The Bullock Pulpit: Calculated musings of a pragmatic idealist

An open letter to struggling progressives

Not every Democrat is excited about Joe Biden, in case you hadn't noticed.  And that makes sense. We started out with over 20 candidates, and we each had our personal favorites. But the primary process worked as it should - there is no evidence that the primaries were "rigged" by the DNC - and we now have our nominee, and his running mate.  Meaning in our two-party system, we have one choice for replacing Donald Trump, and that is the Democratic ticket of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. 

 

Whether our two-party system is fair or provides enough options is a discussion for another day. My quick take is that any viable third party must be built from the ground up, not by coming out of the woodwork every four years to run as a spoiler candidate for President.  The Green Party and Libertarian candidates simply don't yet have the deep roots that a party needs to gain a foothold, and November 3, 2020 is not the day to cast a protest vote to try to shine a light on them. In a different election year, I'd say knock your socks off, but this is an emergency whose only resolution is getting Trump out of office, and that requires us to all vote for the Democrat. 

 

Some progressives fear that electing Biden will mean "status quo". Have you been watching the past four years? This is a status quo we all want to get rid of! But I get your point. Biden represents "the establishment", "corporate Democrats", and the "old guard'. Or does he? Remember, Biden came out in favor of gay marriage before his boss Barack Obama did. His votes as a Senator put him slightly left of center of the Democratic pack, but many will still point at his age, gender, and race and predict he will be a completely centrist President. That's where running mate Kamala Harris comes in. She has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate - more liberal than even Bernie Sanders, and it's fair to say that she will help steer his policies and guide his Cabinet picks to reflect the direction the United States should head once our wounds start healing. 

I understand that some people want more change in the United States than they think Biden is capable of. We have lofty and admirable goals and ideas for making the country a better place for more people, but the only way we can achieve any of those goals is to right the ship first. The only way we right the ship is to defeat Donald Trump in November. And the only way we defeat Donald Trump in November is to elect Joe Biden. Please don't let the perfect get in the way of the good when you cast your vote on November 3. 

Why I Support Joe Biden

I'm used to giving the 30-second elevator pitch about why I support Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination, but now I want to dig a little deeper into why I think he's the best candidate to replace Donald Trump as President, as well as the candidate most likely to beat Trump. For purposes of this blog, I'm focusing less on his specific policy plans and more on the intangibles. As we all know, what a candidate wants and what a President is able to achieve are not always the same thing, so arguing about free college vs. free community college is pretty useless at this point.  I want to be clear; I will be voting for the Democratic nominee no matter who it ends up being. But of the two remaining options left in the race (sorry, Tulsi, you are invisible now), I prefer Joe Biden, and here are a few of the reasons why. 

Ten current US senators and over 70 current US representatives have already endorsed Biden, and there's a reason for that. Lawmakers not only like Joe, they like working with him.  And working with Congress, and having the trust of Congress, is crucial when it comes to getting things done. Also, 25 current and former governors and over 50 current and former ambassadors have endorsed Biden. Many people in government feel they that know Joe, and that he knows them, and that counts for a lot when it comes to accomplishing goals for the country, and undoing the damage that Trump and his cronies have done over the past three years. 

Yes, Biden voted for the 1994 crime bill, parts of which turned out to be quite problematic. So did many others; it passed the Senate with a vote of 95 - 4. And many of them now realize it had very detrimental side effects. But you know what else he did? He cosponsored the Violence Against Women Act, which was part of that bill. And yes, Biden was for the Hyde Amendment - preventing federal dollars from paying for abortions - until recently, when he announced his change of heart. Biden has more than once allowed his views to evolve as society evolves. Remember, he came out in favor of gay marriage before President Obama did. Presented with facts, he is willing to adjust and modernize his thinking to better reflect his constituents. Having the same stance on everything for 40+ years is sometimes a bug, not a feature.

Joe Biden is NOT suffering from dementia. Sure, he's made some factual errors - heaven knows I've made my share, too - but his verbal gaffes stem largely from his lifelong challenge with stuttering. When you're making as many appearances as he does on the campaign trail, it's going to happen on camera more often. His debate performances have gotten stronger each time, and for the most part, he has his plans and his experiences at his fingertips when debating.  We're electing a public official, not a public speaker, and I'm confident in his ability to take the actions needed to bring the federal government and the US back from the chaos in which we're now mired, whether or not he mixes up a word or two. 

