on democracy

TL;DR: many conservatives lately love reminding everyone that the US is not a democracy, it's a federal constitutional republic, using that fact to explain and rationalize political phenomena that benefit the right, when a pure democratic approach would benefit the left. the nature of the electoral college, as one example, as if there is no democracy anywhere within our political system, or that our political processes aren't even based on fundamentals of democracy.  to many on the right, it's more importantly to smugly sound correct, than actually be correct.

one popular falsehood that conservatives have been spreading lately, swirls around the concept of "democracy" and whether or not the US has any. i dunno, i don't really understand what they're after.

but let's unpack this, and see if we can show it for the--stupid--that it is.

in any kind of political conversation or debate, just wait for someone who leans left to make a comment about "american democracy", or that something or other is a "threat to our democracy". that's pretty much when those on the right will climb all over themselves to blurt out with smug pride "you're wrong. the US is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic." as if there is no democracy, pure or representative, anywhere in the system at any level. after all, for these folks it's more important to play smart, than it is to be correct, or understand the context of the conversation, let alone try to understand how our government works and why.

a pretty good example of this the past couple of years is the debate around the electoral college.

(spoiler alert: i actually agree with the electoral college process, but that’s a blog article for another day.)

let's for a moment get out of the way that both sides are a little bit wrong about the facts behind their position. meaning, when the left pops off about how the electoral college is a relic from the past that needs to be replaced, it's really mostly about the fact that they lost two recent presidential elections to it. and of course when the right pops off about how it needs to stay because of some lofty originalist ideals (that they may not even fully understand), it's mainly about the fact that they won, twice recently, while losing the popular vote, and that the electoral college is the only defense the real americans from the heartland have against urban elites. sigh...

even president trump was famously against the electoral college...
wait for iiiiit... waiiiit for iiiit...
until he won.

smdh. [eyeroll emoji]

but, see? this is today's political right... ethics, morals, and critical thinking are out... winning and loyalty are in. being confident is more important than being correct. y'know, it's a little disorienting for the party of self described right-wing patriots to continue becoming more and more anti-american.

so here we go...

when someone from the left uses the word "democracy" in a conversation about the electoral college, no doubt the smug ignorance of the right will come back with their misinformed "the US isn't a democracy..." nonsense.

sigh... pure nonsense... almost completely wrong.

even conventionally educated people actually believe that the US government is not built on principles of democracy!

nope, wrong.

here are the facts about the US, and they are undisputed:

our systems of government throughout the US range from municipal, to counties, to states, and up to the federal government. most (but yes, not all) decisive actions taken by these levels of government are based on the collective tally of a purely democratic, majority wins, vote. often that involves all citizens voting. often it involves the voting of elected representatives (city council, state assembly, the US congress). even in those situations, most often that collective tally is done by a simple majority, reflecting a pure democracy or representative democracy. occasionally, in well-defined situations, a super majority is needed. even then, the decision is based on core principles of democracy.

even in the various levels of the judiciary, when panels of jurors are involved, it's a majority or well-defined super majority that rules. when panels of judges are involved, even up to supreme court decisions themselves, again, a majority is that it takes.

in fact, there are ONLY TWO collective decisions made in this country, throughout any and all levels of government, the ONLY ones that does not rest on a simple- or super-majority based on democracy, is the way we choose the person who is selected to "preside" over the executive branch of our federal government, and the way we amend our constitution.

at this point you may be thinking i'm making a case against the electoral college, i'm not. if there is only one place where a simple majority should not rule is in this case.

i do get the vibe though. the electoral college design came from a time when states were individually the most significant governing force in the lives of americans. the federal government, while in a position to override decisions that support more than one state, was primarily an loosely organizing force. there was a time when the 10th amendment was the most powerful one. (and if you just found yourself having to look up what the 10th amendment is, you kinda just helped prove my point).

the federal government is one that we put in place to handle things that are more efficiently handled collectively (transportation, national defense, environmental protection, interstate commerce), things that naturally ignore boundaries or are simply more efficient when regionalized. the executive branch of the federal government are the agencies put in position to provides those services to and between the states. as a result, voting for this president using a nationwide majority vote (ie, pure democracy) didn't make sense, because presiding over the federal government's executive branch was more about representing the needs of our collection of states, than it was for representing the people, per se.

