Building on the American Non-Trumplican Majority for Political Victory in the Future

An update for all of us who are trying to figure out what the Nov. 8 voting portends for future elections.

First, as of close of business November 22, it appears, contrary to earlier reports, that 2016 turnout (134,041,442) actually exceeded the 2012 turnout (129,085,410). That gap will be larger when the remaining votes are tabulated.

Second, Clinton, as of November 22, has received 64,500,489 votes (48.1%) to Trump's 62,371,681 (46.5%) -- a plurality of more than two million votes. In 2012, Obama received 65,915,795 (51.1%) to Romney's 60,933,504 (47.2%). We must remember that the Democratic Party won the popular vote in the last three, and in four of the last five, presidential elections.  

Third, in the seven swing states won by Trump, he received a majority of the votes in only two: Iowa (51.%) and Ohio (51.8%). And all this with a Democratic candidate who carried some significant baggage and did not carry it very well.

The electoral future can be bright. In seeking to ameliorate -- or at least call to the nation's attention -- the damage that Trump and the Congressional Republicans will cause, activists most focus principally on strategies for building on this American majority so that the Electoral College and the gerrymandered Congress can return to their normal states of reflecting majority will. This must include a coherent message that will convince the 5.4% of the electorate who could not abide Trump, but could not accept Clinton, that the 2020 candidate is worthy of full trust. And this coherent message should not back away from the Democratic Party Platform.  

Most importantly, the Democratic message must include a forceful plan, forcefully presented, to help those left behind by technological change -- the very voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa who voted for Obama, but did not trust Clinton.

Sources:

http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federalelections2012.pdf (p. 5)

The Smug Style in American Liberalism: How Did We Get There?

My son Mike has been posting some very wise and perceptive pieces on Facebook. Six days ago, he pointed people to this Vox article by Emmett Reisin, entitled "The Smug Style in American Liberalism."

Here is Mike’s introduction to it:

“To my fellow liberals/progressives: Bookmark this essay, which was published back in April. Place a reminder note on your calendar for, say, a week or two from now, once the election shock has worn off and the initial anger has run its course, to read this essay in full. You won't enjoy it. It was emotionally painful for me to get through. But it's such an important reference point as we collectively begin the journey of extricating ourselves from the political crisis we now find ourselves in.”

I just read it, and I agree with most of what is said. It should be read when you have the time to read and think about it. 

I have a few additional comments:

This dynamic has been going on since the mid-1960s, when our society's attempt to grapple with our racial past came at the same time when world economic changes began to threaten the newfound stability of America's white working class. These economic changes have been accelerating with each passing decade. Our inability to deal with these economic changes led, more than anything else, to the result in the 2016 presidential election. 

While Democrats had some ideas on how to deal with the problems faced by the newly displaced, those ideas were blocked by the Republican Congressional Party. The Democrats have held the Presidency for 16 of the last 24 years, but have only held both houses of Congress for four of those years. Still, most people hold the President more accountable for results than the Congress.

Thus, too many on the “left” found it easier to blame voters who, in our view, did not see this political dynamic, rather than to consistently and exclusively challenge the moneyed interests and ideologues who blocked efforts to ameliorate the collateral damage caused by a changing world economic order. This failure was due, I suspect, in large part to the sharp decline in the strength of the Labor Movement and the increasing dependency of Democratic politicians on Wall Street money. So, by and large, many took refuge from the failure to soften the rough edges of American Capitalism by focusing principally on social issues. (This was a big part of the Hillary-Bernie divide during the primaries.)

In any event, the thesis that it was easier to be smug about being “right” than to fight more vigorously for the economic health of the working classes seems true. That Trump was able to end-run the Democrats with a faux concern for the newly displaced may seem outrageous, but it should not be surprising.

