Overheard in the News: The Middle Class

Was watching the bottom line on the TV at the workout center as I was doing my leg presses. Saw an interview happening with Juan Williams, one of their political commentators. The info on the screen said:

How the Democrats lost the middle class.

Sadly, as a lifelong Democrat, I had to shake my head in dismay at the truth of the statement. Yes, the Democratic Party has lost the support of the middle class. Democrats have become so adept at pulling defeat from the jaws of victory, that I fear at times for a two-party system. (Exaggeration, of course, for effect! But perhaps only a slight exaggeration.)

What the GOP has managed to do in the meantime is get their message so wonderfully wrapped in supporting the middle class that they look like the saving grace for those who are in the middle.  They can spin their policies like a top and come out looking great. Even when most of the evidence points in other directions. They continue to repeat promises that they turn around and forget to do.

And the Dems continue to think they know how to get through this. The leadership often looks and sounds as unreliable as the GOP. Everyone sounds like a politician saving their own skin- or their party's ideology.

In reality neither party at this moment in history is doing anything that truly helps the middle class. What they both ignore is that if we did pay appropriate and caring attention to the needs of the middle class there would be an improvement in the economy, the national morale, and the outlook for the future.

• That will not be accomplished by giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy in some trickle-down fantasy. That is taking money from the middle and lower classes. 
• Neither will that be accomplished by greater focus on only the poor, taking money from the middle class. What made America great was the middle and lower classes working together to produce a society, a culture, and an economy for all. 

 Until we start thinking in those terms on a more regular basis, we will get nowhere important or significant and only continue to run in circles.

Ready for GOP Week?

In my mind is an awful memory. It was Chicago. The year was 1968. The nation was probably as divided as it had been since the Civil War. We watched as police and protestors clashed in Grant Park and outside the convention center and delegates' hotels. Walter Cronkite called the scene outside a "police state." An investigation later called it a police riot. Mayor Daley's face is forever etched into my memory as he angrily made a fist and scowled at the camera.

This has been a nightmare for 48 years. It was a low point in our political process. I watched it all with fear and anger, sadness and disbelief. We had seen so many riots and protests around the world and were witnesses to the failed attempt at a democratic breakthrough in Czechoslovakia which had been squashed by the Soviets less than a week earlier. There were, to many, eerie similarities. We can't be seeing this in our own country, can we?

The protestors picked up a chant from Prague:

The Whole World is Watching

which indeed it was.

The whole world is watching again, I am sure, as the GOP gathers in Cleveland, OH to nominate Donald Trump as their presidential candidate. The whole world watches because what we do here in the US can have significant impact around the world. What we do here is not limited to our borders.

The whole world is watching and try as I might, the pictures of Chicago 1968 are as fresh as ever- and as fearful as ever. Maybe even more so. We have already seen some violence at Trump campaign events and protests are promised for Cleveland. In the past few years there has been increased violence in protests against police. We have seen riots in many different cities, protests ending in arrests, a sniper attack against police and a mind-numbing series of mass murders against whoever the deranged individuals want to attack. At the same time many police forces have become more militarized, almost like small armies. It is all a set-up for disaster. In short, we are living on the edge.

The Democrats aren't in a much better position, although they are working together to mend their internally broken fences. Anything can happen there, as well. Philadelphia isn't exactly a small-town and has had its share of problems. Headlines indicate that things could wreak havoc there as well as in Cleveland.

In many ways our political and cultural system is facing the most important two weeks in many decades. Police forces in two big cities have one of the most difficult tasks they have seen in just as long. Americans like to protest. It's how we got started several centuries ago. They will be there at both conventions.

I am trying to remain hopeful and calm. It is a difficult task these days. For most of us this is all out of our hands. We will be observers, like the rest of the world. We can do nothing about it directly. But I am going to do a couple things for my part:

• I will be praying for peace. I will be praying that we can recognize our fellow Americans of all political, racial, gender orientation, or opinion. We are all Americans and need to work together to keep our American experiment moving forward.
• I will make a pledge to avoid making inflammatory statements or judgments. Sadly, though, it has reached a point where making any statement of opinion on one side of an issue or another brings condemnation. We must move beyond that! We must re-learn how to dialogue. I will work somehow to do that.