fast forward to modern times, the most powerful governmental force in americans' lives is no longer the state government, rather it is now the federal government. the feds control more, tax more, give more, and demand more than any other level of government. in many ways, starting early in the 20th century, this country operates like a single entity. and the more powerful the federal government gets, the weaker and more anachronistic the idea of a state government becomes. so with that in mind the electoral college--a design for when the country operated very differently--seems out of place. if the feds are the most powerful level of government, then why does a citizen from wyoming have a vote that is worth more than a citizen from new york?

conservatives and republicans will try to weakly rationalize, using pseudo-intellectual pretzel gymnastics, about how the electoral college is a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority and prevention of mob rule, when they have no idea what they're talking about. it sounds good, but is completely empty in meaning regardless of what direction you look at it. for the most part, they buy into these lies through right-wing clickbait sites who feed it to them in ways that keep them clicking, and in doing, convince the easily-convinced of made up reasons that don't reflect history.

in short, this isn't what the electoral college is for. the design has nothing to do with political majorities/minorities at the individual level. rather, the office of president is in place to execute services nationwide, between the states, and lead foreign policy collectively on behalf of the states united.

the federalist papers are right there... read them...

the electoral college was designed to be a *mix* of two things: primarily, the defense of the rights of the states, and to some degree the proportional rights of the people being governed. nowhere in anything written by any of our founders did the idea appear that it was a bulwark against mob rule. that truthiness is simply the result of 21st century internet fiction.

that's the difference between truth and truthy. something that is truthy is true to me, because it feels like it should be true. and when it comes to why the electoral college exists, conservatives don't care about what's true, only about what is truthy, because the truthy story fits better to what they want to be true.

as for protecting the rights of minority positions and defending against mob rule and the tyranny of the majority, that is what a responsible legislature does, checked by the judicial branch, and put into action by an ethical executive branch in a way they interpret and implement. to pretend that a voting system that fills one single federal office is the protector/defender the right claims it to be is simple ignorance, created by lack of education, combined with manipulation by echo chamber media, designed to anger and scare.

another way to put it is this: the way to prevent the majority from becoming a mob is NOT to give the power to the minority, effectively making them the mob. this doesn't work in either case, and thus makes no logical sense. that is, of course a role of the courts. they are empowered to interpret the law and ensure there is a balance between the legitimate claim of the majority to influence what it wants, and at the same time ensure that the rights and considerations of the minority position are protected. a law that is passed by simple majority, that is interpreted to unreasonably take from or penalize members of the minority position, quite often provides the grounds for that law being struck down as illegal or unconstitutional.

for those who say "if it wasn't for the electoral college, there would be no incentive for presidential candidates to campaign outside of major urban centers". well, that's simply misleading at best, wrong at worst:

1.  it is already possible to earn 270 electors by simply winning 11 states, ignoring 39 others. but no one does that.
2. presidential candidates already ignore most states. the fiction that a candidate would only campaign in urban states has been replaced with the unfortunate reality that candidates pretty much only campaign in a few swing-states. those states, big or small, that are seen as a lock one way or the other get ignored. so even if conservatives were right, it's still true that most states are being ignored.
3. the president of the united states is simply not as powerful as many think the position is. the dumber this country gets, the less we realize or remember that the president runs 1/3 of the federal government. he's not a CEO, he's not an entrepreneur, he doesn't have the power to do much beyond what the congress and the judiciary, and thus the american people allow him to do.

so based on all this, should we fight to repeal and replace the electoral college? no. we shoudn't.

i still take the position that the electoral college is a good thing for our country, for the reasons i stated above (not to mention the reasons stated by our founding fathers), and luckily it would take a strong bi-partisan effort across several levels and branches of government to change. therefore, getting rid of it is never going to happen until we pretty much all agree we want it to. but we don't.

but to look at the way we elect the president, which does not use a purely democratic nationwide popular vote, and extend that to mean that nowhere in the US do we govern using principles of democracy is just lazy. it comes from a selfish desire to appear smart and shut down the conversation even when one is wrong. that's worse than bad citizenship. it's blatantly anti-american.

on saving the planet

TL;DR: we need to lose the phrase "saving the planet" when it comes to talking about taking actions to protect damage to our environment.  it's a counter-productive phrase, and plays right into the hands of those who believe the eco-system that humans require to survive, is here to serve us today, and cannot be damaged in any way. 

