“How to Stand Up to Trump and Win”

Nicholas Kristof gives several ideas about standing up to Trump in a New York Times article, 2017-04-13.  See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/opinion/how-to-stand-up-to-trump-and-win.html.

When I forwarded the link to my wife, I added the comment "Don’t just hold a sign. Experts share how to resist and get results.”

Is there a Common Sense Party?

A Google search put a British Common Sense Party at the top of the list.

As far as the U.S. goes, almost every link I found did not find a current Common Sense Party.

https://ballotpedia.org/Common_Sense_Party had a rather hard-nosed idea of common sense, sort of casting blame all over the map.  The “Official website” link gave “Server not found”.

http://www.commonsenseparty.org/home.html has lots of common sense quotes, but the website is for sale.  It is copyright by the Common Sense Party who will consider all serious offers.  It can be reached through its contact page: http://www.commonsenseparty.org/contact-us.html

The Centrist Party seems like a believable alternative.  Its website is http://uscentrist.org/ which is currently active.  The latest blog entry is dated 2017-03-28: http://uscentrist.org/news/the-common-sense-blog-the-ins-and-outs-of-congress

Its philosophy does use unclear definitions of “free market, limited government and individual liberty” but does call for “protecting the common good”.  We should consider that the balance between the two goals will always be unclear.

A Stanford student, Kyle D’Souza, gave a reasonable call, “The common sense party” http://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/01/13/the-common-sense-party/.  This was in January. It only had one comment which I thought was off the wall.

The American Common Sense Party seems to be a one-person party on Facebook, the last entry being 2016-03-09.

The Common Sense Party also is on Facebook.  It’s latest entry, 2017-03-22, was a link to Washington Post article of the same date: “Ex-Colo. GOP leader said only Democrats committed voter fraud.  Now he’s charged with voter fraud.”

There are other recent articles about a “Common Sense Party”, but my quick scan showed that some are only local, not national or even state-wide.

Like the then moderate Republican Party arose from the Whig Party, maybe a true moderate party will arise from the current non-Lincoln Republican Party.

Are atheists their own worst enemy?

“This is why the more extreme atheist groups, with their penchant for mocking all believers, are so hazardous to secularism’s already failing health.”

Jacques Berlinerblau, “How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom”, p. 196, section “Understand the Value (and Etiquette) of Coalitions"

Have Republican defections gotten a big boost?

Former Florida Republican Governor Charlie Christ has come out in support of Barack Obama.  See
"Here's why I'm backing Obama", Tampa Bay Times, 2012-08-26.

Once upon a time I was active in the Republican Party, and then it nominated Ronald Reagan over John Anderson.  I did keep voting for Bill Frenzel, Rep., 3rd District, MN, until he retired.  And I voted for Arne Carlson for governor when he replaced the Republican candidate who behaved inappropriately in a swimming pool with teen-age girls.

And the Republicans have gotten even worse.  If they really looked at Ronald Reagan's ability to compromise, they would consider him a "Marxist".

I keep hoping the current Republicans will self-destruct and be replaced by a common-sense party based on facts rather than ideology.  Meanwhile, I feel compelled to vote for Democrats even though they try to cater to too many narrow interests.

An argument against a moderate third party, for now

E.J. Dionne wrote an interesting article on why the radical right must be defeated before we can think about having a successful moderate alternative party. See "Divided moderates will be conquered", Washington Post, 2011-11-27.

I dislike the terms "throwing your vote away" or "stealing votes from". It's not the supporters of third parties fault that others didn't join them. And third party candidates have won.

Unless there is someone or are somebodies who show exceptional leadership, it seems like Dionne's ideas are best for the long-term interests of the country. But the chances for exceptional leadership seem rather minuscule this "close" to the election. Maybe a new party will arise in time for the 2014 elections. A core might be the RINOs, the Republicans In Name Only, those believe in the Republican Party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower and not in the Republican Party of Reagan, Nixon, and the Bushes.

People should fulfill their obligations; corporations need not?

I found this link on a Motley Fool weekly update: "Mortgage Bankers Association Strategic Default".

The video shows John Courson, President and CEO, talking about how homeowners should fulfill their mortgage obligations and not walk away from them.  However, the Mortgage Bankers Association walked away from the mortgage on its $79 million headquarters.

Maybe Jon Stewart and Comedy Central are "flaming liberals", but the Motley Fools are serious capitalists, investing their own money in various companies.

Why are you reading this blog?

Probably the majority of the 15-20 of you who read this blog are a friend or relative and like the personal stuff I write.  The rest of you are probably really turned off by the stringent ideology of the so-called right and skeptical about some of the alarmist thinking of many on the so-called left.

For all of you who want to get some more substance about the issues of the day, I suggest you take a look at the Liberal Curmudgeon.