That may not sound like a lot- and it isn't in the whole scheme of things. But it is what I can do. Perhaps the Serenity Prayer needs to be at the center of my life for the next two weeks. I invite you to join me. It may not change what happens in Cleveland and Philadelphia, but it may help each of us to find our way in these difficult times.

God grant us the serenity 

to accept the things we cannot change,

the courage to change the things we can,

and the wisdom to know the difference.

The Need For Two Strong Parties

We need a strong, healthy two party system. So said Barack Obama on The Tonight Show last week. He was expressing sadness at what he sees happening in the GOP. Two healthy parties are necessary for the dialogue that is part of America's greatness. We have not had that in a number of years.

The current version of this started with Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America during the Bill Clinton presidency. The ideologicalizing (my word) of American political parties really expanded to a mania. Everyone had to pass a litmus test for their party. As time moved on, compromise became a dirty word, a sign of capitulating to the ideological enemy. Good and bad, right and wrong, all became political fingers pointing to the opposite party.

This election cycle has brought to light all the dysfunction in the GOP and, to a lesser extent, the Democrats. I am not so deeply versed in political history, but I have a hunch it has been a very long time since the leaders of a particular political party try to support and distance themselves, simultaneously(!), from their party's standard bearer. That is a deep division! If they lose in the fall, they will blame Trump (and probably Obama) for their defeat. They will not see how 20+ years of deepening ideological litmus tests they have brought it on themselves.

The GOP convention starts one month from tomorrow. The sideshow will continue as it appears Trump has no plans on easing-up his message, become more "presidential" or even seeking to truly bring his party together. What will happen next month? In this election cycle, all bets are off.

In the long run we, as a nation, need two parties that can work together to govern in spite of differences. We need leadership! That is what has helped us remain the United States.

My wife commented the other day that perhaps we are on the cusp of a new reframing, a new adaptation of the American Dream. There was, obviously, the Civil War with post-Reconstruction taking a step backward from some  of those gains. There was the Great Depression leading into World War II that realigned many idea. That began to fall apart in the 60s and we are now seeing the results of that era, Watergate, etc.

Each time we have made positive strides. We need to work together on doing that again.

Defeating Demagogues

A few weeks ago I wrote about demagogues and their history. I noted that demagogues are found only in democracies since they need to get public support for their discriminatory, prejudicial, anger-filled positions. While they can sometimes appear to be progressives, in reality they are simply opportunists seeking their own self-promotion. We have had our share of demagogues in American history, Sen. Joseph McCarthy's Red-baiting witch hunt of the 1950s being the most famous and far-reaching.

Until now.

Michael Singer, mayor of Charlottesville, VA, an attorney and lecturer at the University of Virginia, has been since the last election cycle about the rise and danger of Donald Trump, our latest national demagogue. He is the author of Demagogue: The Fight to Save Democracy from Its Worst Enemies (2009) and has applied his general insight on demagogues to Trump. In a February 29 article in the Washington Post Singer listed four ways demagogues damage their country when they take power.

• First, a demagogue imperils his country in the international arena.
• The second danger is that the demagogue will surround himself with incompetent and dangerous advisers.
• The third danger is that the demagogue, who ascends to power by manipulating the passions of his followers, will fall prey to passions of his own.(Most often a demagogues narcissism will turn to other passions, issues, and plain old belief that they are above the law.)
• Fourth, demagogues like Trump threaten dissenters in an effort to silence them. (Singer)

We have seen the manifestations of all of these over the past year with statements and actions from Trump and his supporters. Many have reacted to him with uncertainty and even fear. But many have also been afraid to challenge him or call him on his dangerous world-view for fear of attacks from him. The GOP, which should have tried to do something before now, has been handicapped by their desire to stop anything related to Obama or Clinton. They were blind to the problem they themselves created.

After yesterday's Wisconsin primary, though, there may be an inkling of hope. Admittedly Ted Cruz has enough uncertain stands and fear-inducing statements. But he did show that with a concerted effort, Trump can be stopped. He lost by a very significant 13 points. (It may be interesting to note that Wisconsin was the home of Joseph McCarthy. Maybe there is a sense of not wanting to repeat history?)

But even that hope has its dangers. In its attempt to stop Trump at this late stage, they may very easily destroy themselves for this election year. Their only hope is that in the end Trump will self-destruct, his paranoia and prejudice, his hate and fear-mongering causing him to implode.