 

the environmental politically left's marketing folks really need to leave this phrase behind.

in their attempt to scream through a megaphone about how important it is to protect our environment, at some point back in the 70s or 80s, some idiot came up with the phrase "we must do what we can to save the planet".

that phrase has done more damage to "the planet" than any before it, or since.

here's where the environmentalists in the american political left fail. turning into chicken little, when politicians like gore, and schumer, and aoc attach dates like "by the turn of the century", or "in a dozen years", or "by next century", intending to secure their next election by inventing some far-fetched edge-case apocalyptic prediction that invariably proves false. well, this actually hands fuel, and ammo, to the ignorant right, who love to claim that nothing humans do, no activity produced by any humans, has ever, will ever, or can ever impact the planet.

and you know what? in a sense, the gop, the republicans, the conservatives, they. are. right.

but, hear me out for a second...

this poor choice of language is exactly where the left fails. attaching a date to N meters of sea level rise, when no one really knows, only fuels faux credibility to the right's purposeful ignorance. it's hilarious to watch, in a way, if it wasn't actually serious.

rather... here is a simple fact that is indisputable:  in the next century, today's right wingers will be gone, and they won't care that future generations will judge them to be the parasites that they were. spending what was sacrificed to provide them, and failing to pass a sustainable ecosystem forward.

65 million years ago:
1. a meteor impact wiped out the dinosaurs. what's left of them today are birds.
2. the mammal survivors, the voles (think small mice), eventually evolved into humans.

in short, the planet is going to be fine in the long run. it always has, it always will be, until the sun exhausts its fuel in about 4 billion years. until then, if we fail our ecosystem, the planet will eat us up, and spit us out, and 20-30 million years from now hand the iron throne over to whatever biology today's cockroaches have evolved into.

no, no no, fucking no.... we are NOT trying to save The Planet. we can't if we tried. what we're REALLY trying to save is the cellophane thin ecosystem of air, nutrients, and tiny window of acceptable climate that allows delicate humans to survive and evolve into something smart enough to colonize other places, just like humans not 1000 years ago stretched their limits to colonize the spherical extent of this world. that thin layer of survivability is what the political right wants to burn for today's profit, next quarter's earnings report, and next congress' election cycle. good luck with that.

see that orange line? we're trying to save the tiny slice of the bottom 1/10th of that thickness... that is what we need. beyond that, please don't you fucking worry about the planet. it'll be fine.

dear liberal tree-huggers: stop giving the ignorant right the upper hand in this fight.

on why i left the republican party

TL;DR: i left the republican party when they moved away from core conservative principles, chasing voters using short-term populist movements and pandering to large voting blocs.  today's gop is now focused on short-term charlatanism, and have forgotten their duty to sustain america for future generations.  a friend of mine ran for senate from pennsylvania, and most of the article below is my amazon review of a autobiographical book he wrote, ostensibly so that his prospective constituents knew more about who they would be considering to vote for.  the content in the review captures to a great deal my view on the republican party at large.

 

the irony is, that just like a right-wing click bait article, the title doesn't quite match this article itself. in the daily tsunami of available content input, most of these articles are counting on you only reading the title and drawing the conclusion that they want you to come to, in a way that makes you think it was your idea.

but let's get back to it:
1. in short, idealistically, i actually don't believe i left the republicans.
2. i'm quite sure they left me, however.

an old college friend of mine, and fellow army officer, wrote a book a few years back. sort of an autobiography. he'd made a full career out of his natural ability to lead, retiring a few years ago as a full colonel, paratrooper, ranger, infantryman.

as a person, he's naturally idealistic when it comes to understanding what america is, what it has been, and what it can be, which is most probably why he chose a life of public service, to grab the wagon himself and pull it. that's what the meaning of life is to him, it seems. we are all wired a certainly way. john is wired that way.

