Ken’s Take on the World


Resisting 45!!

For those of you who follow me on Facebook or on Twitter, and those of you who have read my blogs on WordPress, you know that I have expressed opposition to many of the things that candidate Trump, and now President Trump, has done. I have also expressed opposition to many of the positions and legislation advocated by elected Republicans including the Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA) and the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA). As a result of statements I have made, I have recently noted a number of folks who support the current President reply to these statements on social media with a variation of “Well, what have Democrats proposed?” Or, “Democrats will continue to lose elections if they have no policy position to promote and only function as an anti-Trump party!” Comments such as these are beyond annoying as they are simply the comments made by talking heads in the pseudo-conservative media environment and completely ignore the realities of what is happening in our American democracy.

 

Let me address the comments about Democrats losing elections, first. In the 2016 Presidential election, the Democrat, Hillary Rodham Clinton earned nearly three million more votes than her Republican rival in the general election. Of course, her opponent has claimed that millions of illegal votes were cast and that he, without providing any evidence to support his claims, actually won the popular vote. This is a position that is still supported by many of his most stalwart supporters. Likewise, only 33% of Republicans agree with the evidence that Russia, specifically, interfered with US election processes in 2016. This is in stark contrast to what Democrats and Independents believe on the matter of Russian interference in the election. The Republican view also stands in contrast to what US and foreign intelligence services have confirmed which is that Russia, and groups affiliated with the Russian government, made a concerted effort to interfere with the US Presidential election in 2016.

 

With regard to Congressional races and state legislative races, multiple studies and commentary here, here, and here have demonstrated that a major culprit contributing to the makeup of legislative bodies is a result of how district maps are drawn. Several reports including this interesting study looked at whether Democrats or Republicans tended to produce more gerrymandered districts when entrusted with the responsibility of drawing lines. While these demonstrate a modest benefit for Republicans currently, this does not explain the entirety of GOP gains at the legislative levels. Furthermore, gerrymandering does not impact races for state governors as these are decided strictly upon a popular vote within the particular state. Other factors are clearly at play in these elections as well. This brief primer demonstrates some of the changes in voting trends since the early 1900’s. The role of media, specifically Fox News, also appears to drive some of the support for Republican candidates as researched in this older piece by the National Bureau of Economic Research position paper.

 

This May poll from Pew demonstrates the largest historical gap between Democrats and Republicans on the role of the media in providing news and information. This January analysis from Pew found that Trump voters received the bulk of their news/information from Fox News. Among Clinton supporters, no single news or information source provided the bulk of decision-making input. A report from December 2016 pointed out bipartisan concerns relating to the role of “fake” news and its negative impacts. Coincidentally, a fact check of leading political pundits finds that pseudo-conservative pundits have more false statements (> 50%) than progressive/liberal commentators.

 

The second point to address is this very recent claim I have been seeing that Democrats have no agenda other than to oppose the current President and his efforts. This claim is puzzling, not because it is simply what has been put forth by pseudo-conservative talking heads over the past couple of months, but because it is simply false. Democrats are united in their opposition to simply rolling back all of the advancements that were made under the previous Administration. A review of President Trump’s Executive Orders demonstrate the majority of EO’s he has signed thus far are to repeal EO’s signed under the Obama, and to a lesser extent, the Bush (43) Administrations. Even the centerpiece of his legislative agenda thus far, the repeal (and replacement) of the Affordable Care Act, is not a new proposal but merely the rescinding of an Obama-era achievement.

 

It is hypocritical to suggest Democrats do not have anything of value to contribute to the legislative process when they are not even invited to participate in the drafting of legislation that would impact nearly 1/6th of the entire US economy. Republicans, when their healthcare proposals faltered caused folks like Majority Leader McConnell to state that the GOP might have to work with Democrats if they were unable to gather enough votes from their own side of the aisle. As if working across the aisle is a distasteful act that should be avoided at all costs. The fact the Republican proposals from the House and the Senate would be harmful to the most vulnerable of Americans, including large numbers of Trump voters, ensured Democrats would not support these measures. Republicans spent the last eight years obstructing the efforts of President Obama. Democrats have not even had to seriously obstruct the efforts of President Trump. His failure of leadership has meant that even the majority Republican Congress cannot get legislation to his desk.

