Reagan’s words to today’s “conservatives”

Would Ronald Reagan admonish today’s so-called “conservatives” with “There you go again”?

I supported and voted for John Anderson in 1980 because I saw him as a real Republican who was concerned with “res publica” (public things).  Rather than have a laundry list of “ills of what was wrong” he concerned himself with balancing issues.

Unfortunately the Republican Party has devolved into a blame machine in which Democrats can do no right.

If the Republicans were real conservatives, wouldn’t they be all in favor of considering many ideas rather than be in lockstep on one set of ideas?

If they were real conservatives, wouldn’t they read the Constitution very carefully instead of corrupting it to fit their own ideas?

If they were real conservatives, wouldn’t they heed Washington’s advice in his farewell address to avoid factions?

Once upon a time the Senate was called the “greatest deliberative body in the world.  Now it has a Majority of one who obstructs any legislation that he doesn’t like.

Letter to Rep. Pete Stauber - MN-8

What would Republicans like Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, and even Ronald Reagan think of Donald Trump and how he has taken over the Republican Party?  I can just hear Ronald Reagan saying, “There you go again.”

I would think they would be appalled.  Instead of Res Publica (public things) he has turned the party into Rex Donald.  It’s all about him, the public be damned.

I was a Republican precinct finance chair when Reagan was nominated, I voted for John Anderson.  I kept my party position next year (coming in third again in money collected).  But I haven’t voted for a Republican since except Arne Carlson twice.

I really don’t care to vote for Democrats, but the current Republican Party doesn’t give me much choice.  Staying away is not an option.

Quote of the day: Trump and John Wilkes Booth

“Donald Trump is the John Wilkes Booth of the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln.” - Paul A. Fleming, “With so much stupidity, question everything”, Letters to the Editor, Duluth News Tribune, 2018-01-04

Edmund Burke asks that people stop calling him a "conservative".

“I’ve heard there is a grave in England that is smoking. It is the grave of Edmund Burke, "The First Conservative", spinning in his grave. I am reading Jesse Norman's book on Burke, and what Burke believed is not what any current Republican believes (or if they believe like Burke, they are keeping very, very quiet).

“Among other things, he believed in a separation of powers so that they could be a check on one another. By contrast, Donald Trump believes that Congress and the Supreme Court should be subservient to his wishes.”

Comment to Jennifer Rubin’s “Be wary of what you wish for in Alabama”.

Real conservatives don’t use “liberal” as a pejorative

Probably the last real conservative on the national stage was Dwight Eisenhower.  In his farewell address he did not use either liberal or conservative.  See http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html.

The most famous assertion he made was his warning about the “military-industrial complex”:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

Just like Washington’s “Farewell Address”, so-called “conservatives” completely ignore the advice of two of the most prominent, believable, and thoughtful conservatives.

I hope you can take the time to read Eisenhower’s farewell address.  If you do, you may agree that Eisenhower was among the last of the true conservatives.  In Minnesota they were rejected by the Republican Party as RINOs (Republican in name only).

Although John B. Anderson was a bit quixotic and supported some radical candidates, like Ralph Nader, I consider him more a true Republican than almost any other prominent Republican.  i think Rep. Bill Frenzel and Governor Arne Carlson represent true conservatives.  Arne Carlson still blogs at http://govarnecarlson.blogspot.com.

Abraham Lincoln would have been a loser

I've never understood why people who don't give a dime or time to a political party get to choose the party candidates. Good thing we didn't have television or party primaries when Abe Lincoln was nominated by his party to run for president.

See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/opinion/sunday/the-problem-with-participatory-democracy-is-the-participants.html.

Pro-lifers are anti-safety?!?

How is it that the party that puts such emphasis on being pro-life wants to gut safety regulations because the latter are anti-business?

Safety regulations reduce worker injuries and deaths.  How can a pro-life party be so anti-life once a child is born?  It figures.   It doesn't want to provide health care for the already born.  It doesn't want to put any restrictions on gun control; guns are very anti-life.  It wants to sell more and more weapons to other countries.  It wants to increase the nuclear arsenal; nuclear weapons kill thousands of unborn children.

I think many of these pro-life politicians took the hypocrite oath: first do harm.

Denying Donald

Yes, the title has three meanings.

The first was inspired by all the denials of the Trumpistas of facts, like the size of the Women's March vs. the size of the Inaugural crowd.

The second is a play on Trump's still ranting about "Lying Hilary”.

