Common Sense Cure Blog, ending systemic corruption in government one idea at a time

Labeling Trump Voters as Racists or Bigots Will Only Alienate Potential Allies

1/24/2017

Donald Trump is an unrepentant liar with disturbing attitudes regarding gender, class and race… this doesn’t mean everyone who voted for him is as well. Certainly, plenty of racists and bigots voted for Trump but this isn’t about them.

This is about Trump voters who might be convinced to support inclusive, progressive policies in the future.
…but who won’t if people keep calling them racists, sexists, fascists or Nazis.

Would you listen to or be swayed by a person or group calling you any of those things?

~~~~~

This isn’t to say we shouldn’t fight back against the worst of Trump’s policies…we must!!

However, labeling Trump voters racists or bigots is like eating too much sugar – it may feel good in the moment, but it will cause untold damage in the long-run.

A better approach is to lead with our values! Point out Trump’s lies and hypocrisy, but stay positive and offer an alternative vision without judgment or contempt for those who disagree. Ask open-ended questions to get people thinking about their own values.

Questions like…

~ If your child was caught repeatedly lying, would you punish or reward him? Shouldn’t we hold our President to the same standard?
~ Isn’t clean drinking water at least as important as cheap energy? Is protecting oil & coal industry profits worth the air pollution and the risk pipelines pose to our national waterways?
~ Are we really okay with the same Wall St. firms who crashed our economy in 2008 coming in to our cities, buying up foreclosed houses and then running up rents on the very people they displaced?

…and so on.

Don’t argue if people get defensive – cognitive dissonance is a tough nut to crack. Simply repeat the question and walk away. It’s like scattering seeds; most won’t germinate, but as the consequences of Trump’s policies unfold over the subsequent months and years, more and more might.

~~~~~

On the flip side, accusing all Trump voters of being sexists or bigots simply because they didn’t vote for Hillary is negative, counter-productive and needs to stop.
…especially since it’s not true.

All this labeling does is create a false equivalency between progressives and the Democratic establishment; the same establishment these people abhor and repudiated in 2016.

Here are just two examples of people who voted Trump, yet deserve none of the negative labels being ascribed to them:

1. Voters who have seen their jobs vanish thanks to either globalization or through
environmental degradation.

Hillary Clinton and Democrats were so busy celebrating Barack Obama’s successes and telling people how much worse things would be under Trump that they failed to acknowledge how many people currently struggle to make ends meet; unable to adequately provide for themselves or their families.

Donald Trump spoke directly to the issue of lost jobs and this resonated with huge swaths of Americans who have felt the negative effects of globalization while reaping few of its benefits. Hillary meanwhile represented the establishment within both parties who have supported trade policies like NAFTA and open trade with China.

…Policies which have led to vanishing jobs with no comparable ones to take their place.

Trump voters watched Obama bail out Wall Street after it sunk our economy. No one went to jail and nothing was done to help average Americans, but they’re supposed to trust Democrats?

These people accurately see a world where both political parties cater to the rich and abandon everyone else. They are clear-eyed when they observe that no matter which political party is in charge, the political donor class gets away with pretty much anything it wants.

From Florida to Alaska, big political donors damage or degrade the environment (and people’s livelihood with it) only to ever be fined a pittance…if they are punished at all. Yet should the same people whose lives have been disrupted get caught hunting or fishing without a license, or dulling their pain with drugs, the full force of the law will always come down on them.

Trump voters don’t see government for what it might be – better or worse – they see it for what it actually is and know that it’s not working for them.

Feeling ignored and forgotten, suddenly here was someone speaking directly to their concerns...so they chose the devil who promised change over the devil promising more of the same. When their lives are mostly a parade of hardship and misery, can you really blame them?

2. Voters scared of Islamic terrorists/terrorism who don’t feel like Hillary or Democrats
take this issue seriously enough.

The vast majority of Americans want to live in a tolerant nation; one that bends toward justice and equality and which does not single people out based on their race or nationality.

However, to ignore cultural differences and assume everyone who enters our country shares our values is potentially dangerous. Saying there should be no difference in our standards for accepting immigrants from Middle Eastern countries in which we currently conduct military operations than from say, Japan or Canada, is not inherently racist. It is possible to disagree with Trump's proposed solutions but still acknowledge that the fears of Trump Voters are not completely baseless.

This is a complicated issue with no easy solutions, but Obama didn’t help with his strange mix of diplomacy and drone killings with little context or explanation for either. It created a vacuum which his critics have used to dominate public discourse these past eight years.