What Joe Biden has is the ability to collaborate with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to get things done in Washington. He has the temperament to work with government officials who may have different opinions or motives. He has the experience in international diplomacy to repair our relationships with our allies. And one last thing, a complete intangible that cannot be ignored. Joe Biden cares about people, and it's obvious. You can't fake empathy, and when it comes to talking to Americans one-on-one, he really is "Uncle Joe" who is worried about your problems and wants to help solve them. And I want to give him that chance.

Delegates and superdelegates: what's new in 2020

Many Democrats, particularly Bernie Sanders supporters, were upset with the primary process in 2016. They were specifically unhappy with the delegates called "superdelegates", who are not bound to vote for the candidates who won their states. The superdelegates, according to some, disproportionately favored Hillary Clinton and effectively shut Bernie Sanders out of the nomination. Whether that is true is up for debate (and a topic for another post); regardless, the DNC made changes to the superdelegate voting rules after 2016 that will decrease their perceived importance both during the primaries and at the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee in July.  Here's how it works, in a nutshell. 

 

Superdelegates are appointed based on their positions in the Democratic party, and may cast their votes at the convention for whomever they please. They include elected members of the DNC, governors, congresspeople, and distinguished party leaders such as former Presidents and Vice Presidents. In 2020, they will make up about 16% of the total number of delegates. The remaining 84% of the Democratic delegates are pledged delegates, meaning they are required to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Pledged delegates are chosen because of the candidate they support, and are chosen in approximate ratio to their candidate's share of the vote in each state. Only the votes of pledged delegates are included in the total awarded to candidates after each state's primary. Should a candidate drop out of the race, his or her pledged delegates are free to support any of the remaining candidates, but often will pledge to whichever candidate their original candidate chooses to endorse.  This likely means that a delegate for a moderate (or progressive) candidate who drops out will wind up casting a vote for another moderate (or progressive) candidate still in the race. 

 

In 2016, many of the superdelegates announced their preferred candidate during their states' primaries - even though their preferences weren't yet being counted - and their preference skewed heavily towards Hillary Clinton (which shouldn't be surprising, since Democratic officials are likely to support a permanent Democrat). Several mainstream media outlets included these announced preferences in the candidate delegate totals during the primary elections, even though they had not actually voted yet, and even though the DNC asked the media to NOT count them in the running totals. This artificially inflated Clinton's delegate count by over 500 delegates, and raised the hackles of Sanders supporters, who began to think that the primaries were "rigged" against him. As I said above, that is a topic for another post, and I'm not about to digress. 

 

As a result of this perceived unfairness of the 2016 superdelegate count, the DNC has changed its delegate rules for 2020. Under the new rules, superdelegates cannot vote on the first ballot at the convention, unless one candidate already clearly has enough votes (a majority of pledged delegates) to win the nomination. If no single candidate has a majority of pledged votes following the first ballot, the superdelegates join in the second ballot, and the pledged delegates become free to vote for any candidate. This is known as a "contested convention". The big question then becomes: are the newly released delegates more likely to vote for the candidate with the plurality of votes - with the goal of giving that candidate a majority - or for the candidate whose views most closely align with the candidate to whom they were originally pledged (assuming they are not the same person)? There are arguments to be made for both options, and the delegates are given full rein to use their best judgement, subject to the horse-wrangling that would undoubtedly take place on the convention floor.  It's too early to start analyzing how a contested convention might play out, but given that as of today there are still six viable candidates, it's food for thought. Or food for Facebook arguments. Until next time...

If you think that voting Libertarian might be fun...

I've heard several people who dislike the major party candidates for President�say that they�intend to vote for a third party candidate. I personally think this is�not a great�idea, for reasons best saved for another blog, but it is our Constitutional right to vote for the candidate we each deem best suited for the office.� Emphasis on best suited.