 

The progressive agenda remains committed to improving the lives of working Americans and their families by reducing tax burdens on the middle and working class, providing educational opportunities for all, and ensuring affordable, accessible healthcare for every American. Democrats have supported an increase to the Federal Minimum Wage, equality for all Americans, the right of workers to organize and collectively bargain, the right of women to decide what medical care is appropriate for themselves, and improving the ease of voting in democratic elections. Considering that the Republican Party opposes these things, I can understand why there are some who think that opposition to the current President and the GOP legislative agenda is demonstrative of a lack of a political agenda. It is, I assure you, not the case. Refusing to stand by while pseudo-conservatives roll back advancements that have been made for the environment, for our kids, for the elderly, for the economy, for the working class, for the sick, and for our veterans is actually part of an agenda. An agenda that continues to maintain that the United States is a great nation that will continue to get better. If only the Republican Party would finally climb aboard that train. Until then, I will resist!!

Advertisements


Healthcare: Privilege or Right?

As Republicans struggle to obtain enough votes in the US Senate to pass their version of a bill (Better Care Reconciliation Act) that was originally brought forward to repeal, and replace, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) much focus has been placed upon the economic costs and the personal costs to those who would be affected should this legislation become enacted into law.  As one who has paid attention to the debate over healthcare access for the past three decades, I have been thinking of a much deeper question that we should be asking of ourselves as it would, perhaps, better drive the debate over this legislation.  The question that each of us should ask is this:  Should healthcare be considered a privilege, a commodity, that should be available only to those who can afford such care or, should it be considered a necessary right for every person that must be protected, and assured by government?

 

When I have posed this question to those who express opposition to the ACA, the most common response that I receive is that healthcare should be treated as any other service that a person would seek out.  The most common support offered for this position is that every person receiving services should be required to pay for such services.  To bolster this claim, these critics argue that it is not fair to expect others to pay for services that they receive.  On its face this appears to be a reasonable argument that must be considered.  After all, you wouldn’t take your car to a mechanic and not be expected to pay for repairs or maintenance on your vehicle.  You don’t take your family to a restaurant and expect to receive free food, do you?  You wouldn’t call an air conditioning repair person and expect to not receive a bill for the parts and services provided, would you?  These criticisms appear to suggest that healthcare services and products are no different than whether or not your vehicle or your heating and cooling systems at home are functional.  This is a false and illogical argument.

 

When one dines out at a restaurant, one knows what they can afford and if they are unable to afford to dine at a certain establishment they simply eat dinner at home or at a less expensive restaurant.  When your air conditioner is on the fritz, if you do not have the money available for repairs, you will need to open your windows, use fans, or other methods of staying cool.  For those with underlying health conditions in which extreme heat is dangerous, communities provide cooling centers, or family and friends are often able to step in to provide temporary shelter until the air conditioning is repaired.  Even if a new central air system must be installed, the cost is almost always going to be less than $5,000 USD.  Many heating and cooling companies will also finance this amount to keep costs manageable.  Similarly, if you need repairs on your automobile, you can determine what are the most crucial and pay for those and defer other repairs until later.  Or, your community may have decent public transportation available.  Or, you may be able to car-pool to work or use a ride-sharing service.

 

Healthcare, unlike these other services, is not a commodity that can simply be delayed in many cases.  I have frequently likened the provision of healthcare as an essential service that must be available to every single person.  Similar to a community that provides fire departments and trained personnel to operate this life-saving equipment.  Or, law enforcement agencies that respond to safety or criminal complaints.  Or, military agencies like the Coast Guard who respond to emergencies on our nation’s waterways.  We don’t bat an eye when we are asked to fund these critical services.  As a society, we have come to realize these are critical pieces of infrastructure that exist for the benefit of each of us even if we never need to directly use these services.  Why, then, do we look at healthcare differently?

When I have attempted to discern how so-called conservatives continue to maintain the position that healthcare is a commodity, and not a right, in addition to the arguments about paying for services and the burdens of having to pay for those who cannot afford these services, they remind me that healthcare services are already provided to people in the nation’s Emergency Departments (ED) regardless of one’s ability to pay for such care.  This, then, implies there is, in fact, some existential right to healthcare.  When I point out this inconsistency in logic, one person actually mentioned that fewer (uninsured) people seek medical care as if this implies lower costs to taxpayers.  The problem with this (il)logic is that while uninsured individuals are far less likely to present to a primary care physician in the community setting, they are far more likely to present to an ED for treatment of conditions that can be much more effectively, and economically, managed in a community setting by a primary care physician.  This translates into significantly increased healthcare costs for all of us.  The average cost of an ED visit in the United States is nearly $2,200 based on a study described in “The Atlantic.”  Compare this to the average cost to a primary care provider (PCP) in the US which is only $100 based on an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (ARHQ) study by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