So in stepped Trump, and he did a masterful job of triggering people whose fear of terrorism outweighs their willingness to be accommodating to Muslims or people from certain parts of the world. These voters aren’t necessarily racists or even intolerant – they simply have concerns which Hillary did nothing to assuage even as Trump hammered the point home.

Even those with more nuanced views were unlikely to support Hillary since her hawkishness would just continue a cycle that perpetuates blowback and makes us less safe in the end. For people who care deeply about this issue, Trump destroyed Hillary.

~~~~~

You can stick a tube down someone’s throat to make them take water, but they’ll appreciate it a lot more if they decide to take that drink themselves. Those preaching tolerance while exhibiting none for Trump voters only undermine our collective ability to combat the worst of his policies both now and in the future.

Absolutely fight back, but please do it in a positive way! Anything else just perpetuates the same destructive cycle which led us to Donald Trump in the first place.

Above all, we must make it clear that there is a real difference between progressive policies and the establishment politics of the Democratic Party. Call Trump on his lies and make people question whether what he says or does aligns with American values…or their own. Finally, take on the special interests that dominate the thinking within both major political parties to offer solutions which address the very real problems facing not only Trump voters, but all Americans.

Do this, and in 2018 and 2020, not only will voters make a better choice, we’ll all have better alternatives from which to choose.

1 Comment

Remembering September 12th, 2001 and Our Brief Moment of National Unity

9/12/2016

0 Comments

This was originally published in 2011. It has been updated, but just barely, as most everything said five years ago still applies today; doubly so in fact.

As the 15-year anniversary of the attacks of 9/11 passes, there is another important anniversary worth noting...that of our brief moment of national unity.

On September 12th, 2001 our country was united in such a rare & wonderful way that when contrasted to the political climate of today, it barely seems possible. Perhaps the best way to honor those who died on 9/11 is to look past the day itself and remind ourselves how we felt towards one another on September 12th, 2001.

In the days & weeks following 9/11, most Americans would have gone out of their way to help someone in need. Why? Because that person needed help and that was enough. On September 12th, we were all Americans united; we were brothers and sisters – a family – and you look out for family in spite of disagreements or differences of opinion.

Sadly, this moment passed quickly; squandered largely by those with a political and economic agenda that has now cast our union asunder in ways not seen in decades…in some ways not seen since the dawn of the Civil War. Now, fifteen years after our moment of national unity, we can barely talk to one another; political disagreements have become tantamount to treason and compromise a dirty word.

If we are to fix the problems which plague us and remain the exceptional country we have always been, we must learn to trust one another again. Those who disagree with us politically are not our enemy and treating them as such only benefits those who care nothing for preserving the American Dream.

Most of us understand that the opportunity America offers is what has always set us apart. For many Americans it was not only love of America, but our shared belief in the American Dream, which united us after 9/11 and which can unite us again if we would allow it.

It is a fact that no person would get involved in the political process and argue as passionately as many do – whether they be a Trump supporter, a Hillary backer or are still feeling the Bern - were they not patriotic. If people did not love America and hope for its success, they’d simply stay home and keep their opinions to themselves.

The problem with seeing political foes as enemies is that it is very difficult to compromise with an enemy; especially one to whom you ascribe evil intentions. You can compromise with someone whose motives you don’t question; even if you otherwise completely disagree with their opinions.

Most Americans recognize that we all basically want the same things – good jobs, good schools, and the chance to create a good life for ourselves and our family. We simply need to remind ourselves that while there are differences in opinions, no one wants to see the country fail. Political opponents are not enemies; we are two sides of the same coin…Americans above all else.

On September 12th, 2001 that would have seemed self-evident.
On September 12th, 2016 it is a much-needed reminder.

0 Comments

Exxon’s Army: My Time at War and How We Can Really Thank Soldiers for Their Service

7/27/2016

3 Comments

On February 24th, the nation and I both celebrated a 25th anniversary. For it was on that day in 1991, at the age of 20 years and 2 weeks, that I drove my tank into Iraq and my country went to war.

When I mentioned this anniversary on social media, it elicited multiple comments; many of them thanking me for my service. I’m appreciative because I know people’s gratitude always comes from a genuine and heart-felt place.

At the same time, being thanked for my service can also raise an uncomfortable question…
Who was it exactly that I served?

Certainly I served my country, but I joined up mostly to serve myself. I wasn’t close to being ready for college at eighteen, but knew I’d probably want to attend eventually; so I did what countless other young men and women with similarly limited options do each and every year all across America…I enlisted in the military.

In my case, I committed to a 2 ¼ -year stint in the U.S. Army as an M1A1 Battle Tank Operator (Driver); earning money for college tuition via the G.I. Bill and Army College Fund.