The third is that we should do all we can to deny the legitimacy of Trump's election.

For more on comparison of the crowds at Trumps inauguration and the Women’s March, see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/president-trump-inauguration-crowd-white-house.html

Denying Donald said that the rain stopped as soon as he started speaking.  According to the NYT the rain continued throughout Trump's speech.  Could this be a message from God expressing disapproval of Trump as President?

Not really, if Clinton had won, she would have had the same weather.  “Conservative” “Christians” would have been certain the rain meant God’s disapproval of her.  Liberal Christians would say “The rain falls on the just and unjust alike."

Remember the perspective, Trump came in third to a de facto "None of the Above”. One would think he would have a bit of humility.  Too many people liked Trump even less than Clinton and stayed away, thus giving the election to Trump.

Whatever happened to real Republicans?

Once upon a time we were active Republican Party members at the precinct level. Then Reagan won the nomination instead of John Anderson, and Republicans became more rigid in their beliefs. It was about this time that the term RINO was coined: Republican In Name Only. And the Republicans stopped being a big tent party. This rigidity should not be mistaken for conservatism, a thoughtful consideration of change.

There have been a few bright spots like Bill Frenzel, Representative of 3rd Minnesota district, and Arne Carlson, Gov. of Minnesota after the Republican candidate imploded because of inappropriate behavior with teen-age girls. So much for the "moral" party. BTW Carlson still writes a blog: http://govarnecarlson.blogspot.com/

Since then, there have been more and more rigid stances, including eight years of obstruction of a Democratic President. Bi-partisan legislation happens too infrequently.

I would say the only thing "conservative" is to "conserve our world view" despite plentiful evidence to the contrary.

Comment to New York Times article "On Where the Republican Party Went Wrong", Charlie Sykes, 2016-12-15

Want to discredit Donald Trump? Show his base he's part of the elite

Trump is stocking his cabinet from the establishment. Democrats should reiterate his betrayal of the ‘drain the swamp’ campaign promise like a mantra.  See https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/07/how-to-discredit-donald-trump-part-of-the-elite.

From my clippings file

Every so often, I email an article to myself for future reference, often with the idea of writing a blog entry.  Most likely I don’t get around to it.  So, since I don’t have a hot topic in my head this week, I thought I’d muse about some of these clippings.  Don’t worry, I won’t write about all 59, just enough to fill a Reader Weekly page.

One apropos to the attempts to take some auditing work from the State Auditor was a letter to the Duluth News Tribune by Paul and Susan Schurke of Ely.  They praise Rebecca Otto for pointing out that nobody knows what the potential cost to taxpayers of new mines will be.  Is it any wonder that the corporate-lovers in the Minnesota legislators want reduce Otto’s authority?  Strange that this same crowd complains about taxes.

“Otto’s common sense mining position can unite us all.”  Duluth News Tribune, 2013-12-09.

Pete Seeger wrote long ago that we have the best politicians: “We elect them again and again.”  One of the reasons we elect them again and again is that a plutocracy finances too many elections.  Plutocracy is government by the rich.  “Capitalism vs. Democracy” by Thomas B. Edsall (http://nyti.ms/Msy71t) asks “Is deepening inequality inevitable?  The case for a global wealth tax.” - New York Times, 2014-01-28.  It is a review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”.  Edsall quotes Piketty’s assertion “when pay setters set their own pay, there’s no limit”.

A reverse on a wealth tax is offered by D. J. Tice in “There’s no pot of gold for the working poor”, Star Tribune, 2014-02-09.  His first suggestion is “to stop raising their taxes.”  He also suggests expanding both the State and Federal Earned Income Tax Credit.  He also writes that any hike in the minimum wage will probably result in fewer workers over the long term.  Think of how you once bought an ice cream cone.  Somebody bent over the freezer and scooped your choice into a cone.  Now you can go to Chilly Billy’s and fill your own cup with your choice of frozen yogurt.

My answer to when pay setters won’t set their pay is when the sun sets in the East.  Joe Nocera wrote about all the gimmicks that CEOs and their boards use to keep raising the CEOs pay to ridiculous levels.  See “CEO Pay Goes Up, Up, and Away”, New York Times, 2014-04-14 (http://nyti.ms/1erLn2H).  Shareholders can vote against boards that grant obscene pay, but they will probably be outvoted by institutional investors who exercise “fiduciary responsibility” by voting in management’s favor.  Even if that responsibility were directed at reducing executive pay, current law says that “Say on Pay” is only an advisory; management doesn’t have to honor the shareholders vote.