 

A review of multiple studies has demonstrated that access to health insurance is correlated with significantly improved health outcomes.  The review, published recently in the “New England Journal of Medicine” (NEJM), documents that improved healthcare outcomes are especially notable among pediatric patients.  Further, this review notes that not only are healthcare outcomes improved, but other measures of quality of life, including educational achievement, are improved with access to health insurance.  Other studies have demonstrated the significant economic consequences associated with illness.  I am not only speaking of the direct costs associated with providing medically-necessary care, but the impacts that illness and preventable injury have on individual and societal economic stability and growth.

 

I believe we must frame the debate over access to health insurance as one of a necessary right that must be protected by government actions.  Only then, will we be able to determine the most effective means of financing healthcare in the United States.



Tomahawks and Trump

A few days ago, President Trump ordered the launch of 59 Tomahawk missiles to strike an air base in Syria.  Ostensibly, this was a response to the use of chemical weapons against the civilian populace.  Responses from critics and supporters have been mostly predictable.  Unfortunately, these responses miss crucial points.

 

The Constitutional conundrum:  Critics of the President’s actions point out that he lacks the Constitutional authority to initiate military actions without Congressional approval.  Article I, Section 8 clearly defines the role of Congress in declaring war.  Article II, Section 2, however, vests the authority of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces with the President.  Congress passed the War Powers Act (WPA) to permit a President to initiate military action to immediately protect “vital national interests.”  Since its inception, every President has used this as a justification for carrying out military actions.  President Trump is no different than Presidents Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, or Obama in claiming their actions are covered under this provision.  While it may be worthwhile to debate the legal merits of Trump’s justification, it is unlikely (particularly with a Republican Congress) that anything significant will come of this in the form of restricting legislation on a President’s authority under the WPA.  It is inconceivable the President acted against an imminent threat to crucial national interests that prevented him from seeking approval from Congress, as his predecessor did in 2013.  While Republicans in Congress rebuffed President Obama’s request for authorization of military force when President Assad used chemical weapons against his own citizens then, it is not clear how Congress would respond to a similar request made by the current President.

 

Moral maladaption:  Republican talking heads claim the President, even if lacking legal justification for launching an attack on Syrian territory, had a moral imperative to take action against the use of chemical weapons.  The President, himself, states that he was moved by the images of small children killed by the heinous use of such banned weapons.  I do not doubt that he, like the rest of us, was indeed moved by the horrific imagery of babies, children, women, and men suffering the effects of what appears to be the nerve agent, Sarin.  To suggest President Trump was not touched by these images is unfair to him.  We actually expect our President to act as a moral leader, promoting our values as a civilized nation.  A moral leader, however, would likely have sought the support of our allies in formulating a strong and clear message of condemnation on the use of chemical weapons rather than appearing to act impulsively, and alone, in carrying out an act of war that violates international norms.  There is an argument to be made that it is actually immoral for the President to order the launch of military actions that could lead to civilian casualties.  There is plenty of history of the United States, accidentally, or intentionally, launching military strikes that led to the deaths of many more women, babies, and children than the recent chemical attacks have caused.  A stronger counterargument to his supporters suggesting that Trump had a moral obligation to act would be to note that President Trump has repeatedly attempted to block all refugees from Syria entering the United States.  Perhaps, his rationale for striking the air base in Syria would ring less hollow had his ongoing efforts pertaining to the Syrian people not been construed as hostile to them and ambivalent toward the Syrian dictator.

 

Pocketbook penumbra:  To those who have suggested the President authorized use of Tomahawk missiles because he owns stock in Raytheon, the manufacturer, just stop!!  Of all the reasons one might consider for why the President selected this option, this is not going to be one of them.  While I have stated on multiple occasions that Donald Trump acts only in the interest of Donald Trump, even this claim is ridiculous to me.  Now, I will state that I am disappointed, make that disgusted, that with nearly $90 million in military weaponry launched into Syria the other day we did not even negatively impact the capabilities of the Syrian government to continue its air campaign against rebels for even a single day.  It is unclear whether we even sent an effective message deterring the regime from future use of chemical weapons in these strikes.

