Trump Impeachment Strategy: Simple and Undeniable

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday February 28, 2019 · 1:28 PM PST

2019/02/28 · 13:28

Calls for Impeachment need to be based on things that are easy to grasp, shocking and obvious. Trump has frequently and publicly engaged in witness intimidation. The fact that he gets away with it, inspires others, including Matt Gaetz, to employ the same strategy. So we have a crime, which causes substantial pain to the victim, undermines our criminal justice system, and is easy to understand. Obviously, there are far more reasons, including serious reasons, for impeachment. I was supposing that headlining witness intimidation among all of the rest gives us something that is harmful in itself, harmful as a precedent, and clearly an act that the president has committed. No need for further proof.

I’m writing this in reaction to the breathless news stories that say now we finally have real proof the president broke a law while in office. This sounds silly considering that Trump breaks the law every time he tries to undermine the Mueller Investigation. It’s so obvious that he is a criminal that new evidence of his criminality seems trivial; like old news.

Partisanship and White Fragility

cherrymapin

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday September 06, 2018 · 9:03 AM PDT

2018/09/06 · 09:03

I wholeheartedly support the progressive movement championed in the pages of DailyKos. However, one can be a strong advocate for progressive policies and values and not a partisan. Unfortunately I have also embraced partisanship, and recently experienced its sometimes devastating effects.

I am staying at the house of an old friend in a once affluent mid-sized industrial city that lost its industry many decades ago. I have been helping to coordinate care from the local visiting nurses’ association for his relative. It appears that most, if not all of the people at this agency are Black. In a recent phone call, one of the nursing supervisors let me know that she found my tone and choice of language offensive. I was very upset, felt very hurt, and at first resolved to avoid all further contact with this woman.

This incident turned into an important learning opportunity for me after I read a recent article on White Fragility. The author, a white woman who facilitates diversity training workshops, frequently encounters reactions like mine when white people are made aware of unintentional slights towards Blacks and other minorities.

So what does this have to do with Partisanship? I, for one, often find myself thinking of “our side” as the good guys, and people on the other side as evil. I enjoy posts on this website that mirror this theme. But it’s just this type of thinking that can be disabling in certain situations. When the VNA supervisor insinuated the possibility that I might be a racist, I panicked. How dare she suggest that I might not belong to the good guys, that I might be evil! If I hadn’t indulged in the idea that I am perfectly good and all evil resides in the other, perhaps I could have taken her words as an opportunity for self-reflection and dialogue. If I had been humble and not overly prideful I wouldn’t have shut down and retreated, as the workshop participants did, but would have been open to the one feeling discounted.

Many wisdom traditions have addressed this problem. Eckhart Tolle, Eastern Philosophy including Buddhists, and others will talk about the dangers inherent in the ego and the importance of letting go of false identifications. Christians have warned of the negative aspects of pride and the value of humility. We see all around us the dangers of tribalism: the us-versus-them thinking that leads to violence.

Supreme Court Issues: Obamacare, Corporate Personhood

cherrymapin

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday July 05, 2018 · 7:09 AM PDT

2018/07/05 · 07:09

The battle over the Supreme Court isn’t just about abortion and LGBT rights; it’s also about the plutocracy vs the 99%. I am reminded of that not only in the Citizens United ruling, but also in the challenges to the Obamacare contraception mandate by religious institutions. How can businesses (such as nursing homes and craft stores) have beliefs about contraception ? (only people have beliefs!) Do businesses owners also own their employees? (Certainly not!) Why should the owners, and not the workers, choose the health insurance plan?

The concept of business ownership has shifted significantly over the years. In the 1950’s many thought that a business was run for the benefit of the workers, the buyers of the products and suppliers of raw materials, and the community at large. Shareholders had nothing more than a residual claim. Unfortunately, with the rise of the right wing think tanks, the plutocratic takeover of business schools, and the popularity of Milton Friedman (the darling of Reagan and Thatcher), owners and shareholders rose to a place of exaggerated importance. Then, with Karl Ican and the corporate raiders, (Mitt Romney included) the interests of workers, consumers and community declined even further. So when Supreme Court contenders like Amy Coney Barrett have taken positions in opposition to the contraception mandate, I wonder about how they view our rights at work. Do they view us as less than human? Not deserving of the same rights as the wealthy? I am especially disturbed when the contraception mandate is labeled as a matter of religious liberty. How can taking away a poor woman’s ability to choose contraception (over abstinence or pregnancy) be anything but a restriction of liberty?

Long before Citizens United there was the Lochner decision where the court also took rights granted to people and applied them to businesses. The Lochner decision overturned a New York Law that limited bakers’ hours to a maximum of 10 hours per day. The court’s justification came from the 14th amendment of 1868. Part of the intent of that amendment was to allow freed slaves to have a right to make a living and choose their line of work. In 1905 the jurists applied that idea of a right to livelihood to the owners of the bakery whose profits might be restricted if laws were passed to protect workers. For 40 years the courts struck down workplace regulations including minimum wage laws, using the rational from the Lochner decision. Don Wiilett, on Trump’s list of possible Supreme Court nominees, says he wants to bring back Lochner. (But then again, he also supports the intent of the 14th amendment, as when he rails against the corrupt asset forfeiture activities of the police.)