We’d been at peace for so long at that point -something which must surely sound strange to younger readers- that I thought the likelihood of us going to war to be minimal. Certainly I thought the risk worth the payoff in tuition money…and maturity too. So I went in with eyes open, and when I drew the short straw, I dutifully joined my comrades and off to war I went.

L to R: Pvt Pillar (loader), Cpl Neal (gunner) and the author (driver)

By the time the tanks rolled in, we’d been pounding the Iraqis pretty hard for over a month, not only from the air, but also with artillery and by bellying our tanks up to the berms (giant mounds of dirt) dividing Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and shooting anything that moved.

When the ground-war began, my division (1st Cavalry) was responsible for creating the diversion up the middle which allowed others to flank the enemy on either side. When we punched through that day, they were beaten and battered, but also dug in and waiting for us.

My time at war was mostly experienced with a sense of detachment and surreal-ness that is difficult to describe. It’s a testament to the level of training they put U.S. soldiers through that I could be so calm driving my tank backwards through a minefield, surrounded by oil-filled trenches rigged to explode as small-arms fire pinged off our tank’s armor.

I can still see a mortar land where we’d been a scant few seconds prior as we backed through that minefield with only the shouted directions from my tank’s loader to steer by.

I can still remember him yelling for me to look right as I cut the smoke generator.

I can still see the two Apache helicopters, looking like cobras about to strike, moments before they launched the hellfire missiles that almost certainly ended the lives of the Iraqis who had been trying to kill us just moment before.

About five hours after the engagement described above. We'd stopped to bang the sand out of the tank's air-filters and took a quick photo; later framed, signed and given to each crew member. (Author 2nd from left)

If the patch on the front of the uniform said “Exxon” or “Lockheed-Martin” instead of “U.S. Army”, would soldiers be so willing to lay down their lives?

Would people be so quick to thank them for their service?

If the answer to these questions is no, we owe it to those fighting on our behalf to ensure that the people we elect can be trusted to only send our sons and daughters into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary.

Unfortunately, America no longer elects the best and brightest; we now mostly select candidates with the deepest pockets able to convincingly deliver blatant lies and half-truths. Thus, those making the critical decisions regarding this nation’s defense and the fate of its soldiers over the past few decades -regardless of party- have primarily been a collection of hacks, shills and yes-men owing their political careers to one special interest or another.

Without question, there are threats in the world which need to be addressed on occasion, sometimes militarily, but always with forethought and intelligence; not in such a ham-handed way that it all but guarantees blowback.

The best way to guard against hornets is not to vigorously kick the nest.

However, if the people pulling our government’s strings are all heavily invested in the tools of war…well, then going to war without any clearly defined definition of victory, blowback be damned, is probably exactly what we’d do. Sound familiar?

Every single soldier who has died or whose life has been inexorably altered, not in the service of defending America from imminent danger but to defend the economic interests of the Political Donor Class, is a stain on the soul of our nation and a complete waste of life and potential.

When I went off to war, I did so because I made a commitment to go where I was ordered to go, and to fight who I was told to fight. My fellow soldiers and I have honored our end of this bargain time and again.

In return, our government and nation make a reciprocal commitment to soldiers and veterans that they will not be treated with disregard; that they will only be asked to fight when there is a grave and imminent danger to the nation’s security; and that those who fight a nation’s battles will be well cared for when they return home.

Can we honestly say we’ve lived up to any of those commitments very well?

M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank

By permitting people unworthy of such a sacred duty to decide when and where our soldiers are asked to risk their lives we -you and I, every one of us- are badly failing in our commitment to this country’s soldiers and veterans.

The economic downturn squeezed young people like no other, which ended up being a fantastic recruiting tool for the military. A nation full of disaffected young people with scant options means a limitless supply of cannon-fodder for the special interests that truly run our government.

I was going to ask why it is that one of the only ways for young people in this country to get a much needed leg-up requires them to risk their lives in the process…but I think I just answered my own question.

Is this really who we want to be, America?

Admitting there is a problem is the first step towards fixing it…and America, we have a problem.

We must start by ensuring that our government is once again run by the best and brightest, rather than the best fund-raisers, campaigners and unrepentant bullshit artists as is currently the case. This doesn’t mean voting for charlatan populists from the donor class like Donald Trump, or for politicians deeply beholden to special interests like Hillary Clinton; it means demanding real changes to a badly broken system. It means voting honest people into office who are willing to do the difficult work required to fix this cancer destroying our nation from within…and who will honor the nation’s sacred commitment to its soldiers and veterans.

