Rubber Stamp Democracy

 There is a crucial reality to contemporary American politics that does not garner the attention and thus the consideration it so richly deserves.  It is that America has become a rubber stamp democracy. 

 The vast majority of Americans cast their presidential vote for either the Republican or Democratic party nominees.  As a nation we have been conditioned to think that there are only two candidates in an election.  These candidates are selected by powerful political brokers and given automatic approval or authorization.  The American people have little or no influence in these selections. 

One could successfully argue that this system has, for the most part, served America quit well.  We have elected a number of very admirable representatives while giving support to just a handful of incompetents and scoundrels.  But the real question is; could we have done better and are we capable of doing better?   Rubber stamping elections defeats the true intent of democracy, as the threat always looms large for disaster in such a process.  It is even more crucial we avoid it in our republic.  Let’s consider the following. 

The national conventions held every four years by the two major political parties no longer select their presidential nominees.  They have become rubber stamps for what has transpired months, or in some cases, years before the opening gavels are sounded. 

Previously candidates would arrive at the conventions with a certain number of delegates won in caucuses, primary elections and those who had been successfully influenced in some political manner to provide support.  On Occasion, the number they gathered would fall short of what was required to win the party nomination.  So, they would slug it out at the convention, working to change or gain greater support from party powerbrokers and loyalists.  

After Robert Kennedy won the California primary in June of 1968 the delegates count stood at; Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey 561 (all Lyndon Johnson Supporters – Humphrey did not campaign in the primaries), Kennedy 393, and Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy 258.  None of the candidates had enough delegates to win the nomination which is why the last public words spoken by Kennedy were; “Now it’s on to Chicago and let’s win there.”  

Pew Research Center studies show that multiple ballot candidates seldom win the presidency.  It took Adlai Stevenson II three ballots to secure the necessary delegates to win the Democratic Party nomination in 1952.  He lost the election to Dwight D, Eisenhower (no one could have beaten a war hero of Ike’s stature in ’52 or ’56).   Nevertheless, political parties are committed to developing frontrunners through political maneuvering to secure the necessary delegates to win.  These frontrunners are then enthusiastically embraced at the convention and always nominated on the first ballot.  This manipulation short-circuits any competition or public debate over issues or the focus and direction for our country.  The voice of the people is effectively silenced. This demonstrates strong unity so the candidate can be rubber stamped. 

To further assure the appearance of unity and uncontested conventions, different processes have been implanted.  One such nasty process is that of “superdelegates.”  “Superdelegates” are composed of party leaders and elected officials (PLEO).  These delegates are considered unpledged until they voice support at the convention. Party officials can and often do instruct these delegates in exactly who they must support.      Pledged delates are those secured in state caucuses and primary elections. 

Both parties have adopted this system.  The Democrats, however, have refined it into an art form in limiting the voice of their party members to influence the outcome.  

The Democratic party has 713 “Superdelegates.”  We have been led to believe that Superdelegate support will be withheld until they are called upon to cast their vote at the conventions.  Yet, superdelegates have announced early support for Hillary Clinton well in advance of the convention. 

Even though Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary by a 60% to 38% margin, Hillary Clinton left the state with an equal number of delegates even though she lost in a landslide.  This was due to “Superdelegates” support being announced for her.  All through this election cycle, “Superdelegates” have been included in total delegates won in a state.  This has disadvantaged Saunders because it diminishes an accurate accounting and perception of his success in challenging Hillary Clinton. 

Critics have begun to ask why this undemocratic system exists.  CNN’s Jake Tapper posed the question on February 11^th to Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an ally of Hillary Clinton who co-chaired her former presidential campaign.  

Tapper; “What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?” 

Wasserman Schultz; “Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.”  

Translated that means “Superdelegates” exist to limit opposition to those who would challenge the Democratic power structure.  Wasserman Schultz is making it clear that the existing power structure will determine the nominee and no one else.  They are assuring they can suppress any challenge or opposition to their will and any threat to their power and dominance.  Thus, peace and unity appear present at the convention.  

While her response was shockingly blunt and honest, Tapper chose not to press her on it. Tapper said; “I’m not sure that that answer would satisfy an anxious young voter, but let’s move on.” 

This is most disturbing when viewed from the perspective that there are currently clear differences on the issues between those running for the Democratic Party nomination. Allowing their members to choose the candidate would also be risky in that that candidate may NOT represent party strategists believe is necessary to win.  Naturally, anything that could jeopardize winning must be eliminated from the equation.  Once again for continuity and the best chance of winning the party must maintain total control. 