Gary Johnson, former New Mexico governor,�and his running mate William Weld, former governor of Massachusetts, are the 2016 Libertarian Party candidates. Johnson and Weld each certainly have a more palatable demeanor than spluttering Donald Trump, and on the surface seem logical and well-reasoned. But keep in mind that�the whole premise of Libertarianism is less government. A lot less government. On social issues, this means no laws against�same-sex marriage or�abortion; the legalization of prostitution, and�the elimination of all drug laws. Libertarians also believe that not only should gun sales and�ownership not be controlled by law, but that�an armed citizenry is essential for�protection from domestic and foreign�threats.

When it comes to immigration, the Libertarian stance is, predictably�not more laws, but fewer. The official web site states that "to argue that illegal immigration is bad merely because it is illegal avoids the threshold question of whether we should prohibit this kind of immigration in the first place." The party's�proposed plan is to create a guest worker program and to merely fine and tax�workers currently working illegally�in the�US, while allowing them to stay, albeit on probation. The rationalization is that the US needs the workers, and the additional money thrown at "securing the border" has had little effect, so�legalizing illegal immigration will save money, frustration, and government resources.

via thebullockpulpit.typepad.com

If you think that voting Libertarian might be fun...

I've heard several people who dislike the major party candidates for President say that they intend to vote for a third party candidate. I personally think this is not a great idea, for reasons best saved for another blog, but it is our Constitutional right to vote for the candidate we each deem best suited for the office.  Emphasis on best suited.

 

Gary Johnson, former New Mexico governor, and his running mate William Weld, former governor of Massachusetts, are the 2016 Libertarian Party candidates. Johnson and Weld each certainly have a more palatable demeanor than spluttering Donald Trump, and on the surface seem logical and well-reasoned. But keep in mind that the whole premise of Libertarianism is less government. A lot less government. On social issues, this means no laws against same-sex marriage or abortion; the legalization of prostitution, and the elimination of all drug laws. Libertarians also believe that not only should gun sales and ownership not be controlled by law, but that an armed citizenry is essential for protection from domestic and foreign threats.

 

When it comes to immigration, the Libertarian stance is, predictably not more laws, but fewer. The official web site states that "to argue that illegal immigration is bad merely because it is illegal avoids the threshold question of whether we should prohibit this kind of immigration in the first place." The party's proposed plan is to create a guest worker program and to merely fine and tax workers currently working illegally in the US, while allowing them to stay, albeit on probation. The rationalization is that the US needs the workers, and the additional money thrown at "securing the border" has had little effect, so legalizing illegal immigration will save money, frustration, and government resources.

 

Most Federal agencies and departments would disappear under Libertarian policies. Here are some of the more notable planks in the Libertarian platform:

 

Shutting down the entire public education system and the Department of Education.  According to the official Libertarian Party platform, "recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government." Schools should be provided by the "free market" or children should be home-schooled, at parents' discretion and at their own expense. Further, Libertarians would end all federal government involvement in education, including Pell Grants, loans, school accreditation, Title IX requirements, and Head Start funding. The theory behind this stance is that the US Constitution does not give the federal government any authority over education. Any government involvement in schools or education should be only at the state level, because state constitutions have been given such authority.

 

Eliminating all public assistance, including food stamps and subsidized housing (there is some question within the party as to whether unemployment benefits should be completely abolished). The party platform states that "the proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals." Those in need should ask charities, churches, or the community for help. To help the needy get jobs, the platform also calls for an end to minimum wage laws. To help people start businesses, the platform suggests eliminating most of the government regulations that entrepreneurs must follow, including OSHA, EPA, and licensing regulations.

 

Abolition of the federal income tax and the IRS. No government spending = no need to collect income tax, right? But clearly the government has to have some source of funding for the few services that remain. Lottery sales; consumption (sales and excise) taxes; voluntary taxes (i.e. residents of a city would pay a voluntary tax to be able to obtain fire and police services); and usage fees are some of the ideas for raising funds for services. Libertarians are against all taxes forced upon us by the government; sales and excise taxes and usage fees are considered voluntary because we choose to purchase the goods or use the services.

 

Privatizing Social Security. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The party claims that individual retirement accounts would both lead to better return on investment, and be unavailable for the government to "borrow". For those who have already paid into the system or are already receiving Social Security benefits, selling trillions of dollars of assets - that the government won't need under a Libertarian regime - would more than cover those obligations.