The (exhausted) author and his comrades after a long march in Basic Training. We fought for you...will you fight for us?

If you really want to thank a soldier for their service, stand up and demand a government far better than the broken and corrupt one with which we are currently plagued.

Thank a soldier by electing people who won’t betray this country’s commitment to them simply to pay back political donors.

Thank a soldier by ensuring that our country is once again exceptional in deeds, not just words; a nation which they can truly be proud to serve.

3 Comments

Political Discord Delivered Right to Your Door...How Demonizing Political Opposition in Pursuit of Campaign Contributions is making America Ungovernable

6/24/2016

0 Comments

If you’re at all politically disposed, chances are that you receive the occasional (or not so occasional) entreaty for money from a candidate, political party or interest group. These solicitations usually focus on a recent hot-button issue or make a more general ideological-driven appeal…but invariably urge the recipient to pledge money.

The one constant in these mailings is that political opponents are usually portrayed in the most unflattering way possible (to say the least). Is it any wonder America is so polarized when, in addition to increasingly vitriolic campaigns, we must also endure non-stop appeals begging for money to stop the demonic hordes of the opposition party?

Delivering today's 2 minutes of hate. Enjoy!

Can we really be surprised that compromise has become such a dirty word when people are led to believe at every turn, in the basest terms possible, that the other side is to be despised and feared?

The relentless and never-ending effort to finance the campaigns of those seeking office has fed this beast; coarsening discourse to the point where we are now barely governable. You often hear people talk about speech needing to remain free for a republic to function, and that is true, but respectful discourse which allows for mutually beneficial compromise is pretty darn important as well!

Our system has become a biennial contest of mutually assured destruction… no matter which side wins, the public’s belief in the government’s ability to work for them erodes just a bit more. In the end, it doesn’t much matter who’s in charge if all that remains to rule are the scorched remains of a once-great country undone by our inability to cooperate.

Do YOU ever feel all alone...surrounded by enemies?

So how do we improve the quality of discourse without infringing on freedom of speech? As long as the driving force in elections is money, then the pursuit of money will continue to trump all else. Lessen or eliminate the need for that money, and the incentive to pull out all stops in pursuit of donations lessens as well.

A few potential solutions:
~ Create a federal clean-money system which provides qualifying candidates campaign funds in order to compete against the well-financed establishment candidates who are typically little more than mouthpieces for special interests…corporate, union or otherwise. This would offer voters alternatives to candidates beholden to special interests, although it wouldn’t completely forestall fundraising efforts. However, it very well might make going negative more difficult as the conversation expands beyond the narrow (special-interest approved) paradigm currently constricting most election discourse.

~ Similarly, universal transparency of political donations and/or spending might discourage some of the nastier stuff campaigns and PACs will sometimes mail out. Just as candidates often tend to be slightly more civil at debates when their target is standing there ready to defend themselves, so too would the tone modulate if people knew who was financing all political activity. Politicians surely know who’s behind these ads (they have to so the back-scratching loop can be closed) – increased transparency would allow voters, media and regulators (or whatever passes for one at the completely worthless FEC) to operate on a more-level playing field. This alone would not significantly improve the quality of discourse, but among its many other benefits, it might take some of the harder edges off political rhetoric.

~ There are numerous other proposals out there to lessen money’s influence on elections & public policy, up to and including constitutional amendments. In fact, Senate Democrats recently unveiled a bundle of reforms they intend to use as an election issue. Of course, they're willingness to openly admit this should give pause to progressives and reformers before they charge blindly behind Democrats who will happily reap the benefit without ever delivering any tangible results if allowed to do so (more on that another time).

~ As for a constitutional amendment, most proposals suggest taking private money out of elections entirely and/or allow Congress to regulate political spending. Either would surely have an impact, but given the way money always seems to find a way in, it would likely only be a partial one at best. Further, some of the amendment proposals being floated could easily lead to unintended consequences should they ever be ratified.

Additionally, an amendment limiting speech or granting Congress extended powers is extremely unlikely to gain the broad public support necessary to gain passage when conservatives have a much different idea about how to fix the problem of money in politics via an amendment (term limits are another popular conservative solution).

Thus, the text of any amendment needs to be precise, and for this reason alone it is unlikely any amendment capable of actually passing would close even half of the avenues currently being used to funnel money into the political process.

The likely result of any actual campaign to amend the Constitution.

