Do the Presidential Debates Do Anything?

I have watched the political debates with a sense of civic responsibility. I have watched them all in their entirety and plan to watch and next one as well. Though I do not like the rhetoric that usually takes place, I feel it is important to be informed and aware of how the combatants speak and posture. Or, perhaps I’m just being a masochist.

Though Clinton always fares better in the factual department than trump, it does not seem to make much difference to the public. Politifact and other such fact checkers point out that Clinton mainly speaks accurately and Trump lies most of the time. Yet, they remain in nearly equal in terms of supporters. So, can one conclude that truthfulness is not all that important to voters. Sadly, that may well be the case.

What I believe most folk see is that Clinton reflects the status quo and Trump garners the support of folk who want to see change. I think it is true that Clinton does represent the political norm, she also has a long history of solid support for social change for the good of the common folk, while maintaining ties with the power brokers. I would like to see more change on the political horizon that what she offers.

Trump on the other hand, always seems to go for the lowest common denominator. He recognizes and plays to base human instincts and the things we fear. His words are inflammatory and reflect the racism, sexism, genderism, and all the other isms that folk who are unhappy with their lot and the seek a scapegoat on which to place their fears. Trump also is always concerned about himself, narcissistically. He also seems to totally lack a moral compass, no real sense of right and wrong, only what he sees as beneficial to his own well-being. I think he is a narcissistic sociopath.

For the folk who see Trump as an agent of change in the political scene, I would ask them what change do they want? Many seem to want to go back to the 19^th Century, the laissez faire era where the rich and powerful dominated the scene and the common folk barely eked out a living. They romantically envision a future where the individualistic strong man in a white hat can win the day with the fastest gun; but it is a false notion that didn’t work that way.

I want to see significant change in the political scene as well. Instead of blind individualism, I support the change that is based upon the common good. In Star Trek/Spock terms “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or ‘one’).” We need change as envisioned by the Roosevelt’s, Teddy and Franklin, one Republican and one a Democrat, but both progressive. They instituted programs that moved us away from the oligarchical attitudes of the day to the common well-being of a democracy. Since Reagan we have wandered afar from that vision back to a seeming plutocracy where the national debt has exploded and the wealth has been redistributed to the few. We all know the numbers by now; the change that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren embody. Donald Trump would not bring real change to the country, he would just further than wealth and power of the rich over the needs of others. Our country fares far better, socially and economically, when we have a strong middle class. The change Trump wants makes us more of a plutocracy – government by and for the wealthy.

One fears not only about the caliber of candidates today, but also the thoughts and actions of the voters in this nation. We do not seem interested enough to study and reflect upon our political views but more inclined to go with the popular, or emotional pulls to our vested interests. More so, we do not even seem to be able to understand what is best for our vested interests. We seem not moved by great debate but by slogans that feed our prejudices. Perhaps we get the government we deserve by our lack of political depth. It seems apparent to our European cousins who marvel at our lack of vision in a land of plenty.

My political point of view is primarily the outgrowth of my theology; my religious training and reflection. Christianity and most other religions, do look for the common good and emphasize care for our neighbors; all of them. The teachings of Jesus call out to us to look our for the needs of others, to accept responsibility for the care and nurture of nature; to be concerned for the common good and to assume the roles of servant leaders. From this standpoint, it seems clear to me that Clinton far surpasses Trump as a leader for our country. And in the future, I would like to see the progressive leadership and envision by Sanders and Warren.

Whatever the future may hold I would hope that we all will discern that we are to be the caretakers of each other, servant leaders holding onto the model of Jesus and others, working for the common good.

Socialism vs. Social Democrats

Listening to folk and reading blurbs on the Internet, it occurs to me that a lot of folk have difficulty distinguishing between socialism and being a social democrat, such as Bernie Sanders. As we learned from Sesame Street, “one thing is not like the other” similarities perhaps but not the same.

Some definitions from Wikipedia:

Socialism is a political ideology and movement which has proposed a set of social and economic measures, policies and systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production.

Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving welfare state provisions, collective bargaining arrangements, regulation of the economy in the general interest, measures for income redistribution, and a commitment to representative democracy.^[1][2][3]   [italics ^[mine]

There you have it; in socialism the government owns the means of productions – companies, in a social democracies companies are privately owned but government works to ensure that there is an economic justice applied to the income derived from these companies through various ways. Perhaps it is best just to compare Russia to the Scandinavian countries. Russia is a socialist country that only recently has seen fit to use a bit of capitalism. The Scandinavian countries are social democracies that have successfully provided a high standard of living for all their citizens through social justice means.

In a recent Des Moines Register a poll showed that 43% of Iowans consider themselves to be socialists. Say What? Socialists? But they really aren’t socialists; they are social democrats like the Scandinavians and other European cousins. They want the wealth redistributed more equitably than it is now in our country.

Now, where are our presidential candidates in all of this? Bernie Sanders is easy. He clearly states he is a social democrat, and from the above definition we can now understand what that means. He is not a socialist, despite what name-calling takes place by his opponents.

Hillary Clinton calls herself a progressive democrat. Is that just another word for a Liberal?  David Sirota explains the difference between the this way; he says, “there is a fundamental difference when it come to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional ’liberals’ in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A ‘progressive’ are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.” Hmm, sounds a lot like a social democrat doesn’t it.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t real differences between Hillary and Bernie, there are. Bernie want a single payer medical system (socialized medicine), Hillary doesn’t; she wants to keep those insurance companies private.

What we have in this country and have had for a long time is a mixed economy. We combine capitalism, socialism, and social democratic ideas. We want free enterprise but we also want socialized medicine for retired folk and those of ill health. We want life insurance companies but we also want social security programs maintained. Most Republicans want that, so, in that sense they are social democrats.

There are a lot of folk today who profess that they really want to go back to frontier days and have as little government as possible. I find that a bit romantic and also naïve. The country has just changed too much over the years to go back to a pioneer type government. We are a big country and we need a big government to take care of the needs of citizens. Strangely I find that Republican administrations have grown the size of government and Democratic ones reduced it. Look at the numbers of recent administrations. But I wander off.

What I am interested in here is understanding what we mean when we throw terms around. Understanding the terms we understand who we are better and what our political concerns are. I suspect that most folk in the country want the social justice that a social democrat like Bernie Sanders promotes, but they may not support the name. So, if you ask them if they are a social democrat they will say, ‘no way.’  But if you lay out the programs a social democrat advocates such as minimum wages, higher taxes for the wealthy (progressive taxes), health care for all citizens, equal educational opportunities for all citizens and the like, they are for those things.

As for me, I’m a Communal Populist.

Our New Coffee Table

We recently found ourselves in need of a small coffee table in our new digs and thought of this old wood crate; when and where it was acquired no one remembers.

I got a 4x4 and cut off 4 4" chunks and made some legs and lo and behold, we have a new coffee table. We rather like it.

remember good old cracker jacks?

Now, what were ribbon corn confections?