Deciding Who to Throw Under the Bus

We know who republicans are fighting for:  the wealthy and the Christian right-wing.  That unholy alliance was formed to help Reagan get elected and was such a resounding success that despite seeming to be totally at odds, the two groups have gone on to be famous lovers.

On the Democratic side, we try to do the right thing, but we get so damned confused.  We want to win -- not for our own gratification of course, but because that's the only way we can do good.  It is easy to manipulate us by accusing us of, gee, almost anything; just toss out an attack and watch us scurry around in confused agitation, like a disturbed ant hill.

It is with some amusement that I have been observing David Brooks, who of late has determined to advise Dems on how to best succeed.  In a recent column he suggests that on gun control we blue people should be more empathetic towards those red folks, and let them take the lead.  In another special piece of mansplaining entitled "The Abortion Memo", he tells us that if we don't do some compromising on abortion restrictions, then we are letting Donald Trump win.  And, after all, going along with something like the twenty week abortion ban doesn't affect all that many women.

Democrat Conor Lamb just won a special election in a district that had belonged to Trump not too long ago.  In the wake of which, as described in a brilliant article by Charlie Pierce, David Brooks obfuscates into a win as a result of a move toward the center.  Pierce says, "This attempt to drag Conor Lamb into David Brooks' Cloud Cuckoo Land of Responsible Centrism is simply a load."

From the White House we have the brute-in-chief, who is always happy to tell "Schumer and Pelosi" what they need to do to make their party happy.

Enough from the republican chorus.  It takes second guessing from our own party and candidates' advisors to really put a damper on that whole liberty and justice for all thing.  If you plan on running for office on a truly progressive agenda, you are going to be facing a whole lot of squishy Democratic opinions about why you can't do that and win.  You are just going to have to hide those lefty beliefs, embrace those on the other side, and make some compromises.

What it all comes down to, this compromise business, is who we Democrats agree to throw under the bus in our race to the finish line.  And there are so very many Americans and issues to choose from.

For example, we might support Dreamers.  In fact, Dreamers are very popular.  But we might just want to be a little more agreeable about closing that Mexican border.  We could beef up security, spend more money on patrol agents and build just a little bit of a wall.  (And let's not make a big deal out of all those families being deported, and especially about the children being separated from their parents.  Oh, and let's not get into defending sanctuary cities; that's just too messy.) 

How about that Muslim ban?  We know it's a bad idea to close our borders, and it's not just the melting pot, "give me your tired, your poor" thing.  It's bad for business.  But the courts are fighting it out.  (And if our candidates make too big a deal out of it, it is just going to scare those Christians on the other side.)

Teachers.  We have heard our democratic candidates say all the same safe words about teachers.  It is so important that we praise teachers for their important hard work that there is even a website with "Words to Thank a Teacher."  (But we don't want to get into what it would cost to pay a teacher what they are worth, or provide them the environment and supplies and support that they need to do their jobs better and with less stress.)  In fact, one of our own SC Democratic candidates for governor is these days saying we should get rid of 1/3 of our teachers.

Which brings us to an even more explosive four-letter-word:  Unions.  (Oh, please don't let anyone ask about unions, please, please, please, please.  Because then I'll have to say I support unions, but people who don't "believe in them" shouldn't have to pay for them, and then union members will get angry at me and then...)

Taxes.  The republicans have long ago taken ownership of the phrase "lower taxes and better government services."  The fact that republicans that lower taxes invariably cut needed services doesn't seem to dispel the magic of the promise.  But does it?  Maybe candidates that fearlessly talk about the cost of inadequate taxation... (If I talk about taxes, I'll be called a tax and spend Democrat, so maybe I just won't say anything.)

Women's health care.  Health care.  Abortion.  If you recall, back during the Obamacare "debate," big republican donors paid for a huge astroturf campaign, much like the Russian trolls spurred in 2016, revving up the American people with fears that the government was going to kill their grandmas with their death panels, and the government was going to spy on their doctor appointments.  They even gave them bag lunches and put them on buses en route to protests.   Well, women are dying from inadequate access to health care, and our government wants to tell our doctors what they can say to us about our reproductive health and dictate and monitor our care.  Texas has closed so many clinics that over recent years the maternal mortality rate has been likened to that of a third world country.  The highest in the nation, they had no recourse but to... re-interpret the data.  Still the highest mortality rate in the country, but not as high as they thought.  (But I'll be very careful not to sound as though I'm "pro-abortion."  And make sure that I agree with the sanctity of life, and just get back to saying mothers and babies need better health care.  And hope nobody notices.) 

AND guns.  Maybe our Democratic politicians could stop prefacing every statement on gun control with, "I believe in the Second Amendment" or by telling us how old they were when they first went hunting with their daddy.  The numbers of  shootings in this country, mass and otherwise,  is obscene.  We can all agree that we have to do something about it.  We can take a tough stand against the NRA when it comes to bump stocks and AR-15's and background checks, because poll after poll has shown that this is supported by the vast majority of Americans.  (But stay away from registering guns, or making laws about safe use; we sure don't want anyone to think we are planning on restricting their God-given -- I mean constitutional -- right to carry a gun.) 