Clearly this is not a problem easily solved, but something vitally important that everyone can do right now is to take note of the constant negative barrage being endured by the most politically active people in this country.

We would all do well to remember that this onslaught is designed to paint the opposing side in the worst possible terms. This has an immensely corrosive effect on our perception of our fellow citizens, and on our ability to effectively govern ourselves, and it hits the most politically active the hardest.

Under such relentless reinforcement of the ‘Us vs Them’ narrative, it takes a conscious effort to remind ourselves that most people who disagree with us politically are not our enemies; they are simply people just like us working towards a similar goal. Their ideas for how to get there might differ from our own, but they are not our enemy; they are our brothers and sisters...who we just happen to sometimes feel like hitting upside the head with a whiffle-ball bat.

Unfortunately few are willing (or capable?) of making this effort with any sort of consistency, and the quality of discourse and governance alike have suffered accordingly…and will continue to do so until we recognize the severity of the problem and stand up to demand change.

The ironic part is that we don’t even like the people shoveling this swill. Opinion polls would not be so universally low if most Americans agreed with the platforms of either of the two major political parties. Yet it is our unrelenting acquiescence to this two-party dynamic which helps to ensure that little ever really changes.

Ready for something better than the lesser of two evils?

The problem isn’t that people on the left and right can’t compromise, it's that the Democratic & Republican Parties and the machinery propelling them both forward through vitriolic elections and inept governance all stand squarely in our way of doing so.

Politicians cannot effectively cooperate so long as they must raise money by portraying their opponents in the absolute worst possible terms. Unfortunately money rules all in Washington D.C. and cut-throat operators run most well-funded campaigns, so there is zero incentive to do anything but viciously demonize political opponents in order to secure votes and inspire maximum contributions.

This winner-take-all, scorched earth campaign unleashed on the American public every two years is without a shadow-of-a-doubt a major contributor to the widening partisan divide in this country. The fact that it is delivered so innocuously doesn’t make it any less of a threat.
In fact, it makes it a far, far graver one.

Cooperation shouldn’t be a dirty word, and those whose political beliefs differ from our own shouldn’t be our sworn enemies demonized at every turn. Money in political campaigns creates a direct motivation for political campaigns to perpetuate a harmful narrative…especially when voters keep rewarding them time & again for doing so!

0 Comments

Petition to End gossip Journalism

6/22/2016

0 Comments

Is anyone else out there ready for a media that serves America, rather than the big money elite currently served by 'journalists' who rarely ever practice actual journalism? If so, please sign the petition (linked below) to revoke access/accreditation for media outlets whose political coverage exceeds 20% punditry; aka 'gossip journalism'.

0 Comments

Garden Walls vs. a Tsunami of Public Opinion...Reframing The Voter ID Debate

6/16/2016

1 Comment

Sorry, but most people don’t care that Voter ID laws are actually intended to rob minorities, the poor and elderly of their vote. They’re not heartless; they simply don’t see the harm.

…and the vast majority probably never will.

Certainly politically active progressives care a great deal, seeing how these laws disproportionately target constituencies which tend to vote Democrat. This group has been making a compelling, impassioned case about how voter fraud isn’t actually much of a problem, and that in solving this non-problem via Voter ID, we are in turn denying thousands upon thousands of citizens their right to vote.

Unfortunately, they have now been making this case for well over half a decade and not only do existing laws remain on the books, but new ones keep popping up.

The Root of the Problem

What makes Voter ID laws so easy to sell, and so difficult to combat, is how thoroughly pervasive photo IDs are in the lives of most Americans. We show ID when using a credit card or writing a check; we show ID when checking in at the gym or when we get a library card. Some people even wear pictures of themselves around their necks all day long. Most Americans produce a photo ID for a myriad of reasons all the time.

So when right-wing politicians and their media lapdogs come along with anecdotal horror stories of people stuffing ballot boxes and dead people voting…and then proceed to tell voters who aren’t really paying much attention that this enormous problem can be solved simply by showing a photo ID when voting. Well, that’s a no-brainer to a society mostly conditioned to present ID for a whole host of reasons we care about far less than cheats and zombies stealing our elections.

Democrats and their allies can scream the truth about what these laws are actually designed to do until they’re blue in the face, but they will keep losing time and again if that is their only strategy. While there are legitimate reasons why people don’t have ID and that requiring them to obtain one is a much greater ordeal than most would imagine, none of that really matters a bit in the broader court of public opinion.

It’s time for a new approach.

A Brief Background…As If It Mattered

No ID, No Access

For those who don’t know, Voter ID laws are ostensibly designed to prevent election fraud whereby a person attempts to cast multiple ballots in the same election. This is extremely rare thanks to stiff penalties already in place to deter anyone foolish enough to try. While there are rare instances of this (and again…stiff penalties when caught), is preventing a handful of extra votes being cast worth the enormous cost to society when doing so disenfranchises voters by the thousands?