 

Donald’s doubletalk:  We know the current President changes his positions constantly.  We know that he lies and misleads.  In 2013, Donald Trump strongly opposed any military action in Syria.  He demanded then-President Obama seek approval from Congress prior to undertaking ANY military action in Syria even after it was confirmed the Assad regime had used chemical weapons against the Syrian people.  Why, then, would President Trump launch military strikes in Syria without prior notification of, and approval from, Congress.  President Obama actually DID seek approval from Congress to take action against Syria.  What, from a legal perspective, has changed in the interim?  Nothing.  To those who suggest these actions made him appear “Presidential,” need I remind you of comments made regarding the President’s State of the Union Address in February?  Within 36 hours, he had demonstrated that he had not made the “Presidential Pivot” that people on both sides of the political spectrum have implored him to make since gaining the nomination last July.

 

Donald’s distractions:  The Trump Administration has been an epic lesson in incompetence, confusion, unethical behavior, obfuscation, and, perhaps, worse.  From a series of gaffes involving our allies, his inability to articulate a clear strategy on any policy position, allegations of collusion with an adversarial government, basement-level poll numbers, and infighting within his inner circle of advisors, it has been suggested the President, perhaps, sought a distraction that might cast him in a more favorable light.  If this is the case, it is reprehensible and inexcusable.  A more benign reason for ordering military strikes in the manner he did is the lack of competent advice from advisors who lack the breadth and depth of knowledge and experience to more carefully coordinate these strikes to produce greater effect and reduce potential negative consequences.  This, too, is unacceptable.  This failure in competence has led to a lack of support from our allies and jeopardized the safety of US service members, particularly in the Syrian theater of operations where we are currently active.  Despite prior notification of the Russian government which minimized damage to Russian military assets at the airbase, the missile strikes have led to amped-up rhetoric from Russia including statements that Russia will no longer advise US military officials regarding military operations which may lead to inadvertent US military casualties at the hands of Russian military munitions.

 

The current President has positioned the United States on a very dangerous path with his reckless missile strikes on Syria.  The strikes appear to be merely symbolic and provided no tactical or strategic gains for the US.  They did not hamper Assad’s abilities to carry out attacks, including chemical weapons attacks, on his people.  They pushed Russia into a potentially stronger alliance with the Assad regime.  His disregard for the Constitution continues his trend of undermining our institutions of democracy.  Along with his increased use of military action, including drone strikes, that have led to the deaths of hundreds of civilians in the Middle East, he diminishes the safety of deployed US forces and the security of US citizens throughout the world.  A US Administration has traditionally been a stabilizing feature of the global community.  Under President Trump, this is no longer the case.  The President, and his Administration (with certain exceptions) have injected a level of uncertainty and instability that is not only foolish but is also extremely dangerous.



Trumpets of Doom

This past week we were exposed to the spectacle that was the Republican National Convention.  I managed to catch bits and pieces of different speeches and read the running commentary on my Twitter feed and on Facebook.  I did take the time to watch the candidate, himself, give his acceptance speech on Thursday night.  What I observed this week is, to say the least, troubling for me as a progressive, voting, American.  The RNC convention was filled with darkness and despair.  It was, in a word, un-American, in my opinion.

 

From the refusal of the convention rules committee to respect the wishes of delegates in voting on the party platform on Monday, to the gaffes of color-coding elevator banks (White Elevators), posting white supremacist Tweets and anti-Semitic Tweets, and plagiarizing speeches, the promotion of an idea that the Democrat opponent would be arrested and jailed if Mr. Trump was elected President, and the very ugly idea that the Democratic nominee be marched in front of a firing squad by the Republican nominee’s veterans adviser, the campaign presented an ugly and hate-filled image to the world and, specifically, to Americans who are being asked to select the 45th President of the United States of America.  Even an innocuous photo showing Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan posing with the 2016 class of Republican interns demonstrated the big problem facing the Republican Party moving forward.  Surely, the Republican Party could have done better than this.

 

The events of this past week in Cleveland demonstrate a palpable anger of a large number of white Americans, a sense of frustration that transcends the typical values the Grand Old Party establishment has espoused for the past half century.  Make no mistake, the GOP has pushed the idea of racial politic for its benefit since the 1960’s.  The major difference during this campaign cycle is that the nominee has openly endorsed the idea that white people are losing ground to minorities in this country.  There is the explicit promise that Mr. Trump will, “take America back.”  Take it back from who?  Give the nation back to whom, exactly?  This nation belongs to each of us, Mr. Trump.  Each of us already has an ownership stake in the greatest nation on Earth!!  On the topic of greatness, Mr. Trump’s campaign slogan is, “Make America Great Again.”  Personally, I believe that any candidate who does not believe the United States of America is not currently the greatest nation on the planet is not fit to lead our country.  Hey, Donald Trump, if the United States of America is not currently the greatest nation in the world, tell us who we need to best to regain the title!!  Mr. Trump misses the point that greatness does not mean perfection.  The greatest leaders throughout history each had flaws.  This goes for individuals and nations.