A deeper dive into what would happen if no one gets a majority in the Electoral College

OK, I hope and pray that this will not happen.  Every chance I get, I have been phone banking for the Clinton Campaign.  While she has her flaws, I strongly believe she would make a good President -- and is far better on every issue than Trump/Pence: Climate change, economic equity, women's reproductive rights, LGBT rights, for example.  Trump, on the other hand, has proven to be a dangerous, amoral or immoral demagogue; and Pence's strongly-held policy views are an anathema to every piece of progress our society has made in the last 80 years.

Hillary Clinton is most likely to win on November 8.  Still, recent polling indicates that there could be a tie in the Electoral College or, if Evan McMullen carries Utah, that no one would win a majority (see here ).  Last March, I laid out a scenario of what would happen if no candidate secured a majority of the Electoral College votes and the presidential election went to the House.  See here.    So it is time to take a deeper dive into that subject.

Under the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, if no one gets a majority in the Electoral College, selection of the President goes to the House of Representatives and selection of the Vice President goes to the Senate.  The House chooses among the top three Electoral College vote-getters; the Senate chooses among the top two. 

To be elected president in the House of Representatives, a candidate (who must be in the top three in the Electoral College) needs a majority of the 50 state delegations.  Assuming no change in the balance of the state delegations following the November 8 election, the Republicans will have a majority in 30 delegations.  See here  Of those delegations, nine have an even number.  If five of those delegations deadlock, then the House cannot select a president.  Why would that happen?  Because some Republican members of Congress from those states might prefer to stop Trump in the House and leave it to a Republican-majority Senate to choose Mike Pence as Vice President – and, therefore, Acting President under the 12^th Amendment.  (Of course, if the Democrats take back the Senate, then the dynamic obviously would be different.)

It should also be noted that of the 30 delegations presently majority Republican, Colorado is 4-3 Republican and Wisconsin is 5-3 Republican.  A flip in one seat in each state in the upcoming election would reduce the number of majority Republican delegations to 28.  That would mean that only three state delegations would have to deadlock to effectively throw the Presidency to whoever is elected Vice President in the Senate.

 Again, I hope and pray that it does not come to this.  Either a Trump or a Pence Presidency would be a disaster, each in its own ways. 

3,000 Year Old Warning From the First Book of Samuel Pertinent to Us Today

BUT SHOULD WE?

          I am a member of the Temple Emanuel Board of Trustees.  We open each Board meeting with a D'var Torah, typically a reading of a biblical passage followed by an interpretation of it.  Last night's meeting was the last one before the 2016 election.  I was asked to do the D'var Torah.  So I thought some passage or passages relating to leadership might be appropriate.

          So, initially,  I thought I would discuss the strengths and weakness of Israel’s famous kings: Saul, David, and Solomon.  I started my research with the First Book of Samuel, in which Samuel is instructed by the Lord to pick a king for Israel.  But in reading Chapter 8 of that book, I was struck by the biblical report of what led up to the decision to appoint a king, so I based my D'var Torah on Chapter 8 of the First Book of Samuel.  I presented the following: 

           Remember that in the years after the return of the Israelites to the “promised land” the Jewish tribes were loosely held together by judges who would adjudicate disputes among the people and would rally the people when threatened by other, non-Jewish, tribes in the region.  Samuel was the last of the great judges.

           In the era of the judges, the Jewish people seemed to have essentially governed themselves, trying to act in accordance with the rules handed down by Moses. Much, I suppose, like the U.S. Constitution, which are the rules by which we, as Americans, govern ourselves.  Israel of the judges was a self-governed society based on a set of principles.

          But Samuel grew old, and his sons who began to serve as judges proved inadequate,   

"4 [So] All the elders of Israel . . . came to Samuel . . .

"5 And they said to him: 'You have grown old, and your sons have not followed your ways. Therefore appoint a king for us, to govern us like all other nations.'

"6 Samuel was displeased that they said, 'Give us a king to govern us.' Samuel prayed to the Lord.

"7 And the Lord replied to Samuel: Heed the demand of the people in everything they say to you. For it is not you they have rejected; it is Me they have rejected as their king. . . . , 

"8 forsaking Me and worshipping other gods. . . . 

