I'm a Democrat for Democracy

 

I'm back!  I haven't provided a new post since February 5, 2020.  Since then I published my second novel, The Activist with KDP on Amazon.com and wrote my third, The Survivor, which I plan to publish this summer.  Both concern the continued relationship between a grandfather, an aging liberal activist from the 1960s, and his grandson, a conservative libertarian supporter of Donald Trump through the events of January 6, 2021.  More on this later.  I am also happy to report that I and my extended families survived the pandemic and the lockdowns!  Now, with political campaigns and general elections coming up this November, I want to say more to you through this blog.

I'm a Democrat for Democracy

When I was in high school many years ago, I sat through the state-required class called Problems of Democracy (POD).  The teacher asserted that American democracy has always had problems, but we have gotten past them, because our Constitution is inviolate and our system of government is rock-solid stable.

Now I wonder.  We were taught that voting is a privilege and a civic duty, but a great number of people don’t.  We used to have competitive races in politically balanced districts, yet now we have extensive gerrymandering that produce guaranteed results and unaccountable representatives from state houses to Congress.  Presidents are being elected by razor thin margins in just a few swing counties in just a few swing states due to the “winner-take-all” Electoral College regardless of the total popular vote.  A violent mob provoked by the President himself attacked the Capitol.  We used to boast of our individual liberties and now neither our homes nor our bodies are free from government interventions.  And I could go on and on….

I remember an old man in my neighborhood when I was a child who told me that he was getting more conservative as he grew older, but he hated to think that life had already passed him by.  He was 92 years old then, and I’m now on my way there myself.  I refuse, however, to give up my long-held progressive ideals.  That’s why in our current troubled times, I remain standing as a Democrat for democracy.  I want to move forward with five very important propositions:

1.    Let every eligible voter vote and count every valid vote.  The presidential election of 2020 challenged the very foundation of American electoral democracy.  In the future, we need to both encourage and facilitate every eligible voter to vote.  Let's make it very easy for eligible voters to register and to vote – to vote only once per voter but by many different options.  We cannot disenfranchise voters away from home, the elderly, and the home-bound sick and disabled as well as their caregivers.  We also need to get stricter about voter eligibility.  Voter registration should be rigorously validated and updated in systematic and transparent ways.  Vote counting should likewise be more rigorous and open to easy and accurate certification.  In addition, there must be substantive voter equality by holding elections in politically balanced districts or other geographical units.  Maybe we should abandon districts within states and have only state-wide elections for at-large representatives.  

2.     Make all governments more efficient, effective, and responsive to the people they serve. American manufacturers lost their global dominance in the 1970s to competitors who could produce superior quality products at lower prices.  They rebounded because of new facility investments, process re-engineering that assured quality control at lower costs, waste reductions, and deployment of technological advancements, such as CAD/CAM and robotics.  Following the example of manufacturing, service companies have also undertaken process re-engineering.  Now it’s time for similar process improvements in the public sector.  They must deliver superior value for taxpayers.  Governments at all levels need to modernize facilities, reduce time delays and customer frustrations, improve accuracy, and reduce costs to provide more effective and efficient services to Americans.  Government business should be as transparent as possible while protecting national security and individual rights.   

3.      Restore ethical government.  We need to go much further with ethics laws to make public the personal assets and financial interests of all people who serve in public offices from city and county offices all the way to the White House.  We need to stop conflicts of interest and corruption from the very start.  There should be no relatives or business partners or big contributors of office holders also on government payrolls.  Contracts and investments made by government offices need to be carefully reported and monitored.  

4.      Protect Personal Liberties.  Consistent with the intensions of the Founding Fathers in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we must strongly re-affirm the role of the national government to protect at the national level the personal liberties of individuals.  Among other provisions, the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments should be broadly interpreted to include the individual right to personal privacy, including one’s health and integrity of physical body as well as real property, possessions, and assets.  No person can be denied rights to body and property without due process.  Americans are entitled to privacy in the bedroom as well as other places in homes.  They are also entitled to their privacy online as well as other forms of personal communications.  Individuals should be allowed to mind their own business as long as they are not infringing upon the rights of other individuals.  Governments at all levels must police abuses to individual rights by corporations, organizations, other individuals, and governments themselves.

5.    Define infrastructure broadly.  Governments at all levels are responsible for a commonly shared infrastructure.  In earlier times, infrastructure was narrowly defined as streets and roads, bridges, and public buildings.  It also included public safety and health services, such as clean drinking water, sewage treatment, garbage collection, and responsible police forces.  In the changing world that we live in today, infrastructure must be broadly defined to include air and water standards and regulations, climate change mitigation, management of pandemics, universal access to health care, and affordable education for all households from pre-school through the post-secondary levels.  We might further define infrastructure to include a nationwide system of public and private sector collaboration to provide broadband connectivity and electricity from manufactured energy sources.

   copyright 2022 Stephen M. Millett (all rights reserved)  

         

 

   