Of course, this isn’t how the issue is framed by Republican-controlled statehouses eager to deny the vote to large blocks of voters who just so-happen to lean heavily to their opponents’ side. Instead, the threat of voter fraud is overblown enough to justify the law, and then American’s ambivalence about being required to show photo ID does the rest.

If the professed intent of these laws were really to prevent voter fraud as stated, then why simultaneously make it much more difficult to obtain the same ID now suddenly required to vote, as multiple states have done? Basically these politicians robbed people of their right to vote in broad daylight, told a story they knew to be complete garbage, and dared anyone to call them on it.

While a few Republicans have spoken out against the practice, exposing insider details behind the laws’ true motives, most seem comfortable sticking it to the ‘other side’. The justification that Democrats would do the same if given the opportunity probably shouldn’t be a surprise given the current partisanship and tribalism in a deeply divided America.

Yet with the passage of each new Voter ID law, another batch of American citizens is denied their right to vote. Not all of these voters support Democrats, but Republicans are clearly comfortable strategically sacrificing a number of their own voters to eliminate a much higher number who would oppose them given the opportunity. It’s a smart play by a political party looking out for its own self-interest, but it is also a cynical and morally bankrupt practice, and an absolute catastrophe for our system of self-governance.

In a democratic republic such as ours, voters choose the people who represent their interests within the framework of our government. When those in power flip that script and instead start choosing their voters -whether it be through Voter ID laws, gerrymandering, or any other ethically challenged method- that form of government is nothing but a sham; an illegitimate institution likely to ultimately collapse under the weight of its own corruption.

In the meantime, most voters with their ever-present photo IDs simply do not care that Voter ID laws are currently disenfranchising countless thousands of their fellow citizens. The sooner we all accept this fact, the sooner we can begin countering these laws in ways which might actually have a chance of success, rather than continuing down the same futile path.

A Better Approach

Voting is Smurf-Tastic!

So if the current strategy of dragging Voter ID laws into the sunlight is doomed to failure, what are the alternatives?

The first step would be to expand the vote in other ways; making it easier for all citizens to cast a ballot. This strategy has already been taken up by several states, with Illinois recently becoming the sixth state to automatically register voters when interacting with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or other select public agencies; unless a person declines to do so.

Oregon, the lone state to have run an election with this system in place, saw a notable uptick in voter participation in this year’s May primary from 2012.

Many are now calling for automatic registration nationwide, as well as a federal holiday on Election Day to give all voters full and equal opportunity to participate in our democratic process. Both are fantastic ideas and should enjoy broad support. That said, neither would do much to help people in Voter ID states who currently don’t possess ID and would have difficulty procuring it.

Being registered to vote and having that vote be counted are two very different things.

To aid those who are running afoul of Voter ID laws, I propose that the federal government provide funding to local post offices and libraries to act as intermediaries between low-income and rural voters and their state DMV.

Both currently serve a similar function in aiding the State Department in issuing passports. Why couldn’t they do the same for voters in need of photo ID?

Post offices especially could aid in reaching rural voters for whom traveling to a metropolitan area to obtain ID is a burdensome requirement. Why not allow letter carriers, or a designated person from the post office or library, to visit these people, take a photograph and then ensure that the necessary paperwork is properly delivered to the state DMV for processing and issuance of ID?

For residents who lack the documentation to prove they are who they say they are, the government could also mandate that states must accept as proof-of-identity, a signed affidavit from a letter carrier willing to vouch for that person.

Throw in a little extra money to subsidize the cost of acquiring ID for the poor or indigent, and most of the damage done by Voter ID laws will have been undone, while strengthening post offices and libraries across the country in the process. This seems like a much easier idea to sell than trying to convince most Americans that producing photo ID when voting is a genuine burden to anyone.

Finally, federal lawmakers considering a slate of election reform would be wise to address voter fraud, seeing as how that’s how this whole thing began. Voters are correct to be concerned about the sanctity of their vote, and the government should do everything within its power to ensure voting results to be as secure and accurate as possible.

Voter fraud at the ballot box seems pretty well covered between Voter ID laws and the legal penalties that predated them. What about other forms of voter fraud which Voter ID does nothing about?

As Stalin wryly noted, “The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” We need to strengthen protections at voting’s ground level to ensure the vote is conducted fairly and above board, and that all ballots are accurately counted.