"9 Heed their demand; but warn them solemnly, and tell them about the practices of any king who will rule over them.'

"10 And Samuel reported all the words of the Lord to the people, who were asking him for a king.

"11 He said: 'This will be the practice of the king who will rule over you: he will take your sons, and appoint them as his charioteers and horsemen, and they will serve as outrunners for his chariots.

"12  . . . .  or they will have to plow his fields, reap his harvest, and make his weapons and the equipment for his chariots.

"13 He will take your daughters as perfumers, cooks, and bakers.

"14 He will seize your choice fields, vineyards, and olive groves, and give them to his courtiers.

"15 He will take a tenth part of your grain and vintage and give it to his . . .  courtiers. . . . 

"17 He will take a tenth part of your flocks; and you shall become his slaves.  

"18 The day will come when you cry out because of the king whom you yourselves have chosen; and the Lord will not answer you on that day.

"19 But the people would not listen to Samuel’s warning. ‘No,’ they said. ‘We must have a king over us,

"20 that we also may be like all the nations: Let our king rule over us and go out at our head and fight our battles.’

"21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he reported it to the Lord.

"22 And the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Heed their demands and appoint a king for them.’ "

 [When I read this passage, I emphasized the words I bolded and underlined above, and gave a big sigh before the phrase in Verse 22, "Heed their demands. . . . " in order to demonstrate my interpretation.]

          So Saul was appointed King of Israel.  With mixed results.  And, following a civil war, David became king; with better, but still decidedly mixed results. Then David’s son Solomon became king, with reportedly excellent results while he lived, but upon his death, the central government collapsed, Israel was divided into two countries. The northern tribes were conquered and the inhabitants dispatched to who knows where.  The southern kingdom limped along until it was conquered by the Babylonians, and the rest of the Jews were carried off into exile.

            Now, more than 3,000 years later, many in our own land seem to want to put their futures in the hands of a putative leader who disregards standards of human decency, and seems to have no regard for the underlying rules by which our democracy has governed itself for generations.  The Israelites disregarded the Lord’s and Samuel’s warnings 3,000 years ago.  Will we make the same error now?

Endorsements for Montgomery County School Board, 2016

Every two years, around this time, I get questions about who to vote for for the Montgomery County Board of Education. This is where I am coming from on MCPS issues: I have been involved in MCPS matters since 1984, when I was co-president of the Rosemary Hills Primary School PTA, working for needed resources for this magnet integration school. Later, I was public affairs director for the Gifted and Talented Association of Montgomery County, working to secure appropriate education for students and seeking ways to widen the net with respect to GT identification and opportunities; I subsequently worked to protect needed resources for the Blair, Richard Montgomery, Takoma Park, and Eastern signature secondary schools. Beginning in 2002, after my children graduated from MCPS, I became active in working to secure appropriate health education and other MCPS policies regarding LGBT issues, and continue in this area (in which MCPS has made great progress) to this day.

There are three contests, At-Large, District 2, and District 4. Every voter may vote in all three contests.

At-Large: Jeannette Dixon

Incumbent Phil Kauffman is running for his second reelection to this seat. I do not have significant disagreements with him on substantive matters, but have been disappointed with how he has viewed his role as a Board member. On matters relating to LGBT issues, for example, he has been on our side, but has never pushed to get things done -- an approach (taken by some, but not all BOE members) that, in my view, unnecessarily delayed implementation of effective health education curriculum revisions for seven years. As someone who has been involved in MCPS matters for more than 30 years, I am convinced that BOE members need to be more proactive. When Phil spoke at a candidate forum before the primary, he reiterated his commitment to a relatively hands-off approach, leaving virtually everything to the Superintendent. I disagree. The BOE and the Superintendent need to be in a collaborative relationship. I like Phil personally and on substantive policy, but his approach to the role of the BOE is, in my view, too cramped, and has not served MCPS well. I think we can do better. I should note that the Montgomery County Teachers Association (MCEA) has endorsed Phil. See here for MCEA's endorsement list and a link to its questionnaires to the candidates. I generally agree with the MCEA endorsements, but not in this contest.