 

This is just a taste of Libertarianism, but you get the point; it involves dismantling a good bit of the federal government, essentially leaving only the protection of individual rights, prosecution of those who infringe on those rights, and national security. While the chances of all of the above policies being passed and implemented are slim even if Gary Johnson were to be elected, they represent the party's ideals. For those considering a "protest vote" against the two major parties, consider carefully about where that vote is going.

There is no need to fear a President Hillary Clinton

I have supported Hillary Clinton from nearly the beginning of her 2016 Presidential campaign. I know that I disappointed several people for not joining the #feeltheBern bandwagon, clamoring for more hope and change than President Obama ever promised; clamoring, in fact for a political revolution. Senator Sanders has proven to be a formidable and worthy opponent during the past several months, but barring an unforeseen disaster, the Democratic nominee will be Secretary Clinton. And despite the dismay of many Sanders supporters, this is not something to fear or detest. 

 

Hillary Clinton and her husband have been in the political spotlight and under the microscope for over 25 years. It frequently appeared that they were the Republican Party's favorite target. Any and all accusations were thrown at them, together and individually, with very little, if any, wrongdoing ever found. But that's a stressful way to live one's life. At any point after Bill Clinton left office, Hillary could have gone into the private sector and made her speaking fees (which were largely donated to charity, by the way) look like chump change. But she didn't. She weathered the attacks and stayed the course, and was elected twice to the Senate, and chosen by Barack Obama to be his first Secretary of State. This wasn't because she was "Teflon". This was because she was resilient, stood by her convictions, and knew her path lay in public service, regardless of the eggs thrown at her. And for those who would scream "Emails!" or "Benghazi!", I suggest you do some research into these investigations and educate yourself on how they became a witch hunt...and how several Republicans have admitted as much. 

 

Some claim that Secretary Clinton is too well connected to industry and a slave of the Washington establishment. News flash: politics is a team sport. Having colleagues in the Senate who respect and support the President is the prime prerequisite to getting laws passed. As for business connections, not every relationship is a quid pro quo. There are many government-industry partnerships, and big business should not be unilaterally written off as evil and unprincipled. 

 

Our Presidential primary and campaign finance systems are a mess, to be sure. But that is not the fault of Hillary Clinton. Her campaign has stayed within FEC rules, and there is no evidence of her making promises in exchange for campaign dollars. There is a time and place to change the primary and finance rules, and in the middle of a campaign is not that time. By all means, call for changes in the primary system and for campaign finance reform, but don't accuse Secretary Clinton of taking unethical advantage of a process she did not create and is not defying. And remember, a super PAC operates, by law, completely independently of the candidate; Clinton cannot be held responsible for the fact that she has several of them. 

 

Don't get me wrong. I actually believe in a lot of Senator Sanders' ideas.  But the United States is a ship too large to turn on a dime, and that is what some of his grand plans would require. In fact, our government was set up from the beginning for slow and controlled change. It's why we have checks and balances. It's why we have majority and not plurality rule.  Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to provide the "slow and steady" progress that this country has benefited from in many ways for the past eight years. We can change politics.  But not in a day. And only with a President who can build coalitions and relationships to make real change happen.  A President who is not wedded to big business, but knows how to work with its leaders. A President who is not going to fold under pressure and criticism, because she's heard it all already. A President who can admit mistakes and learn from them. A President like Hillary Rodham Clinton. 

Why Donald Trump's momentum matters, and can't be ignored

 Almost everyone knows that Donald Trump has no shortage of self-confidence. And after dabbling in the 2012 Presidential campaign, we expected just as much bluster from him this time around. However, since announcing his candidacy earlier this summer, Trump has outdone himself. He has single-handedly made it almost acceptable - in the eyes of some - to insult immigrants, women, POWs, and anyone with whom he does not agree. He has spoken disparagingly about Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and nearly every candidate for President. Conventional wisdom first said to ignore him, that by not dignifying him with a response, his novelty would fade. Clearly that is not happening, and at this point, the lack of any response sends the message that his sweeping generalizations and middle-school barbs are tolerable. And they're not. They're not fair, not accurate, just plain mean...and certainly not Presidential. And if that needs to be spelled out, then that's what must be done.