upon leaving the army, he went back home to pennsylvania and decided to run for US senate as a republican. he was in a small yet formidable field during primary season, and there in his first "at-bat", he found a machine larger than he'd expected, that required a lot of compromise of values and ethical trade-offs to gain and maintain any traction. he was uniquely suited to help change representative democracy back to its original intent. he was however met with a system, that from all angles was not interested in changing.

as for his book. i happen to believe that anyone running for public office, owes their potential constituents a deep look into who they are as a person, in order to give the public the best chance to make an informed decision about who they select to represent them. and in that, john did a great job.

i recently reached out to him through social media to say hi, long lost buds, and in catching up, he asked if i'd read the book and write an amazon review, which is what i'm thinking he was doing with just about anyone he knew. great idea.

so i read the book and while it was cool catching up with what he'd been up to these past few decades, i struggled with the prospect of writing a review given its theme. it's clear this book was for supporting his run as a republican, and i found along the way i was disagreeing with a lot of the points he was making. long story short, i found a way, by coming to grips myself with sussing out the differences between my values, and those espoused by the current platform of the major political parties. once i shook that out, then writing the review became easy. despite our political difference, i actually believe john has the right ideas, and the courage to push through whatever resistance he might meet along the way.

but also in doing so, i shook out my own thoughts for how it was i grew up as a conservative but then later became a liberal. i also shook out how the political parties who self-describe as one or the other actually do a bad job at ensuring their actions match their words.

at any rate, i'll stop there and share this with you. it's the review i wrote for amazon. it's REALLY LONG, so much so that i doubt anyone will read it, but even doing a quick skim, some of the ideas pop out. additionally, even though what i wrote below is in the context of reviewing a book, it gives one tiny slice of a view into my own personal politics, and what i as one citizen believe is best for america, and today's republican party is too toxic to be it. it touches on a few reasons why i don't see eye-to-eye with the gop anymore. there are a lot more reasons than these below, but here are a few:

-----------------------------

Two disclaimers:

1) I had the honor and professional privilege to serve with Colonel Vernon during the earliest phase of our military careers, when we were both still young infantry platoon leaders way back in the day. I'm here to personally testify that there was no tougher young warrior than he. And no better teacher, leader, and guide. There was no one better at understanding the broad concept of freedom and democracy for millions of Americans across generations, and distilling that down, scaling it all the way down into the small unit tactics needed to perform tasks, individual and collective, to standard. These missions formed the lowest and smallest building blocks of defending freedom and democracy of our nation. There was something about this guy, even way back then, that convinced all of us, all of his peers, that he was operating at a different level than the rest of us. He was different. He was on a mission, and he was a natural inspirational leader who kept everyone around him focused and operating at their peak.

but...

2) As a life-long, iron-clad, and proud card-carrying American Liberal, my political views couldn't be further than John's. Following his Twitter feed the past few years, it has, on frequent occasion, been very easy for me to shake my head and wonder how it is anyone could buy into this crap that the GOP machine has been feeding the American people, let alone repeat and perpetuate it. It's been a criminal disgrace how many in the Republican party (not John though, I’m getting to that) has weaponized patriotism against the working class to the benefit of the those who pay for the laws that bend the playing field further in their direction, widening the gap between the smaller and wealthier upper class, shrinking the middle class, and increasing the size of the lower classes from which their even increasing wealth can be pulled. When I live in a world where someone working in the financial sector who uses hedge funds, bad debt bundling, and the gambling of derivatives to parasitically drain millions from hard working people and the economy as a whole, into their pockets, serves more jail time than the 25 year felony incarceration someone caught three times selling a few baggies of weed gets, then maybe I'll consider the righteousness of what the GOP has to offer. Until then, the GOP is the party of parasites, with a long list of inconsistent and self-conflicting views, and the party of manipulating the masses for profit.

That said...

Here's the difference though. Even as a liberal, I do believe that some of the *idealism* behind conservatism is one that I actually believe most if not all Americans share, including liberals. The way it claims to strive for smaller government, less restrictions, and thus giving inspiration, innovation, and sustained effort the most fertile ground and best chance for anyone to pursue the passion, and work to succeed. The way it claims that the best role of government is to build infrastructure, provide defense, and ensure a level playing field for all to work toward their dreams, else get out of the way.