That is what happens to most demagogues in a democratic country that has a rich history like ours. They go too far, their narcissism gets the best of them, they believe their own rhetoric and then use their rabid but minority supporters as proof.

But we as a people can also do our part. Back in 2010 Singer wrote an article for The Daily Beast titled "How to Beat the Demagogues". (Link) He outlined how America has defeated what he called "militant manias" in the past.

1. Ad hominem attacks can backfire.
Ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies that attack the individual rather than the position they are maintaining. When the demagogue's opponents resort to these kind of arguments, they end up hurting their own cause. Even though the demagogue often resorts to this since they usually have poorly defined actual positions, to respond in kind often brings a reactionary response that only perpetuates the negative discourse.

2. Help educate people about our constitutional traditions.
Many times demagogues clearly care little about our American democratic and constitutional traditions. Even as they hide behind them, they are often ready to change them to suit their own ideology. The GOP's difficulty in maintaining a clear, positive constitutional stance has only assisted people like Trump. Their recent and ongoing refusal to have hearings on a Supreme Court nominee is a clear example.

3. Extreme opportunists usually self-destruct.
The ultimate hope for everyone challenged by demagogues is this one that I have already addressed above. Trump's response to his loss yesterday may very well start this process. How he attempts to spin the loss into something in his favor through blaming others could sow the seeds of his own defeat. Of course his defeat will never be his own fault.

4. Side with the people and show them results.
A demagogues opponents need to stay positive and give a clear alternative world-view to the one being espoused by the demagogue. While someone like Trump will attempt to be the person of the people's views, a consistent, concise, and positive approach to the same issues can go a long way. Again, the GOP's extremely anti-Obama stance over the past 8 years has set a negative precedent that has fueled Trump's rhetoric. Even in Wisconsin, the whole approach seems to have been "Stop Trump!" and not a more clearly laid out plan. It was an ad hominem approach which still could backfire. They must do something differently than they have before.

The Democrats need to be doing the same thing. Their biggest hope would be to be a clear alternative to the negativity of Trump and the toxic atmosphere that has fed his rise. Unfortunately, as the "under dog" Sanders has gained momentum, the establishment begins to react out of fear. Both sides there have moved toward personal attacks after what had been a somewhat civil discourse. Unless they can show they have a positive alternative, the election will continue to be difficult to watch.

Overall, perhaps, the greatest caution we should pay attention to comes from Singer in his 2010 article about how to beat the demagogues.

Demagogues have always been a mirror for the people. When democracies turn to lawlessness, it’s because the people abandon constitutionalism for the lowest common denominator. Conversely, when audiences choose the law over vandalism, it’s because the people have decided to protect their country.

Wisconsin yesterday gave me some hope that we might be at a turning point. I know it is still too early to tell, but as I have said before, ultimately I continue to believe in the American people. We will often rise to heights of honor and dedication to our country and our democratic way of life. This is one of those times that we will need to.

Demagogues: Built on Fear; Inciting Fear

Another election year Tuesday is soon upon us. In the last couple weeks as Donald Trump has been moving closer to a possible nomination. As that has been going on there continues to be the discussion of Trump as a “demagogue.” Adding to that thought were videos of protestors being punched at Trump rallies, then the protests and clashes in Chicago that moved Trump to cancel a rally there on Friday.

So, I asked, what really is a demagogue? Here is some information from Discovery.com:

Webster’s defines a demagogue as “a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.” The word comes from the ancient Greek demos, or people, referring to common or working poor.

Over time, it has been applied to political figures who have used fear, paranoia and scapegoating to win support. [Senator Joseph McCarthy, the “communist-hunting” senator in the 1950s, is often cited as the single best example in American politics.]

The term has also been used to describe GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, who called Mexican immigrants "drug traffickers and rapists" and … proposed closing the United States to all Muslims.

So far, so good. Popular prejudices, false claims and promises. In some ways it sounds like many politicians. What makes demagogues different? It seems it is the aspect of playing on prejudices and clearly false claims. McCarthy would make unsupportable statements as fact. Then, because he said them, they were reported as facts. No one was able to check on them- or if they did they were censured and attacked by McCarthy and his supporters.

But the article goes on.

