered it possible that an educated society would elect a man who holds science in contempt, who discards facts as the products of elitist propaganda, who regards media as the enemies of the people and who demonstrates disdain for the balance of power inherent in a democratic system of government. 

That we could have allowed this to occur once is understandable but alarming.  That we might well allow it to happen again suggests that the foundation of our democracy is crumbling before our eyes. 

Clearly, we need to better educate our children so that they will grow to become informed citizens with respect for the principles of democracy, an understanding of institutions of government and a firm grasp of reasoning and respect for the scientific method. 

Even now, as I write these words, I realize that a significant number of our people cringe at the term “scientific method.”  They are composed of people whose social upbringing and education has taught them that science is the enemy of religion.  They have grown up in a world where every individual must choose between faith and science, between the word of God and the words of Einstein, between the elitists who control our universities and social institutions and the ordinary people who work for wages and struggle to get by. 

We live in a society that divides us by geography and demands that we choose sides and burrow in or risk being ostracized by our family and peers. 

I understand the disdain that many people have for institutions and elitists but the election of Donald Trump demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work in a functional democracy.  Because ordinary people have not learned to process information and derive logical conclusions for themselves, they have allowed others to think for them.  Because they have learned to divide the world between good and evil in the most simplistic terms, they have allowed a con artist to use them for his own enrichment. 

Donald Trump is not a man of the people.  Donald Trump does not value the principles of democracy.  Donald Trump is an opportunist who has exploited the prejudice and ignorance of the people for his own aggrandizement. 

A great deal has gone toward the immediate task of removing this man from office as soon as humanly possible.  Relatively little time and resources have been devoted to ensuring that such a tragic mistake of electoral politics never happens again. 

At this point it is important to expand the topic of systemic failure to include a Democratic Party that has also exploited the people in so many ways.  It was the Democrats who signaled “full speed ahead” to NAFTA and the Free Trade Mandate that spelled the demise of American industry.  It was Democratic lip service that allowed unions to collapse as a counterweight to corporate influence.  We should not forget Democratic betrayal simply because Trump is so much worse than anything the Democrats could have delivered. 

Nor should we ignore the fact that Donald Trump’s candidacy was enabled by a Republican Party so removed from the people that a pretender had no difficulty plowing his way through a large field of contenders to the nomination.  The problem is bipartisan and the solution must be nonpartisan. 

It begins with education.  The government guarantees a free public education to all from age five to eighteen.  It is one of the fundamental responsibilities of government.  What our government has not guaranteed is a quality education for all.  We have in fact yielded the content of public education to state and local authorities and that is where the problem begins. 

It is often said that all politics are local and local politicians have long recognized the propaganda potential of education.  Not long ago there were places in this nation where a science teacher could only teach Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution if the Christian church’s creation story was presented for contrast.  Please note that between evolution and creation only one is a theory.  The other is faith-based mythology – aka religion. 

In 1985 the Supreme Court ruled that public schools could not teach creation myth in a science curriculum.  In 2005 the court ruled that the so-called theory of “Intelligent Design” was only an attempt to repackage creationism in a more acceptable form and it too was banned.  As a result, the rightwing anti-science community has pushed the Charter School movement as yet another way to circumvent the law of the land.  School Boards in Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Arizona and the District of Columbia have approved the teaching of creationism or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.  [1]

A theory is more than speculation.  A scientific idea begins as a purely speculative postulate before becoming a hypothesis to be tested.  A hypothesis becomes a theory only after rigorous and repeated testing confirms its validity.  The creation myth – an essential story in all known religions – has not survived peer review or rigorous testing and cannot be considered a valid theory.  It does not therefore belong in the same scientific discussion as evolution. 

Religion is personal and every individual is granted the right to believe and worship as he or she will – as long as those beliefs and practices do not prevent others from believing as they choose.  Religion can no part in the scientific realm just as science can have no part in matters of pure faith. 

Science must be an essential part of any public school curriculum and the scientific method for establishing facts and theories even more so.  An education that is not founded on science and the scientific method is not an education at all for at that point it crosses over to the realm of faith. 

Religion can have no part in public education.  The moment you admit matters of faith into subjects worthy of education you give credence to magical thinking.  You falsely enable students to challenge the most basic facts.  You enable students to challenge gravity.  Physics does not yield to prayer or public opinion and will not allow a scientific challenge to gravity because gravity is an established fact. 

