This is a bit longer than usual, and a bit more serious because the topic is. I believe deeply in democracy, even when I see people on street corners holding signs with slogans for positions I flatly reject or that raise my blood pressure.
Why is it that some human beings are fiercely protective of self-interest, while others take a more global, “what’s best for everybody” stance when making political decisions? I’m baffled that in a time of trial and adversity, some folks staunchly refuse to wear a face mask in public, despite the experts and the medical evidence. (I was in a deli last Saturday picking up some breakfast sandwiches, and the lady behind me in line was without mask. When I asked her about it, she informed me, with a flip of the ponytail, that “I don’t like them.”) I understand that the internal combustion engine and coal-fired factory will continue to pollute and we should move to safer, less environmentally destructive technologies. (The President, in the most recent debate told the viewing audience that his opponent “hates oil.” Really? That was his takeaway from what should have been a reasoned discussion of sustainable energy?) I’m sure that businesses large and small will continue to poison the air and waterways until forced by regulation and oversight to stop. I’m equally sure that drug companies will continue to charge whatever they can and want until someone or something in authority steps in. (An interesting note was to be found in the paper this morning, about the amazing financial windfalls for pharmaceutical companies that haven’t even developed an effective, approved vaccine or treatment. And, I’ve seen that financial institutions large and small will protect their own interests first and foremost, even with government bailouts, while the customer and consumer become merely catchy slogans from the marketing department.
I grew up in a Republican home. My parents, though, to give them credit, tended to support moderate Republican candidates. They were terrified and appalled by Barry Goldwater. FDR was someone we didn’t discuss, nor was Harry Truman. George McGovern and Eugene McCarthy, if they were spoken of at all, it was usually through clenched teeth. My mother went to her grave thinking that Richard Nixon would be restored to dignity and historical greatness by posterity, but by then, my brother, sister, and I weren’t really listening any more. To my knowledge, that still hasn’t happened. We could safely call my parents Eisenhower Republicans, and that shaped many of my early recollections and beliefs.
It wasn’t until I grew up and moved out that I began to see the merits of political leaders with a vision that wasn’t “let’s go back the ‘50’s.” Times were changing, and I was changing with them. I saw the benefits, and the fairness, of civil rights legislation. As a teacher, I saw my students as multifaceted individuals – they had different cultural backgrounds and norms, espoused and shared different ideas, they dressed differently, they looked different from each other or me and spoke different languages. I think it was the publication of Hillary Clinton’s book, “It Takes A Village”, that connected some of the dots for me, and planted notion of the common good started to resonate. I’ll admit, with head down, that I haven’t read the book, but the title sums up the essence for me. On most issues of social conscience, I’m pretty liberal. I believe that nobody can handle all of what life hands them alone, and that at some point, every one of us will need help. Years ago, I was deeply bothered by the cost of my health insurance premiums, but now that Herself and I are older and in need of it, it was money well spent. Our pensions do nicely, but Social Security and Medicare are have become necessities to older Americans, not luxuries. Thank you, Mr. Roosevelt, for having the wisdom and foresight to promote and enact benefits to older Americans. In fact, his entire broad social vision, with its multitude of programs and investments, brought so much relief to so many by creating jobs and protecting people. He said, “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.” While I won’t say that Democrats have all the answers, I will acknowledge that when it comes of providing for the general population, protecting them from abuses by the powerful, and equalizing the status of all Americans, the far larger record of achievement lies with Democrats. From Woodrow Wilson’s “New Freedom” of social justice, they’ve given us FDR’s New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society. From the Republicans, really all America got is “Trickle Down”. The Republicans really can’t claim much in progressive social arenas since Abraham Lincoln. The last progressive Republican to promote the common welfare and stir up the nation’s collective conscience was Theodore Roosevelt.