The Next Civil War Is Getting Closer

     I created this blog to elaborate on my book, American Ways (2016).  I began it with the question "Are We Headed for Another Civil War?" (posted February 23, 2017).  I followed up with further blogs on this topic during March 2017.  Now, about three years later, the possibility of another civil war seems even closer.  On September 30, 2019, a megachurch pastor in Texas predicted that if Pres. Donald Trump were successfully impeached then there would be a revolt of Evangelical Christians and "a Civil War like fracture of the Nation."  Trump retweeted this prediction and added "Democrats don't care if they burn down and destroy this nation."  In Trump's mind, impeachment always was purely partisan and a way for Democrats to reverse the election of 2016 (in which he won the Electoral College, but lost the country-wide popular vote), and to prevent his re-election in 2020.  He has reiterated several times that he is the barrier to a civil war coming from the Radical Left.  His attitude about his Presidency reminds me of Louis  XIV, the Sun King of France, who warned "After me, the deluge" and defended the doctrine of absolute monarchy in the 1600s.  Trump has often tweeted his own version of the Absolute Presidency.
     Rather than preventing it, Trump will more likely cause a civil war.The next American civil war will center on the continued legitimacy of Trump in the White House.  Less than a year yet, Trump supporters are already warning of a fixed presidential election  this November.  Four years ago Trump complained that  the 2016 election would be fixed, "unless I win, of course."  In response to the failed results of the Iowa Democratic caucus on February 4, Donald Trump, Jr., tweeted "The fix is in...AGAIN…."  His brother Eric tweeted, "Mark my words.  They are rigging this thing."  This trend in objecting to false elections (like false news) suggests that if Trump were to lose re-election, he will ignore the results and claim that he actually won.  Buying time to prove (or fabricate) his case, he will refuse to vacate the White House, even after January 20, 2021.  In this scenario, the new Senate may recognize the Electoral College selection of the Democrat candidate as the winner and allow him or her to be sworn in as the new President.  If force were used to evict Trump and install the new President in the Oval Office, there will be widespread violence between Trump loyalists and Democrats who will be in positions of public authority.  In another scenario, if Trump were to lose he may peacefully leave the White House, but refuse to attend the inauguration of the new President, whom he will condemn as the Phony President.  His more violent base will take up arms and march on the White House.  If the police or the Army fires upon them, then there will be a civil war of periodic assassinations, bombings, arsons, and occasional shootouts (not military battles like the last Civil War) between the Trumpobites supporting the "Pretender" and the Democratic Administration.
     Another possibility is that Trump wins re-election, but Democrats contest the results as bogus.  They will accuse Trump and the Republicans (and the Russians) of fixing the results of polling places, especially in critical swing states.  The contested results will begin in various state and Federal courts and then spill into the streets as demonstrations, which will turn ugly in time.  In this scenario the Democrat winner of the election will be "The Usurper" and Trump will become a virtual dictator imposing martial law across the entire country, only inciting further violence by The Resistance.
     I will pursue further scenarios in the future.

copyright 2020 Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved.)

Communityness is not Socialism

     Communityness is the aggregate of relationships and bonds among individuals who share things in common.  The sharing might be the DNA of extended families (or race or ethnic identity), geography (neighborhood, town, or polity), experiences and history, beliefs (religion, ideology, or worldview), and interests (both material and non-material).  The bonds may range from very strong to very weak and may fluctuate over time.  As I discussed in my book American Ways, strong communities make strong individuals, who in turn make strong communities.  Nobody makes it through life all alone all the time.  We need and benefit from shared resources and support.  Empathy is an important value.
      In communities, the people pursue common interests, such as defense from outside enemies and internal civic law, justice, and order -- the physical safety and predictability that allow everyone to go about their day-to-day business.  It also means public education as well as public health and sanitation.  In times of great distress it might also include general economic as well as public physical health.  Sickly, poor, homeless, and hungry individuals may pose a threat to the wellbeing of all other individuals in the community.
     In the eyes of extreme libertarians, all forms of communityness look like socialism.  They see the world through the lenses of fear -- fear that a strong community, especially government, will take away individual freedoms, even the freedoms that extend to greed and selfishness.  They fear dictators and domination by sub-communities of rival ideas and interests.  They fear losing their property and money.  They reject environmental regulations, measures to address global climate change, and common health insurance as forms of public health and sanitation.  They advocate lower community resources and spending and fewer government regulations that infringe upon short-term profits, however gained.  They completely reject the idea that the community may need to save free enterprise from itself by reacting to bad community behavior.
     Individuals do not have to surrender their personal liberties to achieve strong communities; they only have to cooperate with other individuals. As in team work, each individual is important working together toward a group goal.    Individuals need to take a broader and longer-term perspective to their own private wellbeing.  Sometimes personal gratifications have to be delayed.  All communities require a give-and-take among its members.  The key is fairness, defined as consistent processes to control problems, complaints, conflicts, and frustrations..  The members of a community need to agree to common processes and then abide by their rules.  This also means that members alike in standing within the community are treated alike.

Copyright 2019 Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved)

Undercutting the New Deal

     Building upon the ideals of fellow-Republican Abraham Lincoln two score years before, President Theodore Roosevelt believed that the Constitution of the Union was the same Constitution of individual liberties facing a new threat.  In the early years of the 20th century, the threat to personal liberties was not secession but the domination of Big Business in the form of large corporations and industry trusts.  In 1901, TR informed Congress that "great corporations exist only because they are created and safeguarded by our institutions; and it is therefore our right and our duty to see that they work in harmony with those institutions."  He asserted that the Federal government is a public institution (in the words of Lincoln, "of the people, by the people,  for the people") and therefore had the responsibility to protect everybody by regulating business practices, ending corporate abuses of consumers, and preventing business trusts and monopolies that restrained free trade and fixed higher prices.
     Three decades later, TR's concept of the Federal government as the public institution of the people to protect themselves was furthered by another Roosevelt, this time a Democrat.  Franklin D. Roosevelt reflected a widely held view that the Crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression were caused by the greedy Wall Street crowd, abusive banks, and short-sighted manufacturers.  FDR argued that it was the role of the Federal government to manage an "economic constitutional order" that protected individuals from unethical and greedy business interests and maintained a balance between legitimate business interests and the right of each American to make a comfortable living.  The power of the Federal government extended beyond just commercial regulation at the national level to include the redistribution of wealth concentration through taxes and public programs that put money directly into the pockets of individual consumers, even the chronically unemployed and poor.
     Ever since FDR defeated  President Herbert Hoover in 1932, conservative Republicans have condemned the concepts of both President Roosevelts.  They have sought to curtail if not terminate government regulations of businesses and the lingering "big spending"programs of the New Deal, such as Social Security, food stamps, and other aid programs in the spirit of the New Deal, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare.
     To advance their cause, conservatives have waged a vigorous and persistent ideological war to undercut the conceptual foundation of the New Deal.  They have reverted to the arguments of the anti-Federalists of the 1780s.  They have asserted with increasing anger that Big Government is not the friend or protector of the people but rather its enemy.  The Federal government endangers free enterprise, the freedom to work hard, make money, and enjoy the full benefits of property, so they claim.  Their point of view gained much support following  the Great Recession of 2007-2009, which was blamed on Big Government rather than Big Business.  A popular belief was spread by radio talk shows, 24/7 cable TV news,  and tabloids that Washington curtailed economic growth by over-regulation, excessive environmental controls, high taxes, and bad foreign trade agreements.  It was also accepted that  "give-away" programs to undeserving people discouraged individual initiative, hard work, and full employment.
     The U.S. Supreme Court in numerous cases has upheld the constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and impose taxes.  The core questions are matters of policy:  Congress should regulate what businesses, how, where, and when?  And such questions turn on complex interactions among partisan politics, personalities, and vested interests as well as ideals.  An even more fundamental question centers on who benefits most from the existence or absence of Federal government regulations?