We need a Supreme Court that recognizes that people in their role as wage-earners need protections from tyrannical employers, and people as community members need protections from pollution, and people as citizens need protection from business and plutocratic attempts at government corruption.

Keep R's Home November 6

cherrymapin

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday June 28, 2018 · 9:27 PM PDT

2018/06/28 · 21:27

When we keep the focus on the the horrors of the child separations, I believe many Republicans will have a hard time heading to the polls in support of more of the same. However, if we imply that anyone who is concerned about immigration is a racist, then even the less-than all-out-White-Supremacists will be encouraged to vote. That is my take on the recent NYT editorial by Thomas Edsall called Don't feed the Troll in the Oval Office. He cites extensive research to back this up.

When I see claims that Comey tipped the election for Trump, I tend to think that, no, it was not Comey, it was Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment. While I agree that the recent calls for the left to tone down it’s rhetoric are usually not warranted, I think that direct attacks on the character of Republican voters may not be a wise move.

Edsall explains,

While Trump told reporters in January, “I am the least racist person you have ever interviewed,” he and his loyalists believe that they will thrive on repeated charges from the left that he and those who vote for him are racist. Those charges — perhaps paradoxically — serve to intensify the resentment of conservatives and Republicans toward liberals.

Trump’s rhetoric — migrants “infest” and “invade our country” — is intended not only to intensify the anti-immigrant views of his supporters, but also to encourage liberals and Democrats to accuse him and his supporters of bigotry. Trump’s tactics are based on the conviction of many of his voters that opposition to immigration is not a form of racism. They deeply resent being called racist for anti-immigrant views they consider patriotic and, indeed, principled.

Yes, most Republicans are racists, however they don’t see it that way. We should be enlightening them on the suffering of the less fortunate without alienating them with labels.

Reaching out to Trump voters???

cherrymapin

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday October 10, 2017 · 4:39 PM PDT

2017/10/10 · 16:39

After reading Egberto Willies’ article on reaching out to Trump Voters, I turned to the comments hoping to learn about strategies that had worked for other folks. I was surprised to find that over half of the comments were angry, even vitriolic protests of the very idea of having to interact with these people. Some commentators mentioned that they had family members in the trump camp and many were concerned about being true to their values. I would like to offer two fictional stories as a way of rethinking what it means to engage with one of “them.”

Claude is a democrat. His uncle Clyde voted for Trump. When they see each other at the family business, Clyde starts spouting right wing talking points and crazy conspiracy theories. Claude notices some anger welling up inside him, but makes a decision to stay calm. After Clyde finishes, Claude might have said, “Hmm ... interesting.” or “Sorry you feel that way.” Either way, Clyde looks surprised, then disapointed. He is disappointed that he won’t have the pleasure of seeing Claude’s face turn red.

In this story, Claude has let go of the need to defend his cherished values from Clyde’s attack. Is this wise?

Here is the second story (a parable).

Once upon a time there was a little house in the suburbs. Living in the house were a family and their dog. Almost every afternoon a particular event occurred as described below.

Dog’s point of view: A letter carrier in a postal uniform approaches the house with the intent of entering the house and harming the family. As he approaches, the dog barks ferociously dissuading the letter carrier from entering the house. The letter carrier then turns around and walks away.

Humans’ point of view: A letter carrier approaches the house to deliver mail into the mailbox on the front porch. The dog barks wildly causing an unnecessary nuisance.

Let me reintroduce the characters in the second story. The house is a person (the “self”), the people living in the house are cherished values, the dog is the ego and the letter carrier is a trump voter. The ego (sometimes called the “false self”) believes that a verbal attack on the cherished values can cause them to loose status and become tarnished, and so the verbal attack must be confronted immediately and forcefully. But the cherished values (the human family in the house) do not feel threatened. They believe that their existence and intrinsic value are rooted outside of the immediate social context. (Exactly where they are rooted is the sort of question that religions seek to answer.) The ego (dog) doesn’t recognize intrinsic value, only social status.

Getting back to the suggestion of engaging Trump voters, I’m not suggesting that they should be ignored. But it may be helpful to keep in mind that you, the progressive Democrat, and your cherished values have intrinsic worth that is independent of what others think.

Some who commented on Willis’ article assumed that seeking to win over Trump voters would imply watering down the Democratic platform. I don’t think this is what Willies is advocating and I would certainly not support such a move. Helpfully another commenter pointed out that Trump voters are unconcerned and uniformed when it comes to matters of public policy, so there is no need to modify positions for them.

Here is a link to a delightful interview from 2016 where a labor organizer describes organizing in an overtly racist environment.