Someone wise once said that with age comes wisdom. For many, sadly, the current political climate shows that with age only comes fear. I’m not entirely sure if age brings a more global perspective embracing everyone’s needs, or a simply a desire to protect what we have accumulated. That varies from individual to individual. I was reading a letter to the editor recently in which a frequent Republican writer extolled the mystique of “individual initiative”. On a purely philosophical level, that sounds great, and to some extent, I might agree. I tried to instill that value in my students for more years than I can count, but in practicality though, there will always be some that need our help. Some would excel, while others would merely tread water. Many Americans can’t survive on their own, whether their needs or disabilities are physical, emotional, social, or economic. We can’t all be captains of industry because there won’t be any people left to do the actual work. We can’t all be lawyers, doctors, entrepreneurs, scientists, professionals. One of the key things I’ve learned over the years is that we’ll always need people to fulfill spots in all segments of society, and we can’t stigmatize anyone by denying them the means to live comfortably. In an ironic touch a few years ago, President Trump expressed the view that the people of Puerto Rico “couldn’t expect to be taken care of” long term right after the devastation of Hurricane Maria. Some enterprising magazine publisher featured that quote and an accompanying article, right below it was a formal picture of the Trump family at Mar-A-Lago, surrounded by the staff and servants that “took care” of them – about twenty.
Looking at the last four years, I’m seeing with alarm where we’ve been headed. Taxes reduced for top income earners. A rapidly expanding income gap, followed by a new tax code that benefits the president and his corporate friends and supporters, while major corporations already finding tax avoidance methods. This president, a billionaire, over the last twenty years has paid less in income taxes than I have in a single year. He’s been reducing regulations that were designed to protect the environment along with our health and safety. He’s denied and misinformed rather than protected, particularly in the pandemic. He’s failed to listen to experts in a multitude of fields, and while appointing folks that are well outside of their areas of understanding and ability. And least forgivable, he’s created a culture where truth, honesty and transparency are pariahs. He’s made our longstanding allies feel that they cannot count on us in adversity, nor can they believe what we tell them. His style has become confrontational and bullying, making them seem somehow virtuous and signs of strength.
The Black Plague of the 14th century flourished because of a fundamental lack of knowledge and understanding of how infectious disease works and spreads. Somehow, we can’t blame folks at the time for that. Today, however, when we know what will slow down COVID-19 and how to respond to it effectively, but simply refuse to accept it or adhere to guidelines because we’ve bored at staying home or because those guidelines are inconvenient, that’s inexcusable. New diseases will always engulf us from time to time, and it will be our challenge and tests of our abilities to adapt and respond that will determine whether we humans or those new infections will gain the upper hand.
We’re watching polar ice caps melting, parts of our country engulfed in flames while other parts are flooding. Storms are getting fiercer, to the point where we’re running out of names for them. We’ve known what causes all of this, yet we can’t seem to muster the will power to do something about it. In the 19th century, the British Government sat on its collective hands and watched Ireland starve. It didn’t do much to prevent pollution from the Industrial Revolution until late in the 20th century. We’ve even invented terms like “smog” and “acid rain” to explain conditions that we humans have created or let happen through our actions or inactions. And yet, there are still those that, despite warnings for most of the world’s scientists, that will boldly tell us this isn’t happening, and we’re not responsible. Denial is a powerful and destructive reaction.
Here in New England, we had textile mills on most every river. Up in the northern counties, paper mills abounded. Now, most are gone, victims of outdated technologies, dwindling raw materials, and cheaper production elsewhere. I won’t vote for a leader that tells us that the textile mills are going to make a comeback, any more than I would vote for someone that tells the coal miners of West Virginia and western Pennsylvania that their jobs are poised to bounce back. I can’t support a candidate that “panders to their base”, or places the needs of one constituency over another. The new leaders of the future will talk about new and sustainable energy sources to produce advanced technologies, new jobs with livable wages and benefits. They’ll be talking about ways to fix “food insecurity”, access to affordable health care, and education that produces thinkers and innovators. They won’t talk about “cutting taxes”, but rather making taxes equitable and proportional. Going further, our leaders should even promote and circulate the notion that “taxes”, with everything negative that contains, should be replaced with a more palatable term like “investments”. Because that’s what taxes are and should be doing – investing in ourselves, our children and our children’s children, along with our planet. A “tax fighter” will be less noble, less concerned with the common good and more with building walls around individual prosperity. He or she will be “unmasked” as obsessed with moving backward to the good old days that never were. One of the life lessons I’ve learned and carry with me when I enter the voting booth (or now, when I mail in my ballot) is that there is nothing wrong with making money or building wealth. But making that a primary, solo objective, an end-run around and contrary to fairness, or that pits people against each other rather than using it as a means to achieve universal benefit is somehow just wrong.
Bless you all, and happy voting!
I'm Thinking...No! 