What now follows this chicanery is the general election.  Because the vast majority of American believe that there are only two candidates to support, they will in turn rubber stamp these rubber-stamped nominees to serve as president.  

In light of the fact that the people have lost control of our elective process, it is time for a significant change.  This will require the American people to be far more engaged in the political process far sooner than most are comfortable in doing.  If we are too complacent – too comfortable – too self-absorbed – too disinterested to act we will seriously jeopardize one of our most precious liberties.  We will be relegating ourselves to the role of acting as rubber stamps while never essentially determining the future well-being of those we care most about and dearly love. 

 

##############################################

Democrats had a choice that was stolen from them 

Wealth Used As Political Influence 

Hillary Clinton:  Has a personal net wealth of over $45 million.  That’s over 50 times as much as Bernie Sanders.  She amassed that kind of wealth through a career spent almost solely in public service.  Over 80% of Clinton’s campaign contributions are coming from rich powerful donors such as Wall Street.  Super Pacs have been created in support of her  

Bernie Sanders: “…let's not be naive about it.”

“I have never heard a candidate—never—who's received huge amounts of money… who doesn't say, 'Oh, these contributions will not influence me,… ' But why do they make millions of dollars of campaign contributions? They expect to get something.”  “I don’t represent large corporations and I don’t want their money.”  “We are relying on small campaign donors, 750,000 of them, thirty bucks apiece. That's who am I indebted to.” 

Health Care 

Hilary Clinton:  Believes our health care system should remain under the control of the private sector (insurance companies). 

Bernie Sanders:  Believes we should institute a single payer universal health care system similar to those employed by every other industrialized nation in the world. 

Minimum Wage 

Poverty Level established by Federal Gov. - $24,250.00 Yearly 

Hillary Clinton: Proposed $12.00 an hour - $24,960.00 Yearly 

Bernie Sanders: Favors $15.00 an hour - $31,200.00 Yearly 

College Education Costs 

Hillary Clinton:  Wants to tinker with interest rates and payment schedules. 

Bernie Sanders: “Higher education must be a right for all – Not just wealthy families.” And; “If Germany, Denmark, Sweden and many more provide tuition- free college…We should do the same thing.” 

Social Security and Medicare 

Hillary Clinton:  Does NOT want it repealed.  She is silent on any methods for increasing or improving the system. 

Bernie Sanders: “Our job is to expand the life of Social Security by decades by scrapping the cap on taxable income…” “We should be talking about expanding the benefits to make sure that every American can retire with dignity.”  

Brooks Fills Buckley Void

It has been accurately stated that the most significant loss to American political scene with the passing of William F. Buckley is a voice of reason.  Buckley had the uncanny knack of successfully exposing many of the destructive elements and individuals within the “so-called” conservative movement.  

The rationale, and thus the accuracy of the statement, stems from Buckley’s exposing and thus obliterating the John Birch Society’ influence as well as discrediting  an endless list of charlatans calling themselves conservatives.  If Buckley were still able to wet his pencil it is assured the Tea Party, Donald Trump, the constitutional obstructionists and the host of other crackpots now occupying center stage for the GOP would have been sent packing long before they got a foothold in our political process. 

 

There is one voice trying to fill that void today.  It is New York Times syndicated columnist David Brooks.  Brooks, however, does not have the bully pulpit that Buckley had.  No television show, no national magazine, no repeated appearances on the most popular television programs, no unified Republican and conservative support.  He does have NPR and PBS where he can be digested on a regular basis and of course his columns – in era when asking people to digest 750 words rather than the a sparse 250 characters of information is viewed as overly taxing.

 

A sampling of Brook’s wisdom and what Buckley would be saying today is most evident in Brooks’ evaluation of the current crop of Republican candidates, as recently expressed on the PBS News Hour.

 

“Yes, Ted Cruz is making headway.” “…you begin to see little signs of liftoff.

 

“Trump has sort of ceiling-ed out. Carson is collapsing. And Cruz is somehow beginning to get some momentum from Iowa and elsewhere. And so people are either mimicking him, which Rubio is doing a little by adopting some of the dark and satanic tones (of) Cruz…” “… if you watch a Cruz speech, it’s like, we have got this enemy,…we’re going to stomp on this person, we’re going to crush that person, we’re going to destroy that person.”