Electoral College, pick a better billionaire: Warren Buffet, Michael Blumberg

cherrymapin

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday November 21, 2016 · 11:35 AM PST

2016/11/21 · 11:35

I was fascinated by the electoral college discussion yesterday. The idea that Democratic and some Republican electors could break for a none-of-the above candidate sounded fascinating but the suggestion of Romney seemed unappealing (although clearly better than Trump). I normally would not advocate having a member of the one percent in government, but clearly the idea that a billionaire would be good for the country resonates with many voters, and one-percenters are powerful people. Warren Buffet has not been part of the partisan madness and remains above the fray and unsullied in many people’s minds. Again, I am not normally for rule by oligarchy but these are not normal times.

Corporate Governance and Corporate Malfeasance

cherrymapin

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday January 08, 2016 · 4:00 PM PST

2016/01/08 · 16:00

The NY Times Magazine has great story about the lawyer who discovered and doggedly pursued the case of PFOA (think Teflon) pollution and cover-up of colossal proportions perpetrated by DuPont. So many of the comments point to the need for tougher regulation, but none talk about changing the corporation from within. What if corporate boards of directors were mandated to include environmental scientists and community representatives? In Germany and the Scandinavian countries, board seats of large corporations are reserved for elected representatives of the workers, a practice I would also advocate. Here in the U.S., corporations are created by law and so could be changed by law.

Bloomberg predicts the next bank bailout

cherrymapin

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday August 30, 2014 · 3:57 PM PDT

2014/08/30 · 15:57

Today, Bloomberg news reports, "The Cyber-Terror Bank Bailout: They're Already Talking About It, and You May Be on the Hook"

Bankers and U.S. officials have warned that cyber-terrorists will try to wreck the financial system’s computer networks. What they aren’t saying publicly is that taxpayers will probably have to cover much of the damage.

Yet another reason to end "too big to fail."

If we all put our money in local banks and credit unions, there would be too many small targets. Having most of our assets in just a few banks makes for really effective targets.

Personal ethics and public policy: my response to the president of the American Enterprise Institute

cherrymapin

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday July 23, 2014 · 2:59 PM PDT

2014/07/23 · 14:59

Arthur C. Brooks, the current president of AEI, is also an op-ed contributor to the New York Times. He writes wonderful, inspiring pieces that just don’t jive with his position as head of a powerful right-wing policy think tank. Here is my response to his latest op-ed.

I enjoyed reading Arthur C. Brooks New York Times op-ed, “Love People not Pleasure.” (July 19, 2014) I embrace the sentiment, “love people, use things.” I agree that those who use people not only fail to find happiness, but they also cause a great deal of unhappiness. My confusion comes from the fact that the author heads an institution that has actively, indeed very successfully, worked to prevent the exploited, oppressed and manipulated from accessing forms of protection. Allow me to suggest a few examples.

cherrymapin

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday March 22, 2014 · 12:25 PM PDT

2014/03/22 · 12:25

If anyone wants to develop this idea, I would be flattered.
Characters
Mr. One-percent, either an abusive alcoholic husband or some sort of villain.
Frightened-looking women. Possibly with ragged, underfed children clinging to her skirts. Maybe a very old man in a wheelchair in the corner.
Dialogue
Woman pleads with the man for money to pay for health care for the little ones and to repair the leaking roof.
Mr. One-percent refuses, and complains that she always asks for too much. He proposes to cut her allowance instead.
She pleads with him. What about the profits he is earning on those discounted leases for public land that she gave him? What about the special tax breaks she gave him? What about when she had the EPA turn the other way when they wanted to prosecute?
He responds with contempt. He retaliates by saying that not only will he not give her the money she is asking for, he plans to spend that very amount on advertising that will show all the world what a foolish, evil, profligate she is. He says one day he may drown her in the bathtub.

Corporatism, Populism and Deliberative Politics

cherrymapin

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday July 30, 2013 · 1:13 PM PDT

2013/07/30 · 13:13

Here at Daily Kos we use the terms “corporatism” and “populism” without agreement about what they mean. These concepts are important as we seek to move beyond the politics of partisan gridlock and the dominance of business and financial interests.

Follow me below the fold for definitions and a peak into a whole new approach to governing.

Poll

4 votes Show Results

What do you think of neo-corporatism now?

4 votes Vote Now!

What do you think of neo-corporatism now?

good

2 votes

bad

2 votes

unAmerican!

0 votes

whaaat?

0 votes

Thoughts on the Civil-Rights Backlash

cherrymapin

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday June 08, 2013 · 7:07 AM PDT

2013/06/08 · 07:07

At first I thought that the opposition to civil rights, a central part of Republican identity, was simply a matter of Whites, heterosexuals and men not wanting to give up their privileged status. But now I think that this phenomena is about more than that.

I have come to realize that not everyone is comfortable with abstract thinking, not everyone understands statistical concepts ("trend", "likelihood"), and some people think that only atheists talk about people using abstract, statistical terms.
Government enforcement of civil rights brings up questions about the proper role of government and is the supreme example of government over-reach for many people.

Follow me below the fold for how I got here.

Newer
Older

RSS