I originally posted much of this blog in 2020, before the general election either was legitimate or “stolen”. In the year and a half since, we really haven’t moved on. Democrats want to move on. Republicans want to step back to the 1950’s. Fingers are pointing. As my grandfather would say, “My mind’s made up. Don’t confuse me with facts.” So, here we go again.
As I said before, I grew up in a Republican home. My parents, though, to give them credit, tended to support moderate Republican candidates. They were deeply concerned by Barry Goldwater’s presidential nomination. 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. To my knowledge, that still hasn’t happened. We could safely call my parents Eisenhower Republicans, possibly Gerald Ford Republicans, and that shaped many of my early political 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.” 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 family expectations, 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 many of the dots for me. It planted notions of the common good rather than the benefit of the upper middle class, which I was, and it 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 a helping hand. That public assistance – welfare or food stamps – were not bad things to be feared like cancers. 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 have become vital 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 seeking to equalize 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 Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and the War on Poverty. From the Republicans, really all America got is “trickle down”. No, Republicans really can’t claim much by way of a forward social agenda since Abraham Lincoln freed slaves. They can, however, lay claim to gerrymandering to protect their power, appointing judges for their politics rather than their judicial experience, and restricting voting rights of those likely to disagree with their core beliefs. Judge Samuel Alito writing his conservative rhetoric. The last Republican able to stir the nation’s progressive, 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 and ignorance. I’m not entirely sure if age brings a more global perspective embracing everyone’s needs, or simply a desire to protect what each individual has accumulated. I was reading a letter to the editor some time back 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. And some will sink. 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 newspaper publisher featured that quote and an accompanying article. But 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 former president, a billionaire if he’s to be believed, over the last twenty years has paid less in income taxes than the average welfare recipient. 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 or read reports given to him in a multitude of fields, and as chief executive, has appointed all manner of people who are well outside of their areas of understanding and ability, and thus incompetent to do their appointed jobs. Least forgivable, he’s created a culture where truth, honesty and transparency are called into question. 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 is confrontational and bullying, somehow leading many to conclude that confronting and bullying are virtuous, 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 refusing to accept it or adhere to guidelines because we’ve become bored staying home or because those guidelines are inconvenient, that’s inexcusable. New diseases will always engulf us from time to time, and they will be our challenges, testing 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 hurricanes. 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” and “food deserts”, 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, sole objective, an end-run around or 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.
I’m writing this because I was listening to a news report on National Public Radio this morning that stated one in five Republicans are regularly accessing far-right and extreme websites, and one in ten Republican legislators are doing the same. That means, they’re believing and willing to act upon extreme positions. Here in New Hampshire, Republican-led efforts to redistrict have not yet passed, but are on their way. New Hampshire has two US senators and two representatives, all currently held by Democrats. We’ve become a purple state, and Republicans can’t deal with that. Our neighbor to the south, Massachusetts, has a moderate Republican governor. He’s not running for reelection, and I’m guessing that at least in part because his party in that state is moving sharply to the right.
We can’t pretend that politics, in fact that governance, is a big happy family of voters. It isn’t. But we can at least pretend that politics isn’t about attaining and holding on to power, to the exclusion of civil discourse, diversity of ideas, and making all lives the best they can be.
Good luck, Everyone, wherever and whenever you’re voting!
I'm Thinking...No! 