Have you considered that the wealthy wield much more power than kings of old?  Except they don’t need armies of soldiers to stay in power, just armies of lawyers and lobbyists.

You can know that things are out of control when a “conservative” columnist calls attention to the inequalities.  My favorite “conservative” columnist, Ross Douthat, wrote  “College, the Great Unequalizer”, New York Times, 2014-05-03 (http://nyti.ms/1kzuuRQ).  He says that the Party Scene at many colleges benefits the well-heeled student and sucks in the “lower-status” student.  The well-heeled can rescue those who practice an excess of vices, but the less-well-off can’t.  The well-heeled will go on to social or economic success regardless of their performance.  Others will rarely join that social class.

And the upper-class is finding many ways to get their way no matter the cost to the rest of society.  It is well-known, to those who care, that the Koch Brothers through their American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) are writing our laws in cahoots with Republican legislators.  One of the current examples is “right-to-work” laws.  Many of the laws are almost identical to what ALEC proposed.  “Wisconsin’s law was a virtual copy of the 1995 model bill promoted by” ALEC.  See “Scott Walker and the Fate of the Union”, New York Times, Dan Kaufman, 2015-06-12.

The article points out how the upper-class minions don’t care about much more than keeping their masters happy.  The accident rate among workers is higher in right-to-work states.  Scott Walker promised the president of the state-wide union of heavy machine operators that the “right-to-work bill” would not make it to his desk.  Walker got his contribution and the labor guy lost Walker’s commitment.

How the Republican Party has changed!  The 1956 Republican Party platform included “The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower administration.”

And it even gets worse.  See “Energy Firms in Secretive Alliance With Attorneys General”, Eric Lipton, New York Times, 2014-12-06.  The attorneys general are sending letters of complaint about air pollution to the Environmental Protection Agency that are almost duplicates of letters written by the lawyers of energy companies.  These attorneys general are getting huge campaign contributions from energy companies.  Thanks to these contributions, 27 of the states’ attorneys general are Republicans.  Who was it that wrote, “We have the best government money can buy”?

Or to blaspheme Abraham Lincoln, “A government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations shall not perish from the earth.”  Or should it be “shall destroy the earth”?

Bipartisanship - Newspeak

From a loose note on my desk from the Bush days:

Bipartisan - the President’s way

Now it seems to be the Republican Party’s way.

Or in Solomonic terms: Let’s cut the baby in half:(

The Party of One Caucus

Tonight was Caucus Night in Minnesota.  The Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) and the Republican Parties had local caucuses in numerous places throughout the state.  The Green Party had a caucus in Duluth and I know not where else.  The Independence Party had a caucus somewhere in the Twin Cities plus an online caucus.  As The Party of One I stayed home and had a caucus with myself.

This caucus reviewed the stances of the other parties and found them wanting.

The Republicans think government can do no right and corporations know best.  The only time government can do right is when it decides to go to war.  They are all for individual choices except when they don't like the choices.  They seriously believe that anyone can succeed with hard work.

The DFL has an anti-corporation bias as its members drove to the caucuses in cars and took notes on laptops and tablets.  They generalize that those who aren't well off got that way because of corporate greed and an inadequate safety-net.

The Green Party is like the DFL except it wants even more renewable energy and conservation.

The Independence Party is sort of like the Republican Party without the rough edges.

While all members of these caucuses were reinforcing themselves in their beliefs, the Party on One caucus sat in front of the fireplace with another glass of wine and then a cup of coffee.  It pondered all the above and then took a nap.  It did resolve to vote in every election, most likely for DFL candidates.  The Party of One might support other parties if they nominate candidates who truly want to make government work for the public good.

Resolutions, predictions, and premonitions

First, here are my guaranteed true predictions:

I won't break any of my New Year’s resolutions.
The stock market will go up and the stock market will go down.
The nation-wide turnout for the November elections will definitely be less than 70% and maybe even 60%.
There will be no new major national political party.  I really hope I am wrong on this.
There will be updates for major fixes in almost all major computer software.

The first prediction is easy.  I won’t break any New Year’s resolutions because I don’t make them.  I do make plans and to-do lists, some of which I accomplish or do, but too often the items get pushed down and forgotten.

I have made a major commitment to be on a plant-based diet, aka vegan diet.  In one of those little bits of randomness, when I saw the animation in the DVD “Forks over Knives” of plaque going off an artery, I was hooked on trying it.  Essentially it’s avoiding meat, eggs, and dairy.  There went yogurt on my oatmeal and my once a week omelet.