 

“It is an ugly world in Ted Cruz’s world. And it’s combative. And it’s angry, and it’s apocalyptic… it’s dark… and, frankly, harsh. It’s (primarily)…We’re on the edge of the abyss. You need a tough guy to beat that back. And that’s his personality. “

 

“That’s not Marco Rubio’s personality. He’s…been running the youthful optimism campaign, but he’s beginning, to prevent Cruz from getting liftoff, to mimic sort of that, (angry Cruz)… it’s a mistake, because inauthentic —almost never works. And so, if… Rubio starts to go like Cruz, he just doesn’t look like himself, and that bothers people.”

 

If someone more mainstream (Rubio, Kasich, Christie, Bush) does not emerge from the eventual ashes of trash now dominating the GOP, a schism is very likely to occur, the possibility of which would never have never been considered in a political arena influenced by Chairman Bill.

Christmas Is a Mothers Love

The Christmas season always presents us with the stark reminder of the importance of love, compassion and selfless behavior.  It is the one time of the year when we universally make sacrifices that place others before our own comforts and desires - a reminder that life is so much more important than just ourselves.  Such a reminder was recently brought to light.

There was once a day when the most beautiful women could be found in three professions.  They were actresses, models and airline stewardesses. 

Stewardesses traveled the world.  Their layovers allowed them to spend time in exotic locales and because of their beauty they were always in demand for evening and night time activities.  A date with an airline stewardess was considered a trophy date that brought with it legitimate bragging rights.

It was also a time when pregnancies out of wedlock carried with them a harsh social stigma.  As such, they were always dealt with very quietly and very discreetly.  Should a young lady find herself burdened with an unwanted pregnancy she would vanish for a time to an unwed mother’s home miles away from where anyone would know her.  She would get proper care, give birth and then her baby would be adopted.  She would then return home and renew her life as it was before her pregnancy.  Naturally, a word was never breathed to anyone except for those who had an absolute need to know.  Such was the case with a stewardess over 40 years ago.

Over the years she had married and had a family of her own.  Only her husband, and no one else in their lives, was aware of the daughter she gave up for adoption.

A mother’s love can be unparalleled.   Over the decades, the former stewardess’s love never diminished nor did her yearning for the opportunity to be part of the daughter’s life.  Finally, her husband contacted the family attorney requesting he find the daughter.

The daughter now lived some 1,500 miles away and was in a longstanding marriage with a daughter of her own and had a successful professional career.  Next the adoptive parents were contacted and asked for their permission for the former stewardess to contact her birth child.  They agreed as did the daughter. 

The husband’s family was now made aware that their family had just grown by another two members.  All were thrilled and lovingly embraced those new members.  They will all be celebrating Christmas together this year.

A thought came to mind as this was told to me.  It reminded me of yet another mother – mother Teresa: “We have not come into the world to be a number; we have been created for a purpose, for great things:  To love and be loved.”  For nothing characterizes Christmas and what should be our guiding force in life any better than these two mothers.  

UAW Gets Bad Rap

The United Auto Workers (UAW) recently agreed to new, four-year contracts with auto manufacturers.  The agreements were ratified by the slimiest of margins.  A large number of workers, almost a majority, were, and still are, displeased with their hourly wage – their spendable income – the income badly needed to stimulate the economy.    

As is always the case, the UAW came under the altogether familiar, harsh and irrational criticism they always encounter when wages are at the heart of a dispute.  Management and their bidders immediately point to the total compensation package each worker receives to create an image of greed and unreasonableness within the union and its members.  

In early October Fiat Chrysler Automobile (FCA) workers rejected the first contract offer.  What followed were company press releases designed to divert attention from wage issues to create the image of extravagant demands.  The releases focused on auto workers earning more than $100,000 yearly in BOTH wages and benefits at FCA, Ford and GMC.  They naturally avoided any discussion of wage compensation - the heart of the dispute.

So, let’s look at wages.  Let’s see just how greedy these folks really are.

Auto workers have NOT had an increase in pay for a decade.  Under the new UAW agreement “veteran workers” will receive 3 percent increases in 2015 and 2017.  On average the numbers look like the following:

Current      Increases    New Yrly.

$15.78         $6.72           $31,470

$16.66         $7.34           $36,109

$17.53         $8.47           $41,870

$18.41         $9.59           $48,589

$19.28         $10.42         $56,181

The new pacts put workers hired since 2007 on a path to full wages within eight years.  The membership complained that was too long.  It became a major bone of contention. 