The problem with Donald Trump's candidacy is not necessarily Trump himself, a buffoon who cares much more about himself than he does any of us, and who will never win the general election. The problem is the mindset of his supporters, many of whom find his rants to be "refreshing" and "honest". Somehow an environment has been created in the United States where xenophobic and sexist insults barely cause a blip in the radar. The majority of Americans will at least roll their eyes at his bloviation. But there is a subset of the population who either: 1) use Trump's words to validate their own biases, or 2) simply assume that a businessperson such as Trump will always be more believable than a politician. In fact, Trump is betting on getting support from both those groups. He has to rely on this "cult of personality" attraction, because he has already admitted that he gets his foreign policy understanding from television and newspapers, (and his military understanding from attending prep school) and he certainly knows nothing about diplomacy and economics. He has not laid out any plan more specific than building a wall to keep Mexicans out of the United States, and dodges any and all questions about specific policies. All he has going for him is a huge mouth and absolutely no shame when it comes to criticizing his personal foes, the current administration, and worst of all, allies of the United States.

 I am not trying to imply that all Trump supporters are racist misogynists. Many are simply uninformed and easily convinced citizens, who are frustrated with politicians and blindly grasping at anyone who represents a change from the status quo in Washington. But Trump's bull in a china shop approach is simply not the way. "Make America Great Again", as Trump's motto says, is one thing. Making America feel better about itself by figuratively stomping on other countries, cultures, and officials is quite another. The media and the other Republican candidates need to start calling Trump out daily on his lack of specifics. I won't bother to suggest that cable news stop covering his appearances, because sensationalism sells, but they should also show the counterpoints. Showing the other Republican candidates' rallies, as well as those of Bernie Sanders, the breakout star on the Democratic side, can help show voters that there are options other than a brash, narcissistic bully who wants to be President solely for his own vanity.

Measles vaccinations should not be optional

As of January 30, 84 cases of measles have been confirmed in 14 states this year, including one young woman who rode an Amtrak train in New York while infected.  This compares with under 100 cases in ALL of 2009, and only 37 in 2004. Here are some fast facts about the potential for the spread of the measles. An infected person can spread the measles virus for days before showing symptoms. The virus can be spread via a cough or sneeze, and can live for hours on surfaces. A non-vaccinated person exposed to the measles has a 90% chance of contracting it.  A vaccinated person exposed to the measles has a 1% chance of getting sick. This should be a no-brainer, right? So why on earth are an increasing number of parents declining to vaccinate their children?

A parent’s right to not vaccinate their children ends within sneezing distance of kids who are too young or too immune-suppressed to be vaccinated. Vaccines only work in a society if as many people get them as possible, to protect those who cannot be vaccinated. Choosing to exclude one’s own child is unfair not only to that child, but to every child he or she comes into contact with. In 2000, federal officials considered measles to be eradicated in the United States because of the country’s strong measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccination program. Unfortunately, a 1998 paper – later completely debunked – that linked the MMR vaccine to autism led to a surge of parents unwilling to vaccinate their children. Yet even though the study has been disproven, many parents still use it as justification for not vaccinating. The US MMR vaccination rates remains at about 90%, but ranges from 86% in Colorado to 96% in DC and New Hampshire. 

Some of the anti-vaxxers, including an Arizona cardiologist, bleat that kids need to get dirty and not be so overprotected, in order to strengthen their immune systems.  Of course they do. Making mud pies, playing baseball, and jumping in puddles is getting dirty. Contracting a preventable virus that will at best make them sick for weeks is not the same thing. It is irresponsible parenting.

They say you can’t legislate against stupid, but in this case it appears that we can, and should.  No vaccination, no public school for your children, no exceptions. And hopefully private schools would follow suit.  Parents' right to make questionable decisions for their own children simply shouldn't put all of us at risk. 

Ebola Virus Disease: The real risk to Americans

Ebola virus disease - also called ebola hemorrhagic fever - has been spreading rapidly in West Africa since February of this year. As of the end of July, the World Health Organization reports 887 deaths out of 1603 known cases, making it the largest outbreak in the history of the disease, in terms of both number of cases and geographical reach, which includes Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone.