Across the country, the infatuation with electronic voting machines seems to (thankfully!) be fading. These machines are notoriously easy to hack, and in cases where no paper trail is produced, the vote count is equally easy to manipulate by unscrupulous election officials. It seems that given the lengths we are willing to go to address a mostly nonexistent problem like in-person voter fraud, we should devote at least some attention to votes being stolen on a potentially much greater scale.

…and with an ease that in-person fraudsters could only dream of.

Meanwhile, election officials with a bias -whether for their party in the general election, a specific candidate in the primary or something else entirely - can easily influence election results in countless other ways both subtle and obvious.

Thus, the final part of any reform should ensure that, at a minimum, a verifiable paper trail exists when voting machines or electronic counters are being used, while also establishing national standards for our elections and those entrusted with conducting them.

These standards should cover a wide range of issues, including but not limited to base-line standards for voting equipment; minimum requirements for access to the ballot and/or polling places; as well as finer details like basic training requirements for poll-workers and the information they are required to provide voters.

Reforms of this nature would help shore up a broken system sorely in need of repair…as this year’s primaries demonstrated with uncomfortable clarity.

Of course, getting the government to act is admittedly the weak link in this plan; especially given how much both major political parties seem to view voting rights as a struggle between sides, rather than a fundamental American institution.

Still, that doesn’t mean people of conscience shouldn’t continue making the case for protecting the sanctity of the vote without denying entire groups of people their vote in the process.

All I ask is to stop framing the issue in a manner which clearly doesn’t concern most voters. Focus instead on a broader picture of which Voter ID is only a small slice. Focus instead on creating an electoral environment where anyone who wants to vote can do so easily and the accuracy of that vote is unimpeachable.

That’s an idea most Americans can get excited about!

1 Comment

Shifting Public Focus from the Symptoms of Systemic Corruption to the Root Problem

5/6/2014

0 Comments

On issue after issue, public debate continuously focuses on symptoms of the root problem – systemic corruption caused by money in politics – with these symptoms always skillfully re-cast as the actual problem. Political elites, abetted by the media, use clever half-truths to distort perception and inflame voters, effectively distracting us from the fact that most of our problems are rooted in the systemic corruption engulfing our government.

Whether it be the economy, education, health-care or any other major issue; the root problem is how money distorts policy time and again, and then ensures that all subsequent “debate” about policy failures stay within an acceptable framework. Absent this influence, lawmakers would be free to choose the best course of action without worrying about deep-pocketed special interests blocking any and all solutions not favorable to their own narrow interests.

So how do they keep getting away with it? For starters, because most voters align themselves with one of the two major political parties, self-interested politicians and the media have little trouble in establishing the framework of debate for just about every issue of importance. The two parties craft opposing narratives, which dominate the direction of debate to the point of virtually excluding all other viewpoints. Finally, they demonize their opponents to win elections, while spouting self-serving half-truths which resonate with voters because there is always at least a kernel of truth wrapped up somewhere inside the lies and distortions.

By the time they’re done, even in cases where both sides’ arguments have genuine merit about an issue, agreement is still unlikely because we’ve been conditioned to devalue the views of political opposition as the sad babblings of demented and misinformed cretins.

The end result is stalemate and dysfunction, and a political system which doesn’t work for anyone but the moneyed interests.

A better system would yield better results, but you never hear that viewpoint in the media, and that too is by design. Those currently pulling the strings in government and media are not interested in people imagining how high we could soar unencumbered by the systemic corruption constantly weighing us down. They know this is the fuel which could ignite a movement, and they will forestall that at all costs.

Ending systemic corruption is a powerful idea with the potential to unite multiple political factions, but only if it is uncoupled from the current partisan debate and treated as the uniting issue it is. Just as lawmakers bristle at the notion that they are personally corrupt – all while taking part in perpetuating a systemic corruption far more harmful than any one (or ten) corrupt congressperson could ever hope to be – so too will voters bristle if asked to admit they’ve been wrong about closely-held beliefs. The easier it is made for voters to unite against corruption without having to examine their viewpoints on any particular issue too closely, the greater the chance of success.

Better to simply ask voters to look at issues from a perspective of root problem vs. symptom and then talk about issues in that context. Focus on how special interests limit the overall scope of debate and leave us endlessly arguing over the symptoms caused by their corruption. Finally, give voters a way to end systemic corruption via pro-reform candidates who don’t require them to invalidate their opinions and feelings as a condition of support.