 

President Franklin Roosevelt, in his first inauguration speech said, “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.”  http://www.historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057  Mr. Trump, in his acceptance speech pushed a sense of fear throughout his speech.  I have to give him credit in that he recognizes that fear is, perhaps, the most powerful motivator of all living things.  Unfortunately, fear is not what makes a nation, or a leader, great.  In times of trouble or anxiety, people look to a leader for inspiration and hope.  For confidence and a sense of security.  People look for firm, rational, statements and assurances of how safety and security can be established.  Mr. Trump stoked the flames of fear in his campaign speech but failed to offer any rational assurances that he could provide this.  This consistent lack of substance does not appear to faze his supporters.  In fact, Mr. Trump has said that his supporters don’t care about policy.  His supporters may not care, however, those of us who consider ourselves thoughtful and rational, demand this information in order to make an informed decision at the voting booth!!  He commented that he will be the law and order President, but has demonstrated through his comments and prior speeches that he has no understanding of the law nor a desire to operate within the law.  Mr. Trump has been described as having an authoritarian management style.  Studies on authoritarians who have risen to power demonstrate that when people are so fearful, they have a tendency to turn to an authoritarian leader, regardless of qualifications, or lack thereof.  This is what Mr. Trump is counting on—that people are so irrationally fearful they will fall in line behind his campaign.  Thus far this has worked as he managed to beat out his, much better qualified, opponents in the primary campaign.  The problem with authoritarian politicians is that they tend to be brutal and violent towards their opponents, both domestically and globally.  Regarding the wealthy, and the bankers, FDR further stated, “They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.”  I have said on multiple occasions that Mr. Trump is primarily out to benefit himself.  He is a narcissist and demonstrates an unwillingness to compromise with others.  He has boasted of this in interviews, speeches, and in his books.  This is not the attitude of our nation’s diplomatic face to the world.  Even more dangerous, Donald Trump has praised the ideas of other authoritarian leaders including Vladimir Putin and Adolph Hitler.  Likewise, the current leaders of Russia and North Korea have praised Mr. Trump’s leadership style.  I am concerned when foes of this nation begin to praise a candidate for US President.

 

Mr. Trump has further raised the ire of leaders of nations that we consider allies.  This past week, he suggested that the United States may not honor agreements made with European nations should they be attacked by another state power.  Nothing instills confidence in our friends, or gives pause to our enemies, like a potential US President who says you’re on your own.  He has said that other nation’s should be free to pursue nuclear weapons and has refused to rule out the use of such weapons if faced with a tactical threat or even as a deterrent to non-state players on the battlefield.  Such commentary is not only irresponsible from a Presidential candidate, it is reckless and dangerous.

 

Perhaps, the most concerning thing about Donald Trump is that he is not a, one-off, an anomaly within the Republican Party.  Mr. Trump has become the face of the base of the contemporary Republican Party.  This twice-divorced, socially-moderate, candidate for US President has gained the support of Evangelical Christians.  He has been endorsed by anti-LGBT and anti-abortion, so-called, “family values” organizations even though he does not support these views.  This is why he has selected Governor Mike Pence of Indiana to be his Vice President.  Governor Pence is staunchly anti-LGBT and anti-women’s rights.  He has actually been endorsed by white-supremacists, the American Nazi Party, and other racist individuals and groups.  This should serve to inform the logical, reasoned person that Mr. Trump is a dangerous individual to be considered for the position of Commander-in-Chief of our nation’s Armed Forces and as the principal law enforcement officer of the United States.  The battle for control of the soul of the Republican Party has been won by a racist, bigoted, theocratic-minded bloc.  The fight for the hearts and minds of the people of the United States of America now begins.  While irrational fear is an incredibly powerful motivator, I maintain confidence that hope is an even more powerful motivator.



Memorial Day 2016

On this Memorial Day, Americans gather together for barbeques and get-together’s with friends and family.  For many, it means a shorter work-week which is always nice.  For many families and friends this is a special day in which we come together to honor a loved one who paid the ultimate price in service to our nation.  Across the country, parades are held and wreaths are presented.  Graveyards in every state serve as the final resting place for those who gave their lives in combat zones across the globe in every war the United States has been involved in throughout history.