I stumbled on his blog through the New York Times.  He wrote an analysis of the locavore movement, essentially debunking the argument about the cost of the energy to transmit food a thousand miles or more.  BTW, he lives on a small farm and looks forward to the produce from his garden.

He had several interesting entries following the locavore one, but, as usual, I don't remember them.  And since I am at our cabin, I'm not going to spend fifteen minutes at 24kbps to find out more.

If you visit the Liberal Curmudgeon and see me, please let me know what you think.

Will moderates be returning to Minnesota state government?

I don't have any great hopes for seeing this happen in a big way soon, but a wedge has been put in to create an opening.  Margaret Anderson Kelliher, the DFL-nominated candidate for governor, has chosen John Gunyou as her running mate.

John Gunyou was Finance Commissioner under Arne Carlson, the last state-wide moderate Republican.  He has written many op-ed pieces for the Star Tribune criticizing the many ideologues in politics, especially Republicans.  I've saved five of them.

One of my favorites is "Taxpayer's League's model for governing", Star Tribune, 2006-06-15.  Sorry, it's no longer available online.  His opening is priceless:

"Here's a civics question to start the day. Who provides your public services like police and fire protection, education, parks and roads? Is it: (a) cities, counties and schools, (b) Uncle Sam & Cousin Tim, or (c) the Minnesota Taxpayers League?
Listening to the Taxpayers League and their political sycophants crow about our state's drop in tax rankings is a little hard to take for those of us actually responsible for delivering the services those taxes pay for. It's a whole lot easier to pontificate about downsizing government when you don't have to figure out how to stretch shrinking resources to patch crumbling streets."

Among other things he points out is the Taxpayer's League doesn't consider that the price of asphalt has gone up but the cities's share of the unchanged gas tax has not gone up.  As citizens' two biggest concerns are speeding and road repair.  Gunyou proposed that his city solve these with less taxes by having inverted speed bumps.  He had a couple of other tongue-in-cheek ideas for getting something for nothing.

If you are a Minnesota voter, I highly recommend looking up his commentaries in your nearest public library.  That is, if it is still open and at a time convenient to you.

I was planning to cast a blank ballot in the August primaries, but now I will be sure to put an X next to Kelliher/Gunyou.  Also, after I post this I'll make a small contribution to the Kelliher/Gunyou campaign.  Note that I am still a Party of One and do not contribute to parties.  Oh, the Coffee Party might be an exception.

Has a new, moderate party gotten closer?

David Brooks speculates in "The Story of an Angry Voter", New York Times, 2010-05-21, that given the extremes that both parties seem to be moving to, the pragmatists in government will have no choice but to start a new party.  Although he doesn't see it happening in the near future, I hope that he keeps writing about the possibility.

Arguments for new political parties

I've had in my notes for a week a couple of articles about this year's elections, but haven't taken the time to comment on them. This morning a change of plans had me staying at home, and I took the time to catch up. Catching up included scanning the New York Times web site for articles of interest. The first I chose was "Paranoia Strikes Deep", by Paul Krugman, New York Times, 2009-11-09. When I started to write a note about it, I rediscovered the two older opinion articles and the three seemed to tie together.

Ross Douthat is now the resident "conservative" at the New York Times, David Brooks apparently not being conservative enough. However, Douthat is not a conservative in the current sense, but an older, more respectable sense. Instead of saying no to anything "liberals" propose and adhering strictly to a set of conservative "principles", he says, "Wait a minute, let's think about this" and looks at issues from many perspectives.

Last week Douthat wrote "Three's Company", about the governor's race in New Jersey and the Congressional race in New York. He praised the "spoilers" for shaking things up. He wrote that we need more third parties to break up the corruption of one-party states (both red and blue) and the inertia caused by an intransigent minority. He hoped that new local parties would emerge that would address local issues locally rather than along national fault lines.

David Brooks, "What independents want", New York Times, 2009-11-06, wrote that independents want stability. Independents are moving to the right because they don't see government solving the problems that affect their lives. This should not be seen as a ray of hope for Republicans except in that independents will most likely give less support to Democrats. Brooks didn't write it, but I wonder if too many independents stay home when they are unhappy rather than vote against the party in power. I wonder what would happen if these unhappy independents voted with blank ballots instead of staying home. Or better yet, if a new moderate party arose that promised more stability.

Paul Krugman wrote that the paranoiacs have essentially taken over the Republican Party. Newt Gingrich is now a voice of moderation but he has no power. The power resides in, surprise, the media - Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin. The result will be that we have "a rump party with no interest in actually governing" but enough power to prevent anybody else from governing.

I think Douthat is on to something. Instead of looking for new parties to start at the top around some popular figure like Colin Powell, we need to have parties start around local and state issues. Jesse Ventura did it once; can someone else do it with more pragmatic issues. "Rest assured", we really do need more choice in politics.