For the most part I’ve stuck to it.  Within a week of starting, a friend sent us some Alaskan salmon.  It is a standing joke with my wife and I that I get the bones and she doesn’t.  Would you believe that almost every piece I ate had a bone and one had three!

The Freethinkers had their December monthly social at Gannucchi’s.  Just my luck that every item on the menu had cheese and/or meat.  So I went with a turkey sandwich, figuring that was the leanest meat that I could get.  The organizers of the monthly social plan to go back in January.  I think I better call ahead to Gannucchi’s.

We have our three-year-old grandson from Japan with us.  At one visit to the grocery store, he chose a sushi tray.  Four of the pieces had salmon.  But then he didn’t want those.  He wanted only the rice under the salmon.  So, Grandpa “had to eat” one of those pieces of salmon.

I hope I don’t get stuck in any of these situations again before my next cardiologist visit.  I would like to see an improvement in my flow rate.

The prediction on turnout is easy, because we have so many people who don’t bother to show up, even when they have registered to vote.  I don’t know if they are just plain lazy or don’t like any of the candidates.  They don’t seem to realize that by not voting, they increase the odds of seeing the candidate they favor least elected.

There will be no new major party unless some national leaders create it.  The Green Party has been around for years, but it has not become a major force in politics.  The Independent Party of Minnesota has been around since Jesse Ventura won as a Reform Party candidate.  There will be a “Forum for Building Progressive Political Power” on January 11 at “Copper Top”.  But will the usual “liberal” suspects be able to engage more than each other?  The only real hope is that a large number of “moderates” at the national level say enough is enough.  It happened in 1854 with only thirty people meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin.  The result was the Republican Party had a winning presidential candidate in 1860.  Aren’t we past due for a re-alignment?  Wouldn’t those who met in Ripon because they didn’t want to compromise on slavery be surprised to learn that their party has morphed into a party that doesn’t want to compromise on corporate interests?

What else can I predict than the no-brainers above?

No major advances will be made on abating global warming, at least at the government level.  Many people will do their part on using less energy, but these people will only make a small dent in the emissions.  Some municipalities or counties will plant more trees to absorb some of the carbon dioxide.

The sleeper may be China.  As the complaints increase about the air pollution in many Chinese cities, the authorities may make a major push for alternative energy sources.  This might include major grants to universities and companies to produce more efficient and cheaper energy sources.  If they do so, the United States will be a major loser on the manufacturing side.  Something the U.S. should have taken seriously, would you believe, in Jimmy Carter’s presidency!

There probably won’t be any major wars, but there will be plenty of local wars and terrorist attacks.  Let’s hope Russia can take sufficient steps to thwart any who want to upset the Winter Games at Sochi.

I seriously doubt that there will be any major propaganda push to negate the appeal of hardline Islamists.  The Qu’ran, like the Bible, certainly has many passages that call for peace and warn against violence.

My premonition is that China and the U.S. will continue their power play to assert their authority wherever they think their “vital interests” are at stake.  Even though it is much more in either’s interests to avoid conflict, hardliners in either capitol could escalate the situation to the point of open war.  Think Sarajevo and World War I.

I doubt if any leaders are going to step forward and say “enough”.  “We really need to cut down on military expenses.  We all could make better use of our resources.”

To end on a brighter note, may you have a happy and prosperous new year!

This was published in the 2014-01-02 edition of the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/01/02/2696_resolutions_predictions_and_premonitions.

G.O.P. – The revenge of the Confederacy

Last week I mentioned to my wife that the Republican Party has been taken over by those still fighting the Civil War.  Imagine my surprise and delight when I say Harry Welty's latest snow sculpture - an elephant holding a Confederate flag in its trunk.  Harry also wrote a blog entry about the Southern takeover of the Republican Party.

Harry Welty is a local, maverick, wannabe politician.  He was a Republican Party member for a long time, but his independent mindset couldn't take the dogmatism any longer.  He now calls himself a Lincoln Democrat.

See also "Elephants sue GOP".

Elephants sue GOP

Elephants have sued the Republican Party for defamation of character because of its use of an elephant as its symbol.  The elephants' reason is they know it takes a village to raise their young.

Lessons in governance

"Clearly, the ability to solve problems, much more than sustaining some sort of ideological leadership, is now the key to the Communist Party’s legitimacy."  - C. Cindy Fan, "Don't Expect Big Changes", "Dawn of a New China?", "Room for Debate", New York Times, 2012-11-23.