Oh, I could go on.  There are so many minefields, and so much opportunity for republican opponents to attack us Democrats for taking a stand.  And so much potential for in-fighting.  But there are minority rights and individual rights and constitutional rights being eroded, and we are the ones who must turn that tide.

If we don't stand up for every single one who is affected by those issues, if we are willing to sell out one woman who may at some future time need a third-trimester abortion, or ignore one immigrant whose family is being torn apart, if we allow our unions to be undermined and our workers underpaid and unprotected, we are not who we claim to be.

A smart candidate in Trump's failed America should be able to explain why it is good for us all to welcome immigrants, support women's reproductive rights, and restrict access to guns.  We should also be able to explain the difference between responsible taxation and burdening the middle class.

Yes, voters are often tempted to follow the shiny object:  the biggest mouth, the most brazen promises.  But we have had special elections this year where fearless candidates fought against the lies and the fearmongering, and they have won.

Don't let anyone convince you that the way to victory is through caution.  Let us not throw anyone or any group under the bus in the cause of victory.  Not this year. 

Conundrums

It's true; the republicans are speaking in riddles, and if we don't figure out the right answer we'll be paying for sure.

When they say, "We will work to create jobs," they have actually left out a couple of steps.  What they really mean is, "We plan on giving lots and lots of money back to the really, really wealthy, and we are absolutely sure that eventually they will create jobs with that money.  But not necessarily in America, because, well, that wouldn't be good for corporate America, and they are, after all, the job creators."

When they say, "We want to protect your Social Security and Medicare," they don't add, "for now," but that's what they mean.  In a great moment of honesty, they have begun to add that Social Security and Medicare are safe for those of us over 55.  Then they tap dance around what's going to happen to those of us under 55.  It's kind of bizarre, that they are reassuring some of us that we'll be okay, and not realizing that the end of that thought is that the rest of us are screwed.

When they say, "We are determined to improve the lives of our children," well, they really mean that.  They want to improve the lives of their children.  Not yours or mine.  And how will they do this?  They will make sure that every penny that they own (whether earned by them or not) passes down to their heirs, never being sullied by taxation or obligation.

So listen carefully, folks.  The riddle is in the promise.

PS:  Well, I had drafted this piece before I went on vacation, and came home to find out that Mitt had been caught being honest.  We can all be thankful that he is really a terrible politician.  While they are regrouping, let us all enjoy that brief respite from the Orwellian campaign machine.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

I live on an island with one main road that after two miles, forks and becomes two main roads.  Until some ten miles later, when it ends.  No public water, gas stations, grocery stores.  Most of the traffic, too much for me, but relatively little compared to the rest of the world, is just us chickens.  We travel the same lovely miles every day, back and forth.

So I was surprised, a couple of years ago, to suddenly see, in my ten mile commute, that someone had snuck in overnight and placed a number, i.e. more than one, of signs on the road that said:

First off I thought, what an eyesore.  Certainly gets in the way of a very pretty drive.  And then I wondered who on earth would be driving down this particular stretch of road and need to be told that this is a "Local Byway".  NOT ONLY THAT, but it appears to be a "Local Byway" after the road branches, because if you are traveling back to the mainland (in this case another island) there is another sign that says "Scenic Byway".  As opposed to "Local Byway".  Which I'm sure doesn't mean that my route isn't scenic; I think it's probably more scenic than the two miles before it divides.

Anyway, this led me to believe that a bit of thought had gone into this, which surprised me, because, to be honest, I can't imagine who would have nothing better to do than plan to put up "Byway" signs, scenic or otherwise, on a fairly deserted, rural stretch of road that in fact is a byway to nowhere.

I was disgruntled, but there are so many other things to complain about that I'm ashamed to say I just let the stupid signs blend into the beautiful scenery along with the all the other annoying signs, necessary and un-.

Until three days ago when some sinister road crew snuck in and put up HUGE traffic signs, pretty much anywhere on the road when a person needed to do something other than keep going.  Not only were these huge, horrifically ugly signs up everywhere, but also, a few feet before you got to the point where you needed to do something, there were HUGE SIGNS warning you that the signs telling you to DO SOMETHING were coming up.  AND THEY WERE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.

I took it quite personally.  Not just because they were an eyesore.  Not because they are totally unnecessary.  Although those are both totally large factors in my anger.


Could we have spent that money elsewhere?  How about the one percent additional sales tax that we struggling Charlestonians have agreed to pay in order to fix schools that our government claims not to have money to repair?  Or how about the furloughed teachers who get paid so much less anyway than educators in neighboring states?  Our struggling libraries?  Our parks?  Our police and fire fighters?

WHAT ARE THEY THINKING OF???

And this, my friends, is why people hate the government.