Next is the fact that different salary levels exist in different plants around the country.  Therefore, another response to worker demands was that the total compensation packages in southern plants are some $40,000 less than in northern plants.  It is certainly less expensive to live in Alabama than it is to live in a major metropolitan area like Detroit.  While Alabamans may live comfortably, those in Detroit are struggling. Using Alabama as a means to club Michigan into submission is no different than sending jobs overseas to reduce wage costs to slave labor levels.  This tactic provides not one scintilla of benefit to the American economy.  

The numbers clearly reveal that UAW workers are hardly going to get rich.  Spendable incomes needed to generate an equivalent lifestyle to that enjoyed in the 1960’s would require wages – JUST A WAGES – to exceed $100,000 today.  How negatively would our economy have been impacted if wages had kept pace with inflation?  If the average American workers had gradually advanced forward to making the $100,000 a year income commensurate with meeting the demands of inflation, commensurate with maintaining equal levels of spending power over the years, would we have been less prosperous?  Based upon today’s realities, auto worker demands for increased wages - spendable income – the income badly needed to stimulate the economy – are hardly out of line.  If anything, they are very meager. 

Which bring us to benefits. 

If we are to believe those costs are exorbitant then we need information that is not readily provided and available.  When dealing with the large numbers of individuals under UAW contracts it is safe to conclude the administrative costs alone are likely considerable.  Are those costs met with just union dues or are they part and parcel of the health care package contained in the contract?  We would also need to know how aggressively union officials seek out and employ the most competitive bids for health insurance products and services. 

What we already know is that health care costs alone stretch and burden budgets for everyone today.  A family cannot be without that very expensive security and protection.  To suggest that auto workers or any other employee is getting fat off of this reality is truly disingenuous.  

And the final point:  Is the company burdened or threatened by all these deceptively perceived extravagances?  

Ford Motor Company reported record profits again this year.  As we have seen on more than one occasion, their financial security and mismanagement is insured by federal and state governments as their higher echelon employees enjoy lavish lifestyles. 

This is issue and struggle is reminiscent of the awful battle Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton had to fight in attempting to attain increased salary levels for his state commissioners.  Why are we so terrified at the prospect of an affluent middle class when we know that was the key factor in ONCE establishing America as the greatest country in the world???  We can be our worst enemies.

Change Never As Easy As Just Voting

Contemporary American vernacular requires we read between the lines whenever the concept of change is bandied about.

 For example; when the Minnesota Vikings assured us that Percy Harvin wasn’t going anywhere, we all knew his days were numbered.  Sure enough, a few weeks later he was a Seattle Seahawk.

Or when a large corporation buys a smaller concern and everyone is assured that nothing will change, we know big changes are on the horizon. 

Then there are all those politicians and political pundits who are forever speculating that changes are forthcoming that never materialize.  Such will be the end result of our most recent midterm elections.

We will, of course, hear from the Republican faithful.  They’ll be boasting that the outcome is a clear and overwhelming mandate for change and the rebuke of President Obama’s policies almost none of which have been enacted during the last six years.

Democrats will be scurrying about scaring their flock into believing the end is near and they had better marshal their forces to avoid cataclysmic destruction in 2016.

Yes – The same old rhetoric.  No change there.   

How about the fact that the 2014 midterm elections found voter turnout to be dramatically down from general election turnouts?  History has shown that midterm voter turnout has steadily decreased since 1840.  Further study also reveals this almost always bodes well for Republicans.  So, no change there.

Certainly, it is huge that Republicans now have total control of the legislative branch of our government?  But wait…Voting trends since 1948 clearly reveal that Americans love divided government.  Every President from Harry Truman to now Barack Obama has had to govern with the opposition party in control of the legislative branch during a portion of their time in office.  Okay – So nothing changes there.

Certainly, future Republican control of the senate will allow those rascals to easily pass whatever legislation suits their fancy.  Gone – ALL GONE - is The Affordable Care Act, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the minimum wage, unemployment insurance…unless or more accurately until…the Democrats, under Harry Reid’s tutelage, take a page from the Republican’s play book and implement the silent filibuster to block any and all Republican initiatives.  THIS REPUGNANT legislative maneuver could have met its demise on January 24, 2013.  It survived because Democratic senate majority leader Harry Reid refused to support its extinction thus securing its continuance by a 78 to 16 vote.  This was after Reid stated the practice had become abusive and should be suspended.  Could it be that ole Harry knew his party would be in the minority by 2015 and therefore didn’t want to lose this dagger in the heart of democracy as a future weapon?  Wonder how he would have known that?