“There’s a fine line between populism and demagoguery,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for American Politics. “Both words describe rabble-rousers. Populism can be used for good, to invoke the little guy versus big business or big government. Demagoguery is a kind of extreme populism that preys on peoples worst fears and often hidden emotions.”

Something else became clear when reading that paragraph. In some ways it explains the rise of a “rabble-rouser” on both sides of the political scene this year. The GOP has Trump, although no one would call him a populist. He is the one building on anger as well as fear. He stirs hatred in much of what he says. He is channeling the anger and hatred of others, consolidating it in himself, and then giving it a type of legitimacy.

Sanders, on the other side, has an edge to him as well. He does not inflame anger as much as offer promises to overcome the fears of those who think the “1%” is too powerful. But, like Trump, he is tapping into energy and underlying concerns of groups of people.

It is interesting to note that, while both build from people’s fears and concerns, it appears that by definition, the demagogue goes beyond what is good into incitement of greater fears and potential difficulties. Was this past weekend’s clash in Chicago (ironic!) indicative of potential difficulties coming?

But why here? Back to the article:

Alan Levine, political science professor at American University, says that demagogues only exist in a democracy.

Their rise occurs before a dictatorship is successful, and so in his opinion dictators like Hitler do not fit the bill as demagogues.

“A demagogue exists in a democratic contest and maintains a technical legitimacy through winning votes. A dictator doesn’t need that kind of legitimacy. Dictators are worse than demagogues, who still operate in a democratic system,” Levine said. “To the extent that which our politicians ignore the Constitution, and don’t feel bound by the Constitution, that lays the stages for the coming of a demagogue.”

Quite a bunch of interesting information in all that. The take-away is that demagogues arise in democracies. Which would allow for Hitler to have started as a demagogue since he was first elected and then gathered the power to himself, taking over as a dictator while building on the fear and anger of the German people post-World War 1. What seems to make demagogues different is what I have to call a "negative" passion that is more "against" than it is "for." Demagogues build on hatred and fear, but give no solutions other than building walls, inflaming prejudice, and reinforcing stereotypes. Demagogues place loose and easy with truth, yet lay out their opinions as true.

We have had some classic demagogues in American history. From Discovery.com again.

Pitchfork Ben Tillman:
He was a Democratic governor and U.S. senator from South Carolina. He led a paramilitary group during the state’s violent 1876 election. As governor, he helped passed bill to remove the right to vote for black men.
On the floor of the U.S. Senate, where he served until his death in 1925, he ridiculed blacks and boasted of helping kill them during that election. His aggressive language gave him the nickname “Pitchfork.”

Sometimes a populist can easily be seen as and act like a demagogue.

Huey 'Catfish' Long:
This outspoken Louisiana governor was also the inspiration for the main character in Robert Penn Warren’s novel “All the King’s Men,” about the rise of a southern politician and his downfall at the hands of an assassin.

Long was a true populist, who started a “Share the Wealth” program to redistribute tax revenues from corporations to the poor in his state. He also built charity hospitals, schools, roads and bridges as well as a substantial political operation throughout the state. Elected U.S. Senator in 1932, he continued to pass legislation through proxies in the Louisiana legislature.

Long was assassinated on the steps of the statehouse in 1935, a month after declaring his candidacy for the presidency, which was stoked by his nationwide "Share the Wealth" clubs. His enemies also called him a demagogue.He often did use National Guard troops to intimidate opponents.. or worse.

One from the past 50 years:

George Wallace:
Upon his election as governor of Alabama in 1962, Wallace vowed “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” The following year, he stood at the doors of the University of Alabama defying federal troops who were sent to enforce a Supreme Court order to allow blacks to attend the school.

The lifelong Democrat ran for president in 1968 as a third-party candidate with the American Independent Party, winning 46 electoral votes and 10 million popular votes. He returned as governor of Alabama, but was shot and paralyzed during an attempted assassination attempt during his 1972 presidential campaign. In his later years, Wallace apologized to black leaders and rejected his racist and segregationist views.

And the ultimate American demagogue up to this point is probably Senator Joe McCarthy. His hunt for communists in government and the entertainment business is legendary.

I will be writing more about this in the next week or so. Tomorrow is another election day, though. At this point, let's just watch and wait- and be very observant of what is happening. It is not a pretty year for American politics.