If a given district wants to allow magical thinking in its curriculum it must be challenged by a greater authority.  At present, under the leadership of Donald Trump and his faith-based Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, a greater authority does not exist.  Or rather, it exists to defend magical thinking.  It exists to divert funds meant for public education into private, faith-based charter schools. [2]

We can no more allow the perversion of science with faith-based diversions than we can allow public school districts to choose their curriculum without regard to scientific validity and historic fact.  For example, we cannot allow districts in the South to teach that the southern states were right to break away from the north because African slaves were inherently inferior and slavery was therefore justified.  I have little doubt that there are those not only in the South but across the nation who believe just that though such prejudice has not and cannot be validated by the scientific method. 

This nation needs to agree that all students regardless of locale are deserving of a sound education grounded in fact and science.  We need to agree that the nation has one historical narrative for all students.  We need to agree that this nation was born with high ideals that were subverted by Native American genocide and African American slavery.  Our universal narrative must include the story of Japanese American internment by a Democratic president.  It must include the stories of systemic discrimination against Latin Americans, Irish Americans and immigrants of all backgrounds and colors. 

Beyond history we need a public school curriculum across all states that prioritizes the teaching of reason – of how to interpret the facts we observe and draw objective conclusions.  A student that does not know how to reason is as critically handicapped as a student that does not know how to read, write or perform the basic functions of arithmetic. 

We should also be teaching our children the art of compromise and the role it has played in the nation’s crowning achievements:  The writing and adoption of our constitution, the abolition of slavery, the enfranchisement of women, the Civil Rights Act, Social Security, Medicare, the prohibition against child labor, the forty-hour work week, on and on. 

We have come a long way in our understanding of the world and the fulfillment of our ideals but we have blocked our schools and teachers by saddling them with politically motivated curricula.  Let’s be clear.  Education curricula has become a political football.  We must do everything we can to remove both religion and politics from the schools. 

We must also devise a new system that no longer divides students into successes and failures.  This idea that what our kids really need is tough love, that kids must experience the hard knocks of life in their growing years, has got to end. 

No child deserves to fail.  Certainly, no child should be branded a failure and forced to endure years of failure just to fulfill the dictates of a tough love curricula.  We all know that’s how it works and we all pretend there is no other way.  There is.  We cannot simply bend the normal population curve as the George W. Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind initiative proposed.  With its high academic standards and one-size-fits-all approach, NCLB guaranteed failure for a generation of students. 

NCLB reigned over education for over a decade with catastrophic results before being replaced by Common Core (2010) and the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015).  The new program suggests national standards with the goal of producing students who can succeed in college and university.  The actual administration is left to the states. 

Education has gone through this process of rebuilding the education system from top to bottom numerous times and it has always failed.  It fails because all students cannot succeed on a moving scale of academic standards.  The system fails repeatedly because we try and try again to bring students to the system rather than bringing the system to the student. 

All students can succeed if we assess their talents and interests early on and guide them to achievable and functional goals.  All children are not meant to be scientists but all children can learn to employ the processes of logical thought.  All children cannot become doctors and engineers but every student can become and valued member of society.  All students cannot become litigators but all can learn to distinguish credible evidence from opportunistic speculation. 

Those who have advocated trade schools are on the right track.  Society’s responsibility is to determine what trades will be valued in the future and to provide appropriate students the background and training they require.  Some students will naturally be guided on an academic path while others may be encouraged to develop blue collar, artistic or entrepreneurial skills. 

When there is a place for every child’s interests and abilities then every child – with appropriate assistance, guidance and encouragement – will succeed. 

Moreover, when all students succeed they will become citizens who are able to make realistic and responsible judgments regarding our political parties and candidates.  Is it any wonder that those who have been branded failures in education have rejected the institutions and elitists who branded them?  When the electorate is informed and engaged, we will not be fooled by con men and pretenders. 

Who knows?  We may finally reject the politics of cynicism, division and derision.  We may finally elect representatives whose ultimate motive is to improve the lives of all Americans rather than to enrich themselves and their corporate masters. 

1. “Map: Publicly Funded Schools that are Allowed to Teach Creationism.”  By Chris Kirk.

Slate, January 26, 2014. 

2. “Betsy DeVos Wants to Use America’s Schools to Build ‘God’s Kingdom’.”  By Kristina

Rizga.  Mother Jones, March/April 2017.