And let’s not forget that the president has the veto pen.  Anything that does not meet with his satisfaction he can veto and send back to the senate.  Unlike the silent filibuster that now requires 60 senate votes to suspend, a veto override still requires a two-thirds majority vote of 66 senators.  The Republicans will have 53 or 54 such votes leaving them far short of the necessary punch needed to mandate their will.  And hence intransigence lives on.

If change is what we truly seek, it can only come about through the following:

 ·        The bigoted and obstructionist John Bircher Society devotees of congress that now hold their seats under the banner of The Tea Party must be expunged.  That means ending the gerrymandering of congressional districts.

 ·        The election of a strong decisive leader to the Oval Office who has the ability to gain and hold unquestionable public support.

 ·        Following the six-point program outlined by former Oklahoma Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards in his treatise on “How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans.”  

 ·        A massive uprising by the American people in the form of committed and unrelenting activism.

 Change cannot occur without the combination of a large voting contingency dedicated to electing well-intentioned public servants and activism.  It will never occur in the hands of those whose primary ambition is the feathering of their own political nests rather than a commitment to the betterment of America.   A consensus in conjunction with a strong voter turnout will always result in change…but, that is entirely in the hands of “we the people”.

Voting The Common Good

Elections can be troubling.

The motivations of the electorate in their decision-making process can be based on factors that are void of the general welfare and common good of the nation.  

Some make their decision based on fear of the opposition, sometimes outright hatred of the opposition. 

Others base their decision solely on political party indoctrination.  

Then there are those one issue voters who are seemingly unaware of any possible negative ramifications to our country from what will benefit them the most.  

 How do we avoid the entrapment of all this clutter to cast a truly civic minded vote?  The answer was provided by a wise high school civics teacher.  Brother (Christian Brother) Michael Brian emphasized there is no substitute for the truth and the truth may not always be in your own self-interest.   

You must be stubbornly diligent in creating a thirst for only the truth.  The truth you seek must be based on irrefutable factual information.  You must guard against as Rudyard Kipling wrote; “the truth…twisted by knaves to set a trap for fools.”  Today’s media are riddled with spin which is nothing more than deceit cloaked as the truth. 

The astute teacher further added that we must all be equally committed to exposing ALL lies and deceit as well as ALL forms of fear and hatred promulgated on both sides of the political spectrum. 

Brother Michael concluded by saying this is hard work which, unfortunately, way too few are willing to perform.  Then the words that still resonate to this day; “No one ever said democracy was easy.  Nothing worthwhile ever is.” 

Polarization and tribalism have reached epic levels in America.  This intransigence has resulted in our turning away from political considerations and an along with it an aggressive search for the truth.  This in turn has resulted in an abandonment of our civic responsibility to the collective general welfare of the nation.  If we continue to foster this mindset, we will get ever closer to the day when the Rod Blagojevichs of this country will occupy the oval office.   

Vision a Bit Shortsighted

The Hotel experience was once a very regal affair.

Sometime in the late twentieth century the Minneapolis city fathers determined the beautiful construction and ornate lavish style of its older hotels no longer fit with the city’s vision of the future.  

Gone is the Nicollet Hotel which opened in 1924 and was torn down in 1991.  Gone is the Curtis Hotel built in 1903 and razed in 1984. And most sadly of all, gone is the Leamington Hotel built in 1912 and destroyed in 1990.  

The Leamington sat at Third Avenue and Tenth Street across from the Curtis.  It was once the proud temporary home of the greatest entertainers of day, such as Duke Ellington, along with former Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan, as well as former Vice President, Minnesota U.S. Senator and Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey.  It has been replaced with a parking ramp.

 A visit to Rice Park in the downtown St. Paul is always a special treat during the holiday season.   After experiencing the beautiful lights, the exquisite Christmas tree and the special featured highlights of this glorious season, walk across the street and visit the St. Paul Hotel. 

Stop in; even if it is just for an adult beverage or club soda.  Look around and admire the splendor of the architecture, the incredible vision and conception in its planning and the lost art of the workmanship and genius in its construction.  While you are basking in the majesty of this grand old hotel, you might also offer a prayer that this stately structure is never introduced to the wrecking ball.  For it is almost all we left to admire from that very special bygone era.