But before voters can be asked to end the corruption and its toxic fallout, they must first recognize how most of the noise generated by politicians and the media is meant primarily to divide and distract. Real change will only come once people understand that the problems we face are mostly byproducts of a broken system. Until we end the corruption infesting our politics, nothing will change, things will not get better, and the debates in which we engage will remain full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.

0 Comments

Reviving The Common Sense Cure and the Direction of Reform in the Post McCutcheon Era

4/4/2014

0 Comments

The Common Sense Cure was born in the wake of the Citizens United decision, and it is in the wake of the McCutcheon decision that it is being brought back to life. Much progress has been made in the interim, and the public is catching on to the real problems caused by money in politics. But most still do not appreciate the dire scope of this problem and continue to feel impotent about their ability to change matters. Progress is being made, but far, far too slowly. McCutcheon is a wake-up call and a call to arms, and how we respond will ultimately determine our chances of success.

The writing has been on the wall for years that the courts would soon have campaign finance limits going the way of the dodo. So now that this has (all but) come to pass, it is critical that the reform community centralize around a plan which features both a workable & effective reform which does not utilize limits, as well as a nimble & multi-faceted strategy to enact that reform. We must then figure out a way to explain this plan in an easy-to-understand manner, which allows the average voter to buy in and mobilize in a way they’ve been unwilling to in prior elections.

Whether the Common Sense Cure is that plan or not, it is at the least a model of what such a plan might resemble. There are lots of other plans out there, some similar, others not. Whichever plan reformers rally around however, to succeed it must have both an effective reform and a workable strategy

…and it must be nonpartisan!

This was the other issue The Cure sought to address in its initial incarnation, that too often, the idea of campaign finance reform, or any other attempt to mitigate the influence of money, was a partisan, liberal affair. Reformers should work to dispel this idea –and some do – but too often, you’ll hear the need for reform mixed in with other, more traditional political arguments. This muddies the waters and alienates potential allies.

To make matters worse, many in the reform community align themselves closely with members of the Democratic Party. Of course, it would be silly to spurn allies who are in a position of power and can help one’s cause, but there must be more visible outreach to the Republican Party so that this doesn’t become just another partisan issue lost in the whirlwind of noise. Even if the Democrats are more natural allies, there are Republicans who agree on this issue and there is a damaging perception that little is being done to work with them.

Plus, after years of alliance, where has working with Democrats gotten reformers? Nowhere is the answer, because even well-meaning Democrats see this issue primarily as a way of raising money & support. Well-meaning or not, they all know they’re unlikely to ever have to take a meaningful stand on the issue when government is now so systematically corrupt from top to bottom.

So Democrats aren’t the answer if success is the goal. No, this has to be an independent movement composed of those from all across the political spectrum, demanding the sort of changes that a captured government cannot & will not apply to itself, or it will surely fail.

Of course, reaching out to those with whom you might disagree politically can be tough when the media and people trying to raise money for political operations work so tirelessly to convince us that those on the other side are horrible, evil people. But the reality is the people with whom you disagree politically mostly want the same things – a good job and a happy life for them & theirs – they just don’t agree on how best to accomplish our nation’s goals.

However, so long as money rules in politics, all of it is just a sideshow anyway. If we put aside our differences and work together to fix the issue at the heart of things, we remove the true impediment to finding solutions which might ultimately satisfy both sides. The people who run things want us distracted and at each other’s throats. Nothing scares them more than when we set aside differences and work together (which should tell you something).

Forget Iraq, Afghanistan or the War on Terror; getting the corrupting influence of money out of politics is the defining battle of our generation. Until we fix this, things are just going to keep getting worse and worse, and no amount of hunkering down and hoping disaster doesn’t find you will prevent that. This will touch us all in a profoundly negative way in the end and it is time all of us get to work in whatever way we can to find a solution. A captured government won’t fix itself. We must fight or surrender…there is no third option.

0 Comments

Labeling Trump Voters as Racists or Bigots Will Only Alienate Potential Allies

Remembering September 12th, 2001 and Our Brief Moment of National Unity

Exxon’s Army: My Time at War and How We Can Really Thank Soldiers for Their Service

Political Discord Delivered Right to Your Door...How Demonizing Political Opposition in Pursuit of Campaign Contributions is making America Ungovernable

Petition to End gossip Journalism

Garden Walls vs. a Tsunami of Public Opinion...Reframing The Voter ID Debate

Shifting Public Focus from the Symptoms of Systemic Corruption to the Root Problem

Reviving The Common Sense Cure and the Direction of Reform in the Post McCutcheon Era

Author

Archives

Categories