A "Conservative" compromises

You think that is an oxymoron; conservatives don't compromise because they are too busy sticking to principles. Maybe you are sticking to close to your principles of political definition.

I started thinking about this when reading Ross Douthat's column "A compromise that's centered on catastrophe". It was originally published as "The Catastrophic Option" in the New York Times, 2009-10-19. It is about shifting the health care debate to something that might actually work.

Ross Douthat supposedly is the resident "conservative" columnist for the New York Times. One of those attempts to show that a newspaper doesn't have a "liberal" bias. I've found some of his columns to be "liberal" in the sense that he approaches issues in a thoughtful, adaptive manner rather than a reactive manner.

In an email to a local columnist who generally writes reasoned columns, I wrote, "If you don’t change your paradigms, you won’t have a pair of dimes for change." I didn't mean to apply this to him, but to people who expect things not to change.

I think one of the paradigms we have to change is the "conservative/liberal" divide, especially when those to whom these labels apply don't really act that way. Rather, they are locked into positions that are neither conservative nor liberal.

Maybe we can move away from this locked horn position by looking at some of our definitions again. For starters, I offer these. A conservative is one who says, "Not so fast" with regard to change. A moderate is one who says, "Here are our choices and the probable consequences."

There are many other ways at looking at political viewpoints, but I think these two would be a good starting point on how we define our political parties and how we choose those who would govern us.

The center must defend against the politics of attack, attack, attack

After World War I and the Russian Revolution as shrill voices for one ideology or another were raised, William Butler Yeats wrote:

Things fall apart: the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Tom Ehrich quoted this in a column published in today's Star Tribune, a column on the bloviation of attack commentators. He explains bloviation as pompous and boastful oration. For example, Edward Everett's two-hour oration at Gettysburg, compared with Abraham Lincoln's two-minute speech.

Tom Ehrich is an Episcopal priest who writes for Religion News Service. You'll have to get the Sept. 11 Star Tribune to read his column. The Strib doesn't put columns online and the RNS charges for most of its articles.

Attack politics doesn't want compromise, only destruction of the "enemy". If a resolution of a problem benefits citizens will work to the opposition's favor, then no way will the attack politicians favor it. This is not governance, but rebellion and sedition. No wonder attack politicians want their supporters to carry guns to town hall meetings.

The Republican Party is a sinking ship...

weighted down by a rigid, contradictory ideology. It is against abortion because it kills babies, but has no compunction about killing babies in foreign countries in the name of "defense". It wants limited government but supports a strong defense; a "defense" run by the largest government bureaucracy of all. It wants low taxes but fails to see the cost of the "defense" it demands. It wants a free market but fails to recognize that a free market needs more than a few large, bureaucratic corporations. It wants to clamp down on illegal immigration but fails to recognize that this country was founded on an unstoppable wave of "illegal" immigrants who overwhelmed the earlier inhabitants. It wants "bipartisanship" but fails to recognize how much its base so readily believes a few extremely partisan commentators. And if that is not enough lead ballast, it opposes the President even when he espouses ideas first espoused by Republicans!

The sinking of the Republican Party is not a good thing because it is leading to a one-party democracy as described by Thomas Friedman in "Our One-Party Democracy", New York Times, 2009-09-09. There is some old saw about there being no political parties in the U.S. – the Democratic half is based on the large number of factions within the Democratic party making it hard for Democrats to govern. This is Friedman's contention; the factions in the Democratic party are making it difficult to pass legislation that will allow the U.S. to compete against the likes of China. China's one-party autocracy is taking steps to be a leader in many 21st Century industries.

It is time for pragmatists in either party to form a new party based on the idea of governance as put forth by the Founders. It is time for a new party that will take bold initiatives like the early Republican Party's extensive support of the transcontinental railroad. It is time for a new party that doesn't judge taxes as being too low or too high, but asks if they are appropriate for the needs of today. It is time for a new party that doesn't judge the size of government as too little or too big, but asks if governing is being done at the appropriate level for the tasks at hand.

I hope that the handful of "liberal" Republicans and the many "conservative" and "moderate" Democrats will seriously consider another meeting like was held in Ripon, Wisconsin in the mid-nineteenth century. "As our case is new, so must we think anew."

We really have three political parties

I lay awake early this morning thinking about what parties would be like if they aligned themselves according to their common beliefs.

My first thought was that we really have three parties: the ridiculous right, the loonie left, and the muddling middle. The extremes set the tone for both Republicans and the Democrats and the pragmatists only get to set the brakes a bit.

The Republicans have come to be dominated by their fringe, and that fringe is alienating more voters. The Democrats are torn between their "conservative" faction and their fringe. The latter asks for the moon and the former almost caters to the Republicans, the old-style corporate interest Republicans.