(C) 2019 Stephen M. Millett (all rights reserved)          

D. C. Stephenson: An American Tyrant

Americans typically think of tyrants in the context of ancient Greece and Rome, royal France, or 20th century Latin America, but tyrants could never occur in the U.S.  Yet, we have seen our own kind of tyrants in the sense of political machine bosses and corrupt city and state autocrats.  They have acted like tyrants by insisting upon unconditional personal loyalty and obedience.  They are highly egotistical, mean spirited, and even cruel.  They manipulate patronage for family and friends and exploit public projects for personal gain.  They insist that all public affairs rotate around them as indispensable personalities.   They would put Louis XIV to shame as absolute rulers by divine right.  Paradoxically, American tyrants are most likely to emerge at the city, county, and state levels even though we believe that the best governments are local and closest to the people.  We have yet to see a tyrant at the national level.
    Examples of American tyrants include Boss William Tweed of Tammany Hall and the Tweed Ring in New York City and state in the 1860s, Tom Pendergast of Kansas City and Jackson County, Missouri from 1925 to 1939, and  "The Kingfish" Huey Long, the governor of and U.S. Senator from Louisiana, 1928-1935.
     Another, equally evil but not so famous American tyrant was D. C. Stephenson, the Grand Dragon of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Indiana during the 1920s.  By 1923, Stephenson, known as "Steve" or "the Old Man" at the age of 31, was recruiting an average of 2,000 new members at $10 each per week.  It is estimated that the Indiana Klan may have had as many as 262,000 hooded members, or one-third of all native-born white Hoosier men.  Stephenson packaged the Klan as a secret  fraternal society.  A master salesman, Stephenson peddled 100% Americanism, law and order, honest government, Protestant beliefs, traditional family values (with men as heads of households), and Prohibition.  He denounced corruption, Catholics, the Pope, and immigrants, especially low-life Irish.  Stephenson made a fortune off of the Klan and converted large amounts of cash into political power.The Grand Dragon captured the Republican Party in Indiana and set his eyes on the national party.  In the elections of 1924 Stephenson-backed candidates won the state's governor's office as well as a majority of the state legislature.  Plenty of county officials, too.  By 1925, Stephenson boasted, "I am the law in Indiana."
     Then the Grand Dragon fell even more dramatically than he rose.  In the spring of 1925 he was implicated in the death of a young woman who was a state employee.  He was arrested, indicted, and tried for the abduction, rape, and murder of Madge Oberholtzer.  The defense argued that she died of self-administered poison.  The prosecution, however, showed that she died from a staph infection caused by human bites to her body.  Stephenson professed his innocence and exuded confidence that no jury in Indiana would ever find him guilty, but it did.  He was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.  He further asserted that he would get a pardon from his lackey, the governor.  He didn't.  In revenge  Stephenson exposed Klan-inspired corruption by state officials.  The Indianapolis Times subsequently won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of Stephenson, the governor retired from politics, but the Grand Dragon remained in prison.  Meanwhile, the Indiana Klan collapsed as respectable men despite their agreement with Klan tenets rejected an organization associated with such a monster as D. C. Stephenson.

I have published a fictionalized history of the Indiana Klan in my recent novel, The Listener, which is available both as an e-book and paper copy at Amazon.com:

https://www.amazon.com/Listener-Novel-Stephen-M-Millett/dp/1731227310/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1546985622&sr=8-1&keywords=the+listener+stephen+millett


(c) 2019 by Stephen M. Millett  (All rights reserved)    

Non-Creative Destruction of the Free Market Economy

In 1942, the eminent economist Joseph Schumpeter coined one of the most profound terms in modern economic theory:  "creative destruction."  In his book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, he argued that free market capitalism is always a messy work-in-progress.  It is an economic system that is inherently unstable due to the dynamics of entrepreneurship, competition, technological discoveries, innovations, and productivity improvements.  These systemic characteristics destroy existing products and markets while providing greater value to consumers.  Because he approved of thses characteristics as modes of positive economic behavior, he said that in the long run such destruction of old businesses was creative of new and better products.  It was actually creative, even though some interests and individuals were damaged, while on the whole many people benefitted.  He saw economic growth as spurts of creative destruction along with entrepreneurship and innovation.
     Unfortunately, history tells us of many negative modes of economic behavior.  The free market system is unstable for many bad reasons, too.  Businessmen can destroy their own enterprises along with the whole free market economic system  with absolutely no creativity.  Schumpeter ignored the dark side of American capitalism: the abuses and stupidity of too many bad business practices, personal greed, and the creation of monopolies to eliminate competition and fix higher prices.  In the American economic system there is extraordinary pressure on enterprises to show attractive short-term profits -- to make money, as much and as soon as possible.   Americans prize immediate successes.  The fixation on short-term goals often leads to short-sighted decisions and corporate policies, and investments.  Managers get bonuses for quarterly profits even at the expense of long-term business growth.  There also have been corrupt businessmen who have deceived customers and investors through false claims and down-right lies.  They often cover up their greed and selfishness with false reports and falsified tax returns.  In he pocess they can destroy customer and investor confidence with ripples through the entire economic system.  Consumers will stop spending and investors will sell off stocks when they lose trust in business.

In a national democracy with a nation-wide economy where individuals are workers, consumers, investors,  voters, and taxpayers all at the same time, does the government have the responsibility to protect the people by regulating business practices and policing non-creative destruction of the free market econmy as though they were victimized by common criminals or attacked  by hostile foreign invaders?  Too many conservatives and business people would say "no way" and "over my dead body."  Along with plenty of innocent dead bodies as well.  If left entirely on its own, the greed, selfishness, and stupidity of a few players would make the free market system so unstable that it might destroy itself.