The crime here though is that these are noble ideals that the GOP parrots in order to game the system and trick good people into giving them the votes they need, while the politicians who rise to power gaming this system have no intention of making governing decisions that are based on those honorable principles. My lack of faith in the conservative movement and the GOP in particular is not one of philosophy, rather my contempt in the GOP is due to their actual track record, their actual applied governance, their failed implementation, and their weaponization of patriotism against its own people.

When I read the early chapters that show quite clearly where John's conservative values came from, and how his faith served as the soil from which all his success in life grows, it's inspiring to experience thru John's stories that he actually gets it. He actually has ideas that he can use to represent us. That is, if his message can get out.

The imminent death of the our fathers' GOP was self-inflicted. The strongest and most significant grass roots movement of the past 40 years has been the Tea Party. What offends me as an American is that the GOP cared nothing about the beliefs and frustrations of these people. Just like a big tech company gobbling up smaller startups, the GOP didn't care about the IP, they saw value solely in the size of the subscriber base. And they saw in the Tea Party a semi-unified mass they could feed, control, and profit from. The problem they didn't see was that the ideas that drove these people to action, overtook the party like pervasive weeds. Their ideas were so strong that not only could they not be ignored, they could not be tamed. Granted, if you read the signs and banners they waved, they weren't all that good at spelling or grammar, and they often didn't examine social problems more than one or two steps beyond their own self interest ("cut government but don't touch my medicare”).

In 2016 the GOP presidential candidate field contained a dozen experienced competent public servants and accomplished elected officials, and toxic populist Donald Trump. The decision to cater to, use, then screw over the Tea Party finally came home to roost in 2016. We ended up with King Tea Party. All bluster, no principles, no integrity, and no ability to lead. In this current president, morals, ethics, and rule of law are out--loyalty and winning are in. If it benefits him, it's right, if it turns out to work against him, it's wrong. Russian influence on our election system is not wrong because it was influence from outside our borders, rather, it is ok with Trump solely because he won. If you check Trump's tweets from most of 2016, he was the most vocal critic of the Electoral College system until it elected him. He was cheerleader #1 in the call for a special prosecutor for Hillary Clinton, until he won and then told the crowd "we won, so we don't care about that anymore, right?" Even most of the Republicans in office at all levels of government have conflict positions with the president, but they use logical gymnastics to support him, since regardless of how much damage he does, at least it's not Hillary.

John reflected on his journey toward serving as a US Senator representing the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it was quite disheartening to realize that the GOP machine is so much bigger and stronger (and different) than the principles it espouses. If the GOP really did believe what it was selling to the American people since the days of Reagan, then accepting Colonel Vernon's offer to serve and represent the people of Pennsylvania would be an absolute no-brainer. As for the ideals that drive him, what makes John different from other Republicans is that he actually conducts business and gets things done according to those principles. Most of the rest of the GOP parrot those principles verbally, but then their actions don’t match them at best, and are purely self-serving at worst.

I have faith in Colonel Vernon. He is an idealist who, given the chance to serve the American people in our national legislature would be a beacon of hope, and inspirational example of what we can collectively do to ensure our representatives have the best tools for continuing this American Experiment decades, and dare I say centuries into the future. As a career Army officer, the connection between what he says and what he does is absolute. We need more politicians who lead in that manner. Given today's crop of manipulators, it would certainly be refreshing.

Other than wearing his faith on his sleeve by including angels in the title, I agree with John 100% that those who desire to represent us in our government of the people should at a minimum write a book. Not only does it show that he can articulate ideas in writing, but mostly it allows the people being represented a bold transparent view into what makes them tick. Before pulling the lever for someone, the candidate should give you an honest look at who they are and what they're made out of, in order to gain confidence in knowing how they are going to serve and lead.