 

This is a tribute to a special group of military personnel.  For more than two centuries, one group of military members fought and died for their nation while hiding a very deep secret.  Gay and lesbian service members have fought, and died, in nearly every single conflict since the founding of our nation.  Because of the oppression and hostility they would face, including imprisonment, harassment, threats, and violence, these men and women, no less brave than their peers, were forced to live secret double lives.  Brave fighting men and women while in uniform and extremely discreet, closeted gay people in public.  To do otherwise put them at risk of discovery and other negative consequences.  Those brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice are known only to their family and friends.  Until now.

 

While the majority of lesbian and gay service members who were killed in battle throughout our history are unknown, the lifting of the military ban on openly gay service members has allowed the stories of contemporary service members to become public.  More importantly, marriage equality has permitted gay husbands and lesbian wives to collect pension and other benefits when their life mate is killed on the battlefield.

 

US Army Major Alan Rogers (09/21/1967 to 01/27/2008) was killed by an improvised explosive device (IED) while on a patrol in January of 2008 in Afghanistan.  He was the first known combat fatality know to be gay.  In 2005, his Master’s thesis discussed the failure of the military policy of, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT).  His family states that they were unaware of his sexual orientation before he was killed.  Statisticians have estimated that at least 200 combat fatalities in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operation were lesbian or gay.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-belkin/gay-soldier-killed-in-afg_b_475559.html

 

Corporal Andrew Charles Wilfahrt is the first known gay service member killed in combat since the repeal of DADT.  He came out to his parents at 16 and at age 29 decided to join the Army.  He was 31 years old when he was killed by an IED on February 27, 2011.  He played piano and had scored a perfect score on an Army aptitude test. http://thefallen.militarytimes.com/army-cpl-andrew-c-wilfahrt/5837138 http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/02/gay.soldier.andrew.wilfahrt/

 

US Air Force Major Adrianna M. Vorderbruggen was married to her wife in 2013.  One of the first lesbian Air Force members to marry in uniform.  She was 31 when she, along with five other Air Force intelligence members, on December 21, 2015 by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan.  She is believed to be the first openly gay woman killed in combat.  http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-woman-among-six-americans-killed-in-afghan-attack/363317681/ http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/12/23/us-military-brings-home-six-airmen-killed-in-afghanistan.html

Surely, there are many more stories of gay and lesbian service members who have lost their lives in service to their nation on battlefields around the world.  Not to mention the number of gay men and women who have been wounded in battle including the first US casualty of the Iraq war, Staff Sergeant Eric Alva.  This Memorial Day, as we remember all of those who died fighting for the United States, let us honor those, too, who fought a second battle in silence and secrecy against the very nation they served.



Dog Whistles and Trumpeteers

The rise of Donald Trump to become the leading front-runner for the Republican nomination to be President of the United States has been surprising to me.  At least upon first glance.  When one looks deeper, this success should actually not be too surprising for anyone to recognize.  Not only has his elevation and, apparent success, in the polls continued to surprise me, it has also filled me with a sense of disappointment and sadness.  I am not saddened by his success, after all, how can anyone be made sad by witnessing the success of another person.  I am saddened, however, by what his current success in the Republican primaries is premised on.

 

Mr. Trump has been a successful businessman.  Yes, like all great business people, he has had his failures.  His initial wealth was inherited which I do not fault him for.  There are many great people who also inherited great wealth.  I believe he exploits others for his personal gain and that makes him unethical and a poor role model.  Prior to his current entry into politics, I would have never guessed that he would be considered by anyone, let alone describe himself, as a, “conservative.”  The only casual link I can identify between a conservative philosophy and Mr. Trump is that he is a business person and I have always tended to think that responsible, self-made, business people trend somewhat conservative, at least financially.  Mr. Trump does not fit the mold that I imagine of the conservative business person.  He is extravagant, opulent, boisterous, and brash.  None of these are qualities I would associate with a truly conservative persona.

 

Donald Trump has increased his personal fortune through real estate, gambling establishments, and other businesses.  He has owned an airline, hotels, casinos, and has had his name attached to steaks, water, and other consumer products.  He has experienced successes and failures with these operations.  When his businesses were failing he sought out bankruptcy protections.  These are completely legal processes, however, they are inconsistent with a conservative philosophy of personal responsibility.  Bankruptcy is generally harmful to creditors and, when it involves a business, it is always harmful to the workers.  A President Trump cannot take the United States of America through bankruptcy court.  His economic ideas, he has not advanced any specific policies, are not fiscally-conservative by any means.