Copyright 2018 Stephen  M. Millett  (all rights reserved)      

The Curse of Sarah Palin

     A milestone of contemporary American politics was hit on September 24 and 25, 2008, when CBS aired Katie Couric's interviews with Gov. Sarah Palin, the GOP candidate for Vice President.  At the time, many people were appalled by the Alaskan governor's superficial knowledge of American domestic and foreign issues.  They should not have been.  The curse of Sarah Palin was that it was not what you knew or how much experience you had but rather what you believed in that counted most.  She expressed a feeling of frustration and indignation that reflected the mood of many Americans who would later support Donald Trump.  And still do.
     The idea that candidates for public office should be well informed is now seen as elitist.  It reflects the values of well-educated Americans who dominate the professions, high skilled occupations, and most middle management in manufacturing and services.  They are the American urban upper middle class.  They place the accent on proven competency for any position of responsibility, regardless of race, gender, ethnic origins, religion,or personal orientation.  They respect preparation, analysis, and rational problem-solving.  These same people get denounced as liberals, do-gooders, and snobs.  By 2018 they might even be accused of constituting the Resistance.    
      Gov. Palin called Barack Obama a socialist.  Name calling was certainly not new.  What was new was the deliberate use of disinformation and blatant lies to attack political opponents.  For example, Palin popularized the wrong idea that Obamacare would create medical review panels that might deny coverage to the chronically ill and dying.  She called them the death panels, and her followers believed her.
     Her beliefs morphed into the Tea Party movement that merged with the alt right to support Donald Trump.  In 2016 they captured the Republican Party.  Today, President Trump consistently exploits disinformation to shore up his base of supporters, which might be as large as one-third of the American active electorate.  This base includes white men of the Baby Boomer Generation who are still fighting the battles of the 1960s, unrelenting Republican partisans, anti-regulation vested interests, the very rich who hate income taxes, people with lesser education and skills who have lost once well-paying jobs due to  technological changes and industry restructuring, deeply religious people who adhere to a rigid reading of the Bible, and rural populations in decline who have nowhere else to go.  They are anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-Muslim, anti-free trade, anti-immigration, and pro-military.  They worry about the Iranians, ISIS, and the North Koreans, but not the Russians.  They blame their own troubles on the snobbish urban elite that looks down on them, assertive minorities, Hispanic immigrants, and social deviants.  They greatly fear violence in the forms of crime, riots, and acts of terrorism (but not so much school shootings).  They see conspiracies everywhere and dread social upheaval.  And yet, if the U. S. were to have a violent revolution or a new kind of civil war, wound it not come from the Trump supporters after the eventual political fall of their hero?  After all, they are the people who are armed to the teeth and warn "Don't Tread on Me"

(C) 2018 Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved)            

The Great American Fearleader

President Donald Trump has emerged as the Great American Fearleader.  He exploited American fears in 2016 to win votes and he continues to manipulate them for his growing political power and his own personal glorification.  He consistently makes inflammatory statements and does things that further flame the fears that in turn solidify his political base.  He then presents fake solutions to those fears that make him look like a great American savior.  Whatever he does, he will claim that he has indeed made America great again.

Let's look at just three example.

In 2017, Trump denounced the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un as the "Rocket Man" who threatened the U.S. with nuclear missiles.  He flamed global fears of North Korea setting off a nuclear holocaust with massive American retaliation that might draw in China and Russia, too.  Then Trump met with Kim in June 2018 in a highly staged diplomatic adaptation of reality TV and announced that North Korea no longer posed a nuclear threat to the U.S.  He incorrectly claimed that Kim had in good faith assured him of North Korean denuclearization, but subsequent negotiations have shown that the North Koreans have no intension of abandoning their form of nuclear deterrence.  Will the North Koreans eventually come to verifiable nuclear disarmament?  We shall see.

Trump has said that unfair trade agreements have allowed foreign countries to exploit American consumers and workers.  He claimed that trade with China, the EU, Canada, and Mexico was to blame for offshore manufacturing and the loss of millions of American jobs.  To restore fair trade, if not tree trade, Trump has imposed tariffs on goods from these countries, which in turn have imposed tariffs on American goods that are likely to hurt further millions of American farmers, workers, and consumers.  We have now a trade war.  No doubt Trump will come up with some kind of solution that appears like a great American victory.  We shall see.

In 2016 he condemned the flow of Mexicans into the U.S.:  "They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime.  They're rapists.  And some, I assume, are good people."  He characterized illegal immigrants and furthermore all Hispanic immigrants as poor people and criminals who would victimize Americans because the U.S. had become the "dumping ground" for all the world's problems.  He further warned of Muslim immigration that would allow terrorists into the U.S. to kill Americans.  So Trump instituted by executive orders a ban on immigrants from selected countries.  In 2018 he encouraged the give-no-quarter crack down on illegal immigrants crossing the Rio Grande River by separating children from parents.  Now he promises to reunite immigrant families and still maintain border security.  He asserts that nothing less than a wall will secure Americans from the exploitation of foreign people.  We shall see.  But how long will it take?    

(c) 2018  Stephen M. Millett.  All rights reserved.  