 

The ebola virus is trasmitted via bodily fluids, including blood, saliva, sweat, and feces, or via the soiled linens or needles used by an infected person. The virus can also stay alive for several days on surfaces touched by infected bodily fluids. There are no documented reports of airborne transmission. It is not clear how the virus first appears in humans, but it may be through infected animals, such as bush meat, which is the cooked or smoked remains of various wild animals commonly eaten in West Africa. The disease can spread quickly when family members take care of infected persons without taking proper precautions, and themselves become infected. In addition, the dead bodies of infected persons are still infectious, meaning that transmission can occur through embalming, or through the common African practice of washing the deceased before burial. In fact, the WHO is working with African officials to communicate to local residents that touching the body of someone who has died of Ebola virus is the worst thing to do, as bleeding, vomiting, and diarrhea are common shortly before death, and can transmit the virus to anyone who touches the body.  In some communities, relief workers who are trained and have the equipment to bury an infected body safely are being prevented from doing so by angry locals, who don't understand the risk, and feel that their traditions are being interfered with.

 

What are the risks to the general population in bringing infected health care workers back to the United States for care? Virtually nil.  The news coverage shows quite clearly the precautions being taken to prevent transmission to those in direct contact with Dr. Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol, the two American health care workers flown back for care.  While still in Africa, both of them were given an experimental serum developed in the US but never before tried on humans, and it appears to have improved both of their conditions, and likely prevented Dr. Brantly's death. Bringing them back to the US provides their best chance for survival, especially at Emory University Hospital, which has extensive isolation procedures, thanks to its afiliation with the CDC.  There is no good reason to leave American citizen health workers in Africa, where hospitals simply lack 1) the ideal treatment and environment for care, and 2) the safeguards and safety equipment to keep the virus from spreading further. 

 

The danger to the United States public is not in patients being brought to the country under controlled conditions, such as Dr. Brantley and Mrs. Writebol. It is in infected persons - who may or may not know they have the virus - traveling here from West Africa and coming in close contact with loved ones once arriving in the US.  An infected person may board a plane in West Africa appearing symptom-free,  yet arrive home and spread the virus to loved ones through saliva, sweat, or dirty linens even before developing the most worrying symptoms. That said, even if an infected person were to arrive in the United States and mingle among the general population,  it is extremely unlikely that there would be a widespread outbreak. First, and it bears repeating, ebola is not spread through casual contact. Second, family units in the United States are less likely than those in Africa to care for ill members at home and prepare their bodies after death, particularly considering recent extensive news coverage of the outbreak. Finally, US hospitals and health care workers are much better prepared and equipped to keep patients in isolation and others away from infectious bodily fluids.  Put simply, unless you plan on visiting West Africa, or have close friends or family who have recently visited the area, your chances of acquiring ebola virus disease are negligible.  The challenge in controlling this epidemic is convincing many residents of West Africa that temporarily letting go of years of tradition is what is giong to keep them and their families alive. 

Lethal Injection: Viable execution method or cruel and unusual punishment?

Last�Wednesday afternoon, convicted murderer Joseph Wood was executed in Arizona by lethal injection. The first drug was administered at 1:52pm.� Wood, however,�did not die until nearly two hours later, after witnesses said that he "gasped and struggled to breathe" for an hour and 40 minutes. The drugs administered were midazolam (a sedative made infamous as one of the drugs given to Michael Jackson by Dr. Conrad Murray) and hydropmorphone, a pain-killer and respiratory depressant. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, nearly one-third of the executions using Midazolam have had "extremely troubling problems", including cases where the prisoner appeared to fall asleep but then started moving again. This was the first time these two drugs were used in combination for an execution in Arizona. The trio of drugs traditionally used for lethal injection - sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride - have been in short supply since 2009, forcing states to develop new cocktails of lethal drugs for executions. The result, in Wood's case and in several others this year, has been executions that take hours instead of 15 minutes, and appear to cause�pain and discomfort during the execution process.

via thebullockpulpit.typepad.com