Could this statement be equally valid if "Communist Party" were replaced with "Republican Party"?

Is the Republican Party following its predecessor?

In 1852-1856, the Whig Party began disintegrating because of various factions within it.  Some went with the new Republican Party, some went with the Democrats, and some formed various new parties.  See Wikipedia's article on the Whig Party (United States).

Now the Republican Party has morphed from a party of general principals to a party of rigid orthodoxy.  If you are for issues A and B but not C, you are considered a RINO (Republican in name only).  Some like Olympia Snowe resisted but have given up seeking office any longer.  Some like John Posner, a federal appellate judge have spoken out strongly – "Top Reagan-Appointed Judge Slams 'Goofy' Republican Party", Ian Miller, Think Progress, 2012-07-06.  Some like former Utah governor and Presidential primary candidate Jon Huntsman have withdrawn from party activities – "Huntsman scolds GOP for losing focus, will skip convention", Thomas Burr, Salt Lake Tribune, 2012-07-06.

I'm seeing more and more people write that they were once Republican but have dropped out or even become Democrats.  We saw the future when Ronald Reagan was nominated over John Anderson.  Now even Ronald Reagan is to "the left" of many Republicans.

Will many of these dissatisfied Republican politicians work to form a "deliberative" party that looks for long-range solutions?  It could happen, especially if a few well-known journalists start promoting the idea.  There might not have been a Republican Party without Horace Greeley and his New York Tribune.

"[W]e think some simple name like 'Republican' would more fitly designate those who had united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery." - Horace Greeley, New York Tribune, June 1854.  Change "propagandist of slavery" to "propagandist of large corporations and rigid dogma" and we have the makings of a new party.  See "The Origins of the Republican Party".

Maybe a new party could adopt the 1856 Republican Party platform with suitable contemporary modifications

I found the Flying Spaghetti Monster and it is not pretty

The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is a spoof on mythology. Rather than gravity keeping us all on the ground, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) uses its zillions of spaghetti-like tentacles to hold everybody to the ground.

I'm sorry to tell you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster really exists, and it is using thousands of its tentacles to convince legislators and voters to support its interests. Except, its abbreviation is not FSM but ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council.

I've often wondered how Republicans seem to be following a script of issues rather than thinking independently in a "conservative" way. I've long known about ALEC, but through the wonders of Facebook and The Coffee Party, I found a site that has a laundry list of people who are involved in Alec: from profit-above-public-good CEOs to state representatives. It is Alec Exposed http://alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed.

In addition it has article after article about how corporate profits are more important than the public good, from worker safety to child safety. Like the maker of d-Con thinks that children ingesting rat poison pellets is an "acceptable risk" – "Kids Eating Rat Poison Is an 'Acceptable Risk' for ALEC", submitted by Brendan Fischer to PRWatch of The Center for Media and Democracy, 2011-12-06 http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/12/11171/kids-eating-rat-poison-acceptable-risk-alec

The Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy is so appropriate because ALEC members provide many of the goods and services that we depend on. If you want to starve the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you are going to have to avoid most big box stores, you will have to give up on some "socially responsible" products (like Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream), you will have to give up your home phone and cell phone, and you will have to ship packages only with the US Postal service. See the complete list at "Alec Corporations http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC_Corporations.

If you think we have a democracy or a republic, think again. We have a corporatocracy or a massive oligarchy. ALEC wants to reduce the number of people who vote by claiming voter fraud; when will it decide that we should again have a certain amount of property to have the right to vote?

Many famous Republicans would be RINOs today

Many can make a long list of Republicans who would not be welcome in today's Republican Party. Because these Republicans of another era didn't fall in lockstep with a laundry list of "conservative" positions, they would be called RINOs – Republicans in name only. Among them would be Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower.

Here's a surprising Republican who definitely would not be welcome in today's Republican Party. He said "Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul." This person was a personal secretary to Sen. William Morris Stewart, Republican, Nevada, a friend of former Republican President Ulysses S. Grant, and a supporter of James A. Garfield in the 1880 election. A forged letter was circulated that Garfield was in favor of Chinese immigration, something very unpopular at the time. You can see more about it in http://www.twainquotes.com/BillBarnum.html. This same article has a speech in which our surprising Republican praises the Republican Party and skewers the Democratic Party.

Who is this RINO who would be very disappointed in today's Republican Party? Mark Twain!!