The Garrison State Today

     On February 24, 2017, Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association told the Conservative Political Action Conference that "Right now, we face a gathering of forces that are willing to use violence against us....Among them and behind them are some of the most radical political elements there are.  Anarchists, Marxists, Communists and the whole rest of the left-wing socialist brigade."
     This is an example today of the concept of  the garrison state identified by Prof. Harold Lasswell in 1941.  Lasswell was describing the totalitarian regimes of both the fascist right (Hitler and Mussolini) and the Communist left (Stalin).  His concept became further developed as the siege mentality, whereby a whole society can believe and act as though they were captives within a besieged city (or country).
     We continue to see many examples of governments in which the leaders persistently cry out against foreign threats and internal subversion.  They not only exaggerate the threats, they exacerbate them in order to foist a sense of great danger that will convince people that they need to support the government's policies.  These include higher military spending, the law and order crackdown of dissidents, the promotion of traditional social and religious values, and the suppression of free speech and press.  In the end, the goal is not so much to protect the country as it is to promote the interests of certain internal groups and to maintain the individuals and the party in power.
     President Donald J. Trump, with the solid support of his base, including the National Rifle Association, is the current leader of an emerging garrison state in the U.S.  He is encouraging the siege mentality of Americans by emphasizing the dire threats of radical Islamic extremists and terrorists, ISIS, the nuclear threat of North Korea, the nuclear threat of Iran, proposed restrictions to the Second Amendment, and the dangers of illegal immigrants, especially Hispanics, to the safety and security of Americans everywhere.  He discourages the freedom of speech and the press by denouncing stories that challenge him as "fake news" to be disbelieved and rejected.
     Trump is not concerned with unifying the American people.  On the contrary, he feeds contentious divisions and social unrest with fear and anger to increase the siege mentality.  He himself and his White House staff display symptoms of deep paranoia.
     By scaring people, Trump is promoting an agenda that is highly favorable to certain interests and individuals in the U.S.  He does this through increasing budgets for Defense and Homeland Security, restricting immigration, constructing a wall along our border with Mexico, permitting the private exploitation of public lands in the West, rejecting global climate change in favor of fossil fuels (especially oil and coal), and passing tax "reforms" that provide tremendous concessions to large corporations, corporate executives, stock investors, investment portfolio managers, and other very high income and wealthy people. 
     Those people of the Trump base without so much material but with high emotional interests  indicate that they are OK with the crumbs from the table according to supply-side, trickle-down economic theories.  They continue to trust Trump and long for making America great again, which they see as crushing all of Trump's and their own enemies, foreign and domestic, real and imagined.
     It is obvious that high income individuals and the interest groups of the Trump base will gain much in material advantages from the siege mentality.  But how will the base of true believers also benefit?

(c) 2017 Stephen M. Millett (all rights reserved)  

Politics Are Personal

     In my book American Ways, I identified the four corners of American politics:  money, issues, organizations, and personalities (pp. 168-171).  These four corners have provided the foundation of American politics since colonial times, but at different times some of these corners have appeared more prominently than others. 
     Money has always been important to pay for electoral campaigns.  It has also played a major role in competing interests trying to win advantage through contributions and favors in the public arena; in return for their support, they see the kinds of regulations and taxes that they desire.  They may also get repaid through government patronage and contracts.  The border between money as a form of freedom of speech and money as corruption has always been hazy.
     Issues have included both concrete matters, such as the gold standard in 1896 and the continuation of the New Deal in 1936, and abstract ideals, such as states' rights, personal liberties, and limited government.  They include political, social, and economic ideals and ideology. 
     Organizations relate primarily to political institutions and parties.  They provide the structure for the processes of American representative democracy.  Congress, for example, passes laws according to very specific rules of order.  Parties give cohesion and continuity between elections and the organization with which to get voters registered and delivered to the polls on election days.  For some political leaders, party loyalty may be more compelling than issues and maybe even money.
     During the 1980s, Speaker of the House "Tip" O'Neill claimed that all politics are local.  My corollary is that all politics are personal.  The personalities of candidates go a long way in attracting financial supporters and voters.  Successful political leaders often exude exceptional personal charm.  They can be poignant, charismatic, and entertaining.  They can arouse public emotions, either inspirational optimism or angry indignation.  Once in office, in complex negotiations over public policy the ability of leaders to trust each other and engage in productive inter-personal dealings count for a great deal.
     It presently appears that personalities are extremely important to President Donald Trump.  He was a well-known TV personality with high ratings before 2016 and he continues to crave public adulation in the White House.  He is very wealthy and not much concerned with money (besides his own).  He is not doctrinaire, contrary to much of his rhetoric; he is more interested in practical results than ideological purity.  In this regard, Trump is at odds with the rigidly opinioned Freedom Caucus in the House.  It has been reported that Trump does not care for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who highly values the integrity of the U.S. Senate and the long-term unity of the Republican Party.  Trump likes to make deals in public policy like he made real estate deals.  Therefore, he likes people he can relate to, joke with, respect, and ultimately trust.  Such a person may prove to be a Democrat:  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.  Looking forward, the compromises finally reached on Obamacare, immigration, budgets, and taxes may be reached through the social dynamics of the streets of New York.

(c) 2016 Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved)                 

The American Politics of Afghanistan

     In Chapter 8 of American Ways, I observed that "Americans view their relations with other countries as more or less extensions of their relations with each other, with typically compatible combinations of self-interests and ideals, so that American foreign policy often has more to do with domestic than with international politics." (p. 281).
      We saw an example of this general trend in American history in the speech that President Donald Trump gave on Monday, August 21, 2017.  The President rejected the policy option of American withdrawal after 16 years of our fighting in Afghanistan and pledged eventual victory there over the Taliban, ISIS, and other terrorist groups.  He did not say how this could be achieved or when.  He did not specify what constituted "victory," but he said that it would depend upon conditions, also not defined, in Afghanistan and not upon some artificial timetable.
     Although the President acted as though his new policy was based on careful analysis of the realities of the Middle East and South Asia, Trump's re-invigorated war in Afghanistan has more to do with domestic than international politics.  It is based primarily on the ideals and self-interests of his political base, upon which he expects to win re-election in 2020.  What are the political appeals of an extended war and the hope of victory in Afghanistan?
     At a very basic level, Trump's war in Afghanistan diverts national attention away from or makes up for domestic political disasters, such as the investigations into Russian meddling in the American elections of 2016, the failure to repeal and replace Obamacare, and the white supremacy mess of Charlottesville.  It's an old political maneuver to shift public attention from divisive domestic to unifying foreign issues. 
     In particular, Trump is arousing the patriotism of national unity that focuses on military might and service values.  Among other demographics, one target is the aging Boomers who painfully remember Vietnam.  They seek a military victory in the future that will compensate for the frustrations of Southeast Asia some half-century ago.  This generation today is prone to hold in contempt those who might be soft on terrorism like those in the past who were seen as being soft on communism.  They believe deeply in teamwork and social cohesion.  Trump gains politically when he convinces people that he is a strong leader who knows how to solve problems with the advice of generals.
     Furthermore, there are young men and women from small towns and rural areas around the country who enlist primarily because the Armed Forces present the best paying jobs to be had.  Their families and neighbors know this, too, and they enthusiastically support the military as the industry that supports their children.
     There certainly are Americans who deeply believe in a strong military to defend liberty and the American way of life against foreign enemies.  They greatly fear ISIS and foreign-generated acts of terrorism in the U.S.  Nobody wants another 9/11.  And along with high ideals often come the self-interests of military patriotism, including the pay and benefits of the military, the revenues of military contractors and suppliers, and the election of representatives in districts and states with military bases and instillations.  Defense has been a strong sector of the American economy, and a strong economy provides strong politics.   
     Trump is probably correct in his expectations that some kind of military success in Afghanistan could be called "victory" and leveraged for political gain.  On the other hand, he is tempting the same fate of other nations and leaders who have tried and failed to extend their foreign policy goals into this region of the world, including the British and Russians over the last two centuries.