Jeannette Dixon, the retired principal of Paint Branch High School, seems to generally align with my substantive views -- particularly on LGBT matters -- and promises to be more proactive. If Ms. Dixon is elected, three of the seven BOE members (excluding the student member) would be former principals, which, all things being equal, seems to me a bit too many. That is one reason I voted for Sebastian Johnson in the primary. But all things are not equal, and I favor Ms. Dixon because I think the Board needs to be more proactive. So I am voting for Jeannette Dixon.

Pasted below is my e-exchange with her on LGBT matters:

My e-mail to Ms. Dixon:

My name is David Fishback; I was Chair of the BOE's Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life & Human Development from Jan. 2003 through May 2005 and now am Advocacy Chair for the Metro DC Chapter of PFLAG. I am very interested in knowing your views on LBGT matters at MCPS. See this blog, which summarizes the 2002-14 controversy, which resulted in great progress: http://davidfishback.blogspot.com/2015/11/successful-public-school-lgbt.html

I look forward to hearing from you.

Ms. Dixon's response:

David I just finished reading your blog. It seems to me that you deserve the JFK Library Profile in Courage Award. Thank you for sticking with this all of those years and for your group's commitment to the rights of our students. You should know that if I were on the Board during this time I certainly would have had the courage to bring this up and not let politics get in the way of doing what is right for our students and helping to eradicate ignorance. The fact that having information on LBGT included in the Health curriculum took the BOE this long to act is unacceptable. I support LBTG rights 100% and if I am elected you can count on my active support on the Board, including speaking at forums if asked to do so.. When I was principal of Paint Branch we had a Gay/Straight Student Alliance that I was very supportive of and very proud of. We should have one in every high school at a minimum and begin the process of educating students at the elementary and middle school levels as well as a normal part of instruction by also highlighting the contributions that LBGT people have made to America. Something akin to getting the contributions of African-Americans and other groups recognized as a part of our American history story. It seems to me your blog is a great contribution to LBGT literature and you should think about having it published as a pamphlet which the Metro DC Chapter of PFLAG could sell to underwrite the cost. You made a difference for generations to come.Thank you for your work on all of this.

Best regards,

Jeanette Dixon

District 2: Rebecca Smondrowski

I do not know first-term incumbent Rebecca Smondrowski. As far as I can determine, she has supported progress regarding LGBT matters Given that her opponent, Brandon Orman Rippeon, has no discernible involvement in MCPS matters and, more to the point, is a conservative who unsuccessfully ran to the right of then-incumbent Congressman Roscoe Bartlett in the 2012 Republican primary (see here), I have no reason at all to think that we would want him on the BOE. Anyone associated with the right-wing of the Republican Party needs, in my view, to overcome a presumption of hostility to LGBT concerns. Mr. Rippeon has done nothing to try to overcome that presumption. (For background, see here for what happened in 2010 when someone active in local Republican Party politics ran (unsuccessfully) for the BOE. ) Ms. Smondrowski has been endorsed by MCEA. This is an easy call. I am voting for Rebecca Smondrowski.

District 4: Shebra Evans

This is a seat in which the incumbent is not running. Beginning in 2014, when she first ran for the BOE, I have had good discussions with Shebra, including one at a PFLAG house party. I had invited several BOE members (and former candidates); Shebra (along with Jill Ortman-Fouse and Mike Durso) came. I am confident that she would be a solid supporter of the positive direction MCPS has been taking on LGBT matters. I also find her experience as an MCPS parent and school activist very useful and laudable, and her views about the limits of high-stakes testing and appropriate education for all students consistent with my own. Shebra has been endorsed by the MCEA and nearly all of the members of the Montgomery County delegation to the General Assembly, including Rich Madaleno, Anne Kaiser, and Bonnie Cullison. See here . I do not know very much about her opponent, but I am very confident that Sheba would make an excellent BOE member. I am voting for Shebra Evans.