 

His personal life makes it even more unfathomable that he would consider himself a conservative and even less likely that he should have the support of those who consider themselves to be, “social-conservatives.”  He has been married multiple times, engaged in affairs, made crude references towards women and to male and female genitalia.  Things that I would have automatically assumed would disgust evangelical Christians and other religiously devout individuals.  I am not judging him, mind you, I am only at a loss to comprehend his support from those who have expressed condemnation of adultery, divorce, non-monogamy, and homosexuality.  On other areas of social conflict, including abortion, I did not even think Mr. Trump had expressed a position.  In fact, I would have laid money on the idea that he was not opposed to abortion, homosexuality, or infidelity.

 

What is it, then, that fuels Mr. Trump’s rise among the Republican base?  It is not his fiscal constraint nor his fiscal responsibility.  It is not his social mores.  And, yet, a large percentage of his supporters in the primary elections are those who claim to be fiscally-conservative and/or socially-conservative.  It would appear that he is the antithesis of a candidate that these individuals would coalesce behind.  The answer must lie deeper.  It is within these deeper layers that we begin to see the origins of Donald Trump’s rise, and more importantly, of the reasons underlying his support.  The Republican establishment and those who serve in Washington understand, all too well, where this support comes from and they are suddenly afraid of being exposed for this dark philosophy as well.

 

The truth is much darker, and much uglier, than anyone could imagine.  It harkens back to the days of slavery and the effectiveness with which Mr. Trump promotes this ugliness the more likely it becomes that the Grand Old Party is at a crucial junction in its existence.

 

From the mid-1950’s, through today, the Republican Party has promoted a philosophy that trends socially-regressive.  It is based on the promotion of fear and anxiety.  From the racial segregation and anti-Communist policies of the 1950’s to the continuing opposition to equality for women since the 1970’s, to the opposition to homosexuality, including non-discrimination and marriage equality, and into recent battles over transgender equality and immigration, the GOP has incorporated the language of fear and increasingly narrowed its base to disaffected white, heterosexual, poorly-educated, Christians.  From the end of slavery, conservatives have used innuendo like a dog whistle to create scapegoats of minority groups in order to advance a white agenda that opposes equality for anyone else.  The Republican Party began to capitalize upon this idea in the 1950’s by promoting fear over reason.  By the 1980’s the Grand Old Party solidified its base of white, Christian, males. The stoking of fear of the, “others” is what has created a, mostly, homogenous base of Republican voters.  The GOP has mastered the art of, “Us versus Them” in politics.  If you are different, in any way, you are not, “Us.”  It is this sense of fear or anxiety that allows the Republican Party to recruit poor whites, who are most harmed by Republican economic policies.  It is for this reason that a candidate like Donald Trump has had the ability to rise so rapidly up the hierarchy of Republican politics to, possibly, become its official standard-bearer.  In light of this, it is really not so surprising that Mr. Trump has emerged as a viable candidate for the Republican Party.  The Republican establishment has employed the use of fear-based rhetoric like a dog whistle for so long that the trumpeting of such dialogue would naturally draw certain supporters out from hiding.

 

It is extremely disturbing, however, that a candidate, from any political party, seeking to be a candidate to become President of the United States would actively support, or tacitly endorse, such un-American values.  It is not that any person should be so naïve as to deny the existence of prejudice in this nation.  Neither, should one be surprised that there are some people in 2016 who are bigots or racists.  I am more troubled by the fact that there is such widespread support for the ugliness of racism, bigotry, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, and Islamophobia within this great nation.  This has become even more apparent immediately after the election, in 2008, of President Barack Obama as Republicans immediately expressed genuine hope that he would fail.  It is the extent to which these attitudes pervade our nation that is most alarming to me.  This is something that is genuinely surprising and bothersome.  I find this disgusting and would never support a political candidate that condones such vile attitudes.