(C) 2017 Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved)      

The Importance of Process

     In Chapter 6 of American Ways, I observed that "When Americans cannot agree on conflicting ideals and interests, they resort to agreeing on a fair and equitable process to resolve their conflicts peacefully."  Since the earliest days of the colonies, Americans have asserted their individual ideals and interests.  They often butt heads with other individuals doing the same.  While Americans have enjoyed certain rights, they have never enjoyed the right to infringe the rights of other individuals.  Had there been no agreed-upon procedures to settle numerous conflicts among individuals, Americans would have fought and killed each other off a long time ago.
     Processes are extremely important to Americans.  Most Americans have followed the axiom "live and let live."  But to people with self-absorbed interests and absolute beliefs, the ends justify the means.  We see this often in the business world of high-competition and high-expectations.  Profits are what matter most to many business people and investors.  But they have to stay within the boundaries of the law and social acceptability or they risk alienating authorities and customers.  We also see people with uncompromising values who are willing to go to extremes regardless of who else gets hurt.
     To most Americans since the 17th century, however, the means justify the ends.  There are "right" and "wrong" ways to get things done, not just favorable or unfavorable results.  If you live according to the rules, then you are entitled to your gains, and those gains become protected under the law with broad community approval.  You are also respected by the community of other individuals.
     What do the concepts of fair and equitable mean?  "Fair" means that all parties in a dispute agree to a process by which to settle conflicts and then abide by the outcome.  In the eyes of many Americans, "fair" may relate more to the process than to the results.  If the process is run according to consensual rules, then you have to accept the results as fair even if they are not what you wanted.  Then, you just move on.  "Fair" also means that the process was run without trickery, corruption, or perversion of the rules.  Many times Americans have tried to bend the process to get their desired results.  Therefore, procedural knowledge and transparency are required.  For example, judges, lawyers, and law enforcement agents must understand the American system of justice.  And "equitable" means that all parties are treated the same with no biases based on political favor, power, wealth, or social standing.  That's the concept, at least.  Unfortunately, achieving the ideal is a continuous struggle in the practical world in which wealth and influence play such prominent roles in the day-to-day affairs of both business and government.
     Furthermore, the concepts of fair and equitable in the operation of peaceful processes apply to the most powerful person in the country, the President of the United States.  He or she cannot excuse any means to justify the ends.  The Constitution lays out a process for national government with limited powers and internal checks and balances.  Just as a judge in a court, the President has to know the proper institutional procedures and follow them with transparency.  In addition, the sensitivities of the American people based on generations of social processes must be respected, even in the technological world of social media.

(C) 2017 Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved)           

The Ideals and Self-Interests of Global Climate Change

     In Chapter 5 of my book American Ways, I set out one of the major patterns of historical American behavior:  Americans find clever ways to combine their lofty ideals with their self-interests and self-satisfaction, and only rarely will they consciously pursue their ideals at the direct expense of their own well-being (p. 143).

     Let’s take a simplified example from an extremely complicated issue:  global climate change.  On one side are those who assert that the Earth’s climate is changing rapidly, with many areas suffering from increased surface temperatures and storms; that global warming is potentially damaging to all life forms on land and in the seas; and that actions must be taken now to avert climate disaster in the future.  In particular the Paris climate accord of 2015 called for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and a shift from the extensive use of fossil fuels with high concentrations of carbon dioxide to sustainable energy.
     Who benefits from such goals in the U.S.?  One might argue ideally that everybody will benefit by not enduring climate disasters.  Many arguments are based on the high ideals of quality of life, improved health and safety, and environmental stewardship.  But behind such ideals are many self-interests, too.  Scientists and R&D enterprises might receive more Federal government programs.  Insurance companies might reduce their risk exposure to large claims based on extreme weather events such as hurricanes, thunderstorms, and floods.  Obviously, there are farming, ranching, forestry, and fishing interests at stake if climate conditions reduce their outputs.  The shift to sustainable energy forms particularly favors investors and companies engaged in the production and operation of electricity-generating windmills, hydro-electric facilities, solar panels, geothermal systems, and perhaps large-sized batteries and fuel cells.
     In addition, the natural gas industry has been benefitting by the increasing use of methane as a fuel for central station generation of electricity.  Furthermore, greenhouse gas emission restrictions might reinvigorate nuclear energy. 
     Less well-known are shipping and tourism interests that see new business with the melting of the North Pole ice cap.  This aspect of global warming may also appeal to oil and gas interests seeking new drilling opportunities farther north.
       On the other hand, the opponents of the Paris climate accord and the environmental and energy policies of the Obama Administration denounce the notion of global climate change as fake news and perverted science.  They decry the environmental regulations of Big Government and the meddling of Washington, DC, in the smooth operation of the private sector.  They argue that global climate restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions will crimple the American energy industry, throw millions of people out of work, and lower the annual GDP growth rate.  But what are their vested interests?  There are the traditional interests in fossil fuels, especially coal.  In its extreme form, global climate regulations would virtually kill the coal industry, as coal remains a relatively dirty form of energy with typically high carbon emissions.  Five states produce over 70% of American coal:  Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.  Coal interests are also strong in Ohio and Montana.  The industry hit a peak in 2006 and has been in steady decline for over a decade with lost jobs and reduced company revenues.
     Many electric utilities continue to rely heavily upon coal to operate central station facilities representing billions of dollars in plant investment.  Some electric utilities have claimed that further restrictions on their carbon emissions would result in skyrocketing electric bills for consumers and eventually leave tens of millions of Americans in the dark.
     The automotive industry might be severely impacted by global climate regulations on gasoline emissions, but many companies are gradually shifting to more efficient internal combustion engines, hybrids, and electric vehicles, as the consumer demand supports such products.
     In addition to the high ideals and self-interests at play, the global climate change debate has exposed deeply held social biases and hatreds:  the academic community vs. large corporations, tree-huggers vs. economic opportunists, rugged individuals vs. Big Government, conservatives vs. liberals, Democrats vs. Republicans, and the admirers vs. the detractors of Barack Obama.  For example, Vice President Mike Pence once said that the principal problem with Obamacare was Obama – he might have said the same of global climate change and the Paris climate accords.                  