It's a great book. I hope John revives his political aspirations. Our country needs more honorable public servants with the will to continue the American experiment as the founders intended.

on news media bias

TL;DR: it's common for us to blame modern american problems on "the media".  it's a convenient way to blame someone else for a problem that is actually, in fact, 100% caused by us.  the media are funded by advertising, whose rates are set by audience size.  the media in fact provide us what we want, not necessarily what's true.

 

is news media biased?  i mean, you sure about that?

if so... seems to me the bias is much more in those who consume the information, not as much in those who produce it.

lately it seems the more important measure of the success of a news outlet isn't the proportion of it which is factual, rather it's the ratings (tv, radio) and circulation (print).

if so, then these two thoughts above seem to fit pretty well.

if anything, an unethical news media outlet who shows bias, is not necessarily biased toward a political position idealistically, rather they create and support their bias based on what their audience wants, and what will attract more audience.

isn't that odd? i mean, the president repeats this all the time, and those on the right are happy to parrot it. meaning, he asserts that fox news is a better news media outlet because their ratings are higher. that cnn and msnbc are "failures" because their ratings are low.

keep in mind that when it comes to tv and radio, you get high ratings when you produce content that people like, show people what they want to see, and tell people what they want to hear. in the entertainment industry, that's how it has worked for centuries.

and when it comes to the news, as our country becomes more angry and fearful through manipulation, more and more, what people want to hear isn't necessarily what's factual, rather what they want to hear is anything that reinforces what they already believe, or what they want to believe.

this tendency is anti-american.

when it comes to americans who lean politically to the right, there seems to be a growing group who consume and exchange ideas like this:

when they are exposed to a news story or editorial opinion that...

• ...conflicts with what they already believe:

--they get to work seeking out plenty of information from contrary sources, regardless of the credibility of the sources, using whatever energy and critical thinking is necessary, just until enough is found that allows them to discount and dismiss the conflicting information.

• ...concurs with what they already believe:

--they accept that information as truth and pass it along without question. as for doing research to seek out whether it's true or not, that's a waste of time. of course it's true and credible, regardless of the source. it supports what is already believed. how could it be wrong? that would make them wrong, and they’re not wrong, because they already know they’re right. duh.

one sign of bad citizenship (not to mention bad science) is when one uses effective critical thinking skills only when opposing ideas that conflict with their position, but then sell out their critical thinking skills to their political party when exposed to ideas--any ideas--that seem to make their position more solid. regardless of source, support, or facts.

not only is it bad citizenship, it actually makes one more susceptible to media outlets that are seeking to manipulate rather than inform.

perhaps i'm biased, but conservatives seem to be more susceptible to manipulation this way. they put a lot of stock in hollow symbolic patriotism, and choose time after time to ignore real patriotism. the kind that actually rolls up its sleeves to fix things that are broken, to improve this country in innovative ways that the world can (and does) copy.

those in right wing media often lie to make their point. when football players kneel to protest and draw attention to injustice, the right chooses to lie by framing this as an assault on the flag and our soldiers. (i'm waiting for someone, anyone, to find any evidence that athletes kneel to protest our flag and soldiers. nope. conservatives are happy to believe the lie, since it helps make them feel better about themselves, and they can avoid having to walk in anyone else's shoes). i mean, in a way, football players who kneel are actually sacrificing themselves quite a bit for the greater good, in an attempt to make this country better.

as for those who sign over their critical thinking skills to their echo chamber or political party of choice, yeah, i'm thinking maybe that's less patriotic than those who sacrifice themselves to draw attention to injustices.

personally, i never kneel before the flag, and never kneel for the national anthem, but that's my choice, for my reasons, and it's actually consistent with conservative principles to respect each citizen's path of being a citizen, and each citizen's path following what they understand their role is in serving and improving their country.

the problem with conservatives is that they love freedom until someone uses that freedom to be free in a way that doesn't harm anyone else, but still gets under the skin of what conservatives believe is acceptable behavior.

conservative idealism is a strong thing for the future of our country.
but today's conservatives, in. actual. action. are a toxic joke to the american experiment.

next time you see a football player kneel, maybe try, for just a second, to think that maybe what's on their mind at that moment, is that they're trying to make america better.

or you can continue believing what the media tells you, when you know that the only thing they want, is for you to keep watching.