Craniorectal Inversion Syndrome (CRIS)

The substandard IQ and illiteracy associated with Craniorectal Inversion Syndrome (CRIS) are symptoms generally present among those who misidentify themselves as, “conservative,” as opposed to those who are referred to as, “progressive,” or, “liberal.”  These individuals are actually confirmed upon examination and testing, and then diagnosed as being, “pseudo-conservative” as opposed to, “conservative.”  The syndrome is also referred to as Cranial-Rectal Impaction Syndrome, however, this is inaccurate as the head is not actually, “impacted.”  This incorrect term has been promoted by some on the right-wing of the political spectrum.  The cranium can easily be removed from within the rectum, however, the individual suffering from CRIS fears the result of exposure to evidence-based information making it challenging to address this disorder.  The most extreme cases of Craniorectal Inversion Syndrome, the proper medical term for this condition, involve the spewing of fecal matter from the oral opening while the head remains firmly transposed within the rectum.  The correlation between poor educational achievement and the propensity to vote for political candidates who actively promote economic, domestic, and foreign policy positions that are detrimental to them is well documented in those afflicted.  For example, it is well known that those who do not attain an educational level beyond the traditional K12 educational spectrum leads individuals to vote for political candidates they know will promote legislation that is detrimental to their well-being.  For example, Republican candidates for elected office often run on a platform that promotes wealth redistribution by taking tax dollars from middle class and working families and diverts these revenues to the wealthiest corporations and families.  This is counterintuitive to the economic instincts, and financial stability, of the middle class and the working class economic strata and can, perhaps, be explained by a lack of knowledge about basic economics.  None other than Bush strategist, Karl Rove, who explains that as individuals gain more knowledge they become significantly LESS likely to vote for Republican candidates.  This was confirmed within the past few days by the leading Republican candidate for President, Donald Trump confirming that the GOP depends on ignorant voters in order to win elections.  It is interesting that individual income, or social status, is an inconsistent marker for voting for a conservative or progressive political candidate, however, attainment of knowledge is a powerful predictor of political persuasion with good sensitivity and specificity.  The better educated and informed an individual becomes, the less likely the individual will develop CRIS and the less likely they will be to vote for political candidates who claim to be conservative on social or economic issues.

 

Pseudo-conservatives differ from actual conservatives in many ways.  The most obvious is demonstrated in the complete and utter inability to use documented evidence and proven facts to participate in rational and civilized debate over actual issues that are presented to them.  While conservatives are able to engage and participate in constructive dialogue with people of differing viewpoints to address serious challenges, pseudo-conservatives who suffer from CRIS are unable to do so based on the limited feedback they are able to process on account of confinement and, likely, a lack of oxygen afforded them due to head placement.  Pseudo-conservatives are limited to repeating limited bits of information presented, and amplified, within the echo chamber that their syndrome results from.  Pseudo-conservatives can also be identified by the typical, and frequent, use of insults and profanity as standard linguistic technique during arguments.  While conservatives are able to visualize and adapt to progress and change just as progressives are able to do, the pseudo-conservative actually wants to reverse the space-time continuum in order to physically transport an entire nation backwards in time.  The pseudo-conservative fails to recognize that doing so would eliminate many of the great advancements that have been achieved through scientific knowledge and research.  Medicines, computers, seat-belts, powerful firearms, CT scans, MRI scans, faster jet travel, fuel efficient and affordable motor vehicles, space exploration, the internet, robotic surgery, the ability to limit civilian casualties during war, and the like would not exist without progress.  Pseudo-conservatives, due to their ignorance of history and scientific theory, likely resulting from the over-reliance on religious texts to formulate their knowledge base, are unable to process this using logic and reason.  This lack of intellect leaves the pseudo-conservative open to ridicule, not only from actual conservatives and progressives, but also from the conservative political candidates who are able to easily manipulate their limited thought processes, and knowledge base, into supporting their ideas.  The inability to think critically, means the pseudo-conservative with CRIS is extremely likely to support an extremist political candidate that vocalizes simplistic messages that are void of any substantive or realistic ideas.  These ideas often suggest racist, misogynistic, or bigoted ideologies.  While social theories recognize that individuals often prefer to interact and collaborate with other similarly-situated individuals and groups, those with an ability to use logic and reason are able to network and participate in mutually beneficial goals with others who possess different racial, ethnic, religious, political, cultural, social, or economic backgrounds.  Due to the inability, or outright opposition, to processing proven information and facts, the pseudo-conservative is extremely likely to collaborate only with other individuals afflicted with CRIS.  The condition is actually curable, however the only available treatment is restriction of vocally-conferred information from talk-radio hosts and intense exposure to factually-supported information from legitimate sources of knowledge.  Public libraries, educational institutions, and government agencies can be helpful with this.  Much more so than the internet which may serve only as a placebo if the patient is not highly selective.  Exposure to certain visual media, including Fox News, Breitbart, and the like will further exacerbate the condition.  I hope this helps!!