© 2017 Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved)

The Get Even President

     Donald J. Trump is the Get Even President.  He has emerged as the champion of Americans who feel that they have been gravely wronged and who seek retaliation against their enemies, real and imagined.  Trump’s behavior reflects the mood of his base: confrontational, indignant, impatient, defiant, abrasive, and unapologetic.  Not far beneath the surface exist layers of pain, fear, and anger.
     Who are the people who support Trump?  The Trump coalition consists primarily of six groups, among which there are many overlaps.
     The first consists of highly partisan and “yellow dog” Republicans.  Their faith in the GOP is largely based on family political tradition, regional political preferences, the ideals of individualism and free enterprise, and vested interests.  They include Republicans who remain enamored with Ronald Reagan and adhere to the conservative principles of Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater.  They generally fear and loathe Democrats, who threaten them through government regulations, taxes, and social reforms.  Many Republicans continue to hold great disdain for Bill Clinton and his unseemly personal conduct as President; they also greatly distrust Bill Clinton’s wife, or “crooked Hillary” as Trump calls her.
     The second group is the American déclassé that I discussed in my blog posting of June 1, 2017.  These include people from the middle and working classes who suffered from the Great Recession of 2008 and never fully recovered.  Many lost their jobs, savings, homes, and their comfortable lifestyles and they want them back, now!  They feel victimized by various evil-doers in a corrupt system (“drain the swamp”) and exploitive illegal immigrants (“build the wall.”).  They are very angry, and in particular damn President Barack Obama.  Anything connected to him (such as Obamacare, environmental restrictions, global climate change, trade agreements, and post-2008 banking and financial regulations) must be reversed.
     The third group is Baby Boomers who are now approaching retirement and who still have vivid memories of the 1960s.  They recall the violence of the Civil Rights movement (especially the urban race riots) and the war in Vietnam, both in the jungles of Southeast Asia and in the streets of the U.S.  They resent the perceived shunning of Vietnam veterans as though they were war criminals.  They want a strong military that will be allowed to win foreign engagements.  They in particular want to “make American great again,” or a return to a world order in which countries defer to the U.S.
     Americans who have a persistent fear of criminals and terrorists make the fourth group.  They abhor street shootings and random acts of violence.  They remain traumatized by the Al Qaeda attacks upon New York City and Washington, DC, on 9/11 of 2001.  They generally supported American retaliation in Afghanistan and the unilateral, preemptive invasion of Iraq.  In contrast, they bemoaned the seemingly irresolute policies of the Obama administration in the Middle East.  They defend domestic gun rights and distrust Muslims (“the travel ban”).  They cheer a strong leader who will end criminal violence and foreign-generated acts of terrorism one way or another.
     The fifth group are members of the social conservative movement, especially those who embrace traditionalist social and religious views.  They are defenders of their own religious freedoms.  They may not always condone Trump’s language, but they support him as a national leader who will curtail abortions, gay marriages, and the mandated coverage of contraceptives in Obamacare.  Most importantly, they support Trump’s appointment of conservatives to federal courts, like Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.

     Finally, the sixth group consists of Trump’s fans who love his books, reality TV shows, speeches, and tweets.  They are awed by his great wealth and CEO style.  They see Trump as spectacular political entertainment.
     Will these groups find satisfaction?  And will they be better off in the long run?

© 2017 Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved)     

The American Déclassé

     Toward the end of the 19^th century, the French introduced the word déclassé to describe people who had fallen in social status.  The déclassé might include aristocrats who lost their titles or their estates for one reason or another.  They might also be middle class who lost their businesses, white-collar employment, savings, and homes.  They were reduced to the tattered trappings but no longer the substance of their former comfortable lifestyles.  They felt victimized and marginalized and often blamed others for their own misfortunes.
     Many Germans experienced a middle class déclassé in the 1920s due to hyper-inflation that wiped out long-term savings.  Then they suffered further from the Great Depression and deflation.  Financial reverses along with personal loses and the humiliating defeat in World War I caused many German déclassé to turn to hyper-nationalism, including German racial superiority as expressed by the Nazis.
     Now the United States has its own déclassé.  They were used to middle class standards of living until the Great Recession of 2007.  Some were upper- and middle-middle class who were overextended in debt, particularly inflated home mortgages.  When the financial and real estate bubble burst, many lost their houses, which were their principal assets as well as their homes.  Others lost their businesses and investments, too.  Meanwhile, white collar workers lost their jobs to process innovations and business cost reductions.  After decades of wages and benefits that lifted so many factory workers from the working to the middle class, millions of industrial jobs were eliminated by factory automation, offshore production, and layoffs by companies faced with reduced demand for their goods and services.  For many, the upward spiral of the American Dream had suddenly reversed its course downward.
     Particularly devastated was the new working poor, broadly defined, of people who could not find any jobs, or took jobs that paid significantly less than their previous jobs, or went into retirement without pensions and adequate savings.  They found themselves on the wrong end of the growing income-wealth-education gap in the U.S.  Having once enjoyed a middle-class standard of living, they now had to struggle to just make ends meet.  If they still bought the things they were used to, they went more heavily into debt.  Many became very bitter about their losses and retreated into social isolation and alcohol and drug abuse.  Some turned outward and blamed various other people, including Wall Street fund managers and bankers, the one-percenters, the Federal government that seemed pleased to help the chronically poor but not the working poor, and illegal immigrants who allegedly exploited public assistance programs.  In addition there was a growing fear of public violence and acts of foreign-generated terrorism.
     Some of the American déclassé personified their anger in President Barack Obama and railed against the well-educated and well-paid elites who appeared to dominate the Democratic Party.  They hated when the President lectured them about large corporation bailouts (but none for the “little guys”), mandatory healthcare insurance (which for some people resulted in unwanted coverage with unwanted premiums and new taxes), race relations, and global climate change.  What about good jobs with good pay?  What about people who were not working but getting public handouts?  What about illegal immigrants from Mexico?  What about Muslim terrorists shooting and bombing innocent Americans?
     Then came the elections of 2016…. 