It would be interesting if the Democrats split in three: the "conservatives", the problem solvers, and the fringe. If that were to happen, would the "conservatives" attract "moderate" and "liberal" Republicans, if any are left? If so, the hard-line Republicans would be marginalized, and we could get back to governance instead of squabbling. It would also solve Obama's bipartisanship problem.

The Senate should defer to the President's choice unless...

a Senator is a member of the opposite party. I couldn't find any direct quote, but I remember when Republicans held the Presidency, Republican Senators, whether they held the majority or not, said that the Senate should defer to the President's choice for the Supreme Court.

Now that they hold neither the Presidency nor the majority in the Senate, many are casting aspersions on President Obama's choice of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

We should note that the "many" who are raising issues with Sotomayor are not in the Senate. Many of the quotes I've seen from Republican Senators are of caution; they plan to ask questions that should be asked of any nominee for appointed office.

Maybe this confirmation will widen the split between my-way conservatives and moderate Republicans who believe in pragmatic governance.

One of my favorite economists is running for Congress

I've enjoyed reading Charles Wheelan's column's on Yahoo Finance and I enjoyed reading his book, The Naked Economist. He always struck me as writing common sense rather than dogma. That is, nothing is as simple as we would like it to be, but here are some guidelines to help us getting the results we really want.

He has now decided to put his economic knowledge and common sense into being a U.S. Representative from the fifth district of Illinois. See "Goodbye Yahoo! Finance, Hello Congress?"

I wish more in government were as interested in looking for solutions as he is rather than posturing for stature. For more on his campaign, see Wheelan for Congress website.

Will the Republican party become marginal?

"But the G.O.P.’s long transformation into the party of the unreasonable right, a haven for racists and reactionaries, seems likely to accelerate as a result of the impending defeat."

"The Republican Rump", Paul Krugman, New York Times, 2008-11-03

Krugman doesn't predict the demise of the Republican Party, but he thinks moderate Republicans will have to confront that their party has become the party of intolerance.

See also "Are we getting closer to a viable third party?"

Are we getting closer to a viable third party?

In the mid nineteenth century, one of the two major parties became more irrelevant to the real problems of the era, namely the question of slavery. They, the Whigs, were tepid on abolition, and were replaced by a new, vigorous party, the Republicans. In the 1856 presidential election, the Republican candidate, John C. Fremont came in second in a three-way race. Former President Millard Fillmore, now in another "third party", the American Party or Know Nothing's, came in a respectable third. Four years later the Republican candidate won and the rest is history.

In the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century, the Republicans became more and more ideological. Rather than work with some general principles to work out compromises to govern, many Republicans became naysayers. See "The Audacity of Nope", Eva Fairbanks, Washington Post, 2008-10-05.

Ms. Fairbanks, a congressional correspondent, describes herself as a "card-carrying moderate 'weenie'" and is not happy about the shift to ideology.

As the Republican Party sidelines more and more moderates in favor of die-hard ideologues, will it become less relevant and only be an irritant to the Democrats. What will happen with the sidelined moderates? Will enough of them get together to form a viable third party?

We have some inkling in Minnesota that this is possible. Dean Barkley, the Independence Party candidate for the Senate, is closing in on 20% according to some polls. I don't know how many former Republicans are migrating to the IP, but if any momentum gathers, a third party could be an active participant in the 2012 elections, and by 2020, the current Republican Party may be a minor party.

Will we ever have representative government?

I was updating my The Moderate Manifesto I checked the links. When I looked at Unity08 I read a few of its pages.

In short, Unity08 thinks that the nominating process is not serving the country. As another choice "we will prepare to hold, in June 2008, the first-ever online convention where millions of Americans will nominate a Unity ticket for President and Vice President of the United States. We will work to achieve ballot access for that ticket in all 50 states. We will elect them to the White House in November 2008." - About Unity08

This sounds great, but I don't think those participating will be representative of the electorate.
According to the survey Unity08 took of its membership, it is 90% with some college or more, 50% over 50, 73% male, 53% business or professional class (slide 26), 90% have high-speed internet access (slide 27), and generally half don't watch politic pundits on TV (slide 28).

Well, I guess that's not so bad. Except for the TV viewing, it looks much like the demographics of the current major parties.

The upside is that people will be participating in the selection in a small time frame, and that the selection of candidates will be as large as the participants wish. The winnowing will not be determined by a small number of people in a few parts of the country.

It will be interesting to see how big a role money will play in this campaign. It might be more a matter of time to post sufficient comments. And there may be ways to game the system, like recruit people by whatever means to vote for a given candidate.

Do decide for yourself if this is a reasonable alternative to the system few really like.