© 2017 Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved)

Who Protects American Individuals?

     Perhaps no country in history has valued individuals as much as the U.S.  American ideals amplify the rights and value of individuals – we talk about individual freedoms and opportunities and making life better in the future.  The American Dream is ideally open to everyone.  But who provides the safeguards that protect American individuals and allows them to assert their individuality?  
     At the basic level, each American has assumed responsibility for his or her own well-being and rights.  If you are an American, you have to watch out for yourself.  You are expected to work, earn a living for yourself, and provide for your family.  You have to guard your own home and personal safety the best you can at moments of danger.  Yet, no American is empowered to assert his or her prerogatives upon other individuals without justifiable cause.  We all live under the same laws that protect individuals and maintain social order.
     There have been times and places in which people had to defend themselves in the wilderness or on the frontier because nobody else was around to help them.  For most Americans, however, individuals tended farms and ranches, built businesses, and labored within communities.  Once Americans came into social organizations, they were expected to help their friends and neighbors and to live by the law.  Uninhibited individualism might have led to people willfully fighting and killing each other.
     The law as practiced by communities provides the police on patrol.  It also provides the courts and prisons that back the law up with consequences.  And who makes the law and pays for its enforcement?  In the U.S., from the earliest colonies, it has been the people working together through a prescribed process within communities.  Directly or indirectly, they made the laws, raised the taxes, and operated the public institutions.  In the final analysis, communities protect and serve American individuals in regard to personal safety, property rights, civil liberties, due process, and public health.
     To carry this point further, who protects American workers and consumers as well as honest business people in the pursuits of earning a living or building a fortune?  There have always been bad guys in stores and offices as well as in the streets.  Many business people are not criminal but are still self-serving and greedy while taking advantage of other people.  Who protects workers from inhumane conditions and treatment?  Who protects American consumers (who are also citizens and voters) from broken promises, misrepresentations, cheating, and swindles?  Again, the communities do, at all levels.  Local governments, for example, have passed zoning laws to protect private property and neighborhoods.  They have also passed building and health codes and maintained standard weights and measures.  State governments also protect individuals from certain business crimes and abuses of workers and consumers.  So, too, does the Federal government at the national level.  The whole purpose of regulations passed and enforced by communities is to protect individuals and maintain the integrity of the free enterprise system.
     In the face of combines to monopolize interstate products, services, and prices and in the face of nationwide corporations that proclaim “Let the public be damned!,” the protection of individual rights from abuses of Big Business was the one community that represented all the people:  the Federal government.  Or so argued President Theodore Roosevelt over 100 years ago.  In a growingly complex and rich commerce, the national community has to regulate the national economy.  Meanwhile, Americans through voting, expressing opinions, and demonstrating peacefully must guard against the abuses of the Federal government as well as those of huge interest groups, especially when the interests of a few, as expressed in hidden political donations and intense political lobbying, dominate government policies over the interests of the many. 

    

© 2017 Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved)          

The Most Important Word

     I used to ask my MBA students what was the single most important word in business.  Many would respond “profits,” and indeed that is how many business people think.  But the most important word is “trust” – without that no business can be conducted.

     Customers buy products and services that they trust from providers that they can rely upon.  The quality and consistency of goods and services are reflected in their reputations and brands.  It may take years for a company to build an attractive brand, which can be quickly destroyed by an accident or loss of consumer confidence.  Businesses also have to trust each other:  if you pay out money, then you expect value in return, each and every time.
     When people know each other and share positive experiences, they might make agreements based on a handshake.  They trust each other to do as promised.  In far more impersonal and complicated situations, we rely on contracts, which are legally binding agreements whereby the law provides trust.

     Likewise, there was a time when people shopped at the same stores all the time – the storekeepers knew which customers wanted what products and whether they could be trusted to pay their bills.  In addition, an individual might use the same bank over a lifetime.  Credit from stores and from banks have always been based on trust, both personal and legal.  Today when we use our credit cards we trust that most if not all merchants will accept them and that the credit card companies can be trusted to protect us from fraud.
     Not all businesses, unfortunately, are trustworthy.  Some seek as much profit as soon as possible.  They cut corners.  Some businesses will act unethically; some will even break laws.  While many business people can be trusted – it’s in their long-range interest to be so – there will always be those people who cannot be trusted.  They may deceive customers and take advantage of them.

     Trust is also the most important word in government as well as in business.  Our system works because we trust it.  The power of the Constitution, like the value of our money, ultimately rests upon the full faith of the American people.
     Trust relates to  fairness, and as I wrote in my book, American Ways:  “In both private and public affairs, the management of fairness requires the sharing of information, transparency of procedures, the participation of stakeholders in decisions, and people abiding by the results of agreed-upon processes.”  (p. 339).  Since colonial times, officeholders at all levels have needed to build trust in many of the same ways that businesses have built it.  They have to offer services consistent with expectations and at acceptable prices (taxes).  They have to do what they say that they will do.  They have to be honest and abide by the law.  They have to include many people in their policy-making in order to achieve full cooperation and they have to be transparent with the real-time sharing of full information.  No lying, suppressing facts, contradictory stories, and broken promises. 
     Perhaps someday in the future we will see these qualities of trust restored to American governments.

© Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved)