The Election (Discussion)

I published "The Election" on August 30, 2012 and was gratified at the fact that I received comments from 18 people.

I was deeply disappointed, however, by the fact that except for Janet Cooke of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania none responded to my plea at the end of my post:

That means contributing money till it hurts. It means joining phone banks. It means doing all that is within our power to forestall the tragedy that looms for our country and posterity.

Janet simply wrote "I'll be volunteering for Obama."

I don’t believe it is enough to express concern about the looming catastrophe. In the end what counts is what we do to forestall it and while the fact that it isn’t mentioned doesn’t mean that my respondents are not doing anything, I fear that this may be so.

As for me, I do put my money where my mouth is. Since January, I authorized monthly charges to my credit card to Obama for America. On August 12, I made an additional contribution of $50 and on August 29 I decided I had better become serious and contributed $1,000 to the campaign. I expect to max out my contributions before November at $2,500.

In addition I have been contributing to the DemocraticNational Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Governors Association, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and liberal organization like People for the American Way, environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, Planned Parenthood and countless others. All of these can be accessed by clicking on their name.

I do not expect my readers to match my zeal, but if you care about our country, you ought to do more than nod your head and say the right things.

Now here are a selection of exchanges that I had with my readers, starting with Herb Reiner of Cedar Grove, NJ:

While you and I have had some serious disagreements about Obama’s failings, I can only concur that your parade of potential horrors of a Romney-Ryan administration is no exaggeration. Republican legislatures in key states have passed laws that disenfranchise potential Democratic voters and the Republican Party of Texas openly opposes the teaching of “critical thinking”  -- a quality that is so essential to an electorate in a democracy. Then there’s the jingoism: Never hint of apologizing for America (Presumably we’re always right about everything) and you can never tout American exceptionalism enough. It scares me – but maybe another warlike authoritarian plutocracy is just what the world needs! 

From Nancy Vieira, of Bethesda Md:

HEAR! HEAR! SO glad to hear from you again! And, with such a power message, one that I share! I look forward to your formal post at your web site and I will forward the link to family and friends to get the message out! 

Thanks for picking up the pen again! Indeed, scary times are ahead if the Republicans win this election.

From Janet Wood of Toronto, Canada an expatriate from the US:

I have been watching from afar with dismay and wondering what you were thinking. I think you nailed it and I hope people respond. In general, Canadians are aghast at the criticism of Obama, which comes from all sides, and the inability of Americans to see the reality of the world as it is, including their own country, instead of how they think it should be.

Which led to this exchange:

From me:

I think you hit the nail on the head when you write about: "the inability of Americans to see the reality of the world as it is" and that is often true for the Left as much as for the Right. But on the Right there is a total disconnect and a refusal to even consider real facts as opposed to fantasy. Do you still vote in American elections?

From Janet:

You are right about the right. I confess I do not understand the "left.” They are holding Obama to a standard, which does not exist and makes no sense. They seem to feel he could execute his vision in the midst of a global financial crisis--and a US situation, which is not over yet. They also refuse to credit anything of substance. It is Yes, but... It's hard to believe, but they do not seem to understand the danger of the alternative...

Mike Cerrato Esq. of Westville, New Jersey chimed in with:

YES! As usual, you have succinctly (and brilliantly) put what is going through so many of our minds into words. For those of us who really missed your insights, our sincere thanks. And rest assured, I do forward your comments to as many people as I believe will appreciate them. And a few who I know won't, just to really stick it to them in return for ruining so many otherwise pleasant social occasions! Again, thank you.

Mike then added:

One thing I have been mulling over. Do you think it is going too far to accuse the Republicans of treason? I know it doesn't fit the legal definition, but the obstructionism of the last 4 years just to be able to lambaste the President for not fixing the mess they created sure seems to be a ploy to worsen and use the nations' problems for political gain. (And who can say this wasn't an economic war being waged against the country?) Sad to say, I am starting to believe the only way to win this election is to get as obnoxious as the other side has been since President Obama has been in office. 

Also, one other thing I feel needs to be pointed out to counter the notion that Obama had a two year "free pass" before the 2010 debacle. Let's not forget that when he was elected, the country was screaming for "bipartisanship." One of the most frustrating things for me to see was how far the President went to offer olive branch after olive branch to the other side, only to have them reject EVERY overture (including, thank God, some which gave away even more than they could have ever hoped to achieve on their own!) Now they want to crucify him for that as well? Just seems more than a little unfair. Curious to get your opinion on whether you think either of these positions has any merit.

To which I replied:

I can understand your anger and your feeling that what they have been doing is nothing short of treason. I never comment on campaign tactics because if there is one thing I don't pretend to understand is what motivates an ignorant electorate. However, I will say that for some reason Democrats have always been held to a much higher standard than Republicans. You will remember Joe McCarthy's charge during the Truman Administration of "twenty years of treason." What was worse is that when the Democratic led Tydings Committee "concluded that the individuals on McCarthy's list were neither Communists nor pro-communist, and said the State Department had an effective security program" and "labeled McCarthy's charges a "fraud and a hoax". Republicans responded in kind, with William E. Jenner stating that Tydings was guilty of "the most brazen whitewash of treasonable conspiracy in our history.” The full Senate voted three times on whether to accept the report, and each time the voting was precisely divided along party lines.”

But that is not even ancient history. Ann Coulter, a darling of Republicans recently, wrote: "Twenty years of treason hasn't slowed them down." and charged "50 years of treason.” 

Nixon running for Congress smeared his opponent as the "pink lady.”

But the media, which will denounce Democrats for any excess, always gives Republicans a free ride, so much so that Republicans have declared that they care little about the facts: "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," said Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster." 

Compare that to the smear directed against Al Gore by the New York Times and the Washington Post - See my post "The Media II - Falsehoods about Gore" which you can access by clicking or double-clicking on the title and which I urge you to read, particularly since the Times as recently as today repeated the smear, ironically in an article entitled: "Facts Take A Beating in Acceptance Speeches" where the article asserted: 

"...falsehoods...hampered Vice President Al Gore during his run for president in 2000, when his misstatements on the campaign trail were used to stoke the perception that he could not be trusted in general." And in typical media attempt to seem even handed wrote: "The growing number of misrepresentations appear to reflect a calculation in both parties (emphasis added) that shame is overrated..."

Frankly I do think there have been some instances of treason on the part of Republicans, but it is not kosher for them to be accused of such things. Christopher Hitchens, not a partisan wrote:

“In the fall of 1968, Richard Nixon and some of his emissaries and underlings set out to sabotage the Paris peace negotiations on Vietnam. The means they chose were simple: they privately assured the South Vietnamese military rulers that an incoming Republican regime would offer them a better deal than would a Democratic one. In this way, they undercut ... the talks...”

I think to undercut an Administration's peace negotiations is treason.

I also think the Reagan Administration committed treason on the subject of the hostages in Iran. I can't prove it, though I think the media, if they had investigated, could have. Iran refused to release the hostages until right after the election. Why? I am convinced that Reagan emissaries offered them inducements not to. Had Iran released the hostages before the election, Carter, quite possibly, would have won.

But no, I don't think the present outrageous behavior, can by any stretch of the imagination, be considered treason.

Sally Share of Fort Lee, NJ expressed this view:

I agree with you 100%. It is so distressing. I don't understand how a nation can be persuaded to vote for a party that does not have it's best interests at heart. It is so Orwellian. Are we a nation of fools? Downloaded your posting. Would it be OK if I forward it to a few of my friends?

To which I readily assented and encouraged.

Roger Streit of West Orange, NJ questioned one of my assertions with:

A small point is that supply-side economics may not be touted in “textbooks of the Chicago school.” I don’t know either way. For a long discussion of supply-side economics, go here:

To which I replied:

I don't know whether the Chicago school still teaches Supply Side economics, but the article to which you refer me, mentions the Chicago School and Milton Friedman as, at least, one of its main sources.

Barbara Valentino Crowley Baptiste Moreus of Port St. Lucie, Florida expressed herself as follows:

This election is really p*ssing me off because I have an awful feeling that there is a very good chance they will get in (hate to even mention the party or names) .... I find it absolutely amazing....as their platform alienates:  Teachers, Women, Gays, Seniors, Hispanics...and, multi-cultural America on a whole....as evidenced by one look at the hundreds of faces in the audience filled, save for a few token ethnic "individuals," strategically placed! Great show for WHITE SUPREMACY rally! And, btw, I doubt of the milk toast Puritan Tea Partiers included Eastern Europeans...just the Western European roots of our founding fathers... OK Leaving the soap box.... Thank you for writing.

Eric Offner of Manhasset Hills, NY of set forth his view on this and I believe all elections with:

I really appreciate your view. I agree with your analysis. It is interesting that I reach a different conclusion for my vote. I will be told I am wasting my vote. The opposite is true.

And Sonya Leopold of San Augustine, Texas chimed in with:

So good to hear from you again and to read your intelligent, impassioned report on the state of affairs in this election period where you lay out so clearly what the real issues are. Thank you, again!!!

A contributor who wishes to remain anonymous wrote:

You have written an excellent well researched commentary on the election and I agree with your views almost 100%. Please keep up your good work at least until the election, and you can then go back to your personal tasks in November, December and in 2013. Probably the reason that Romney will not release his tax returns is because his evangelical supporters, many of whom believe that Mormonism is a cult, may be offended and turned off by the huge donations he has probably made to the Mormon Church.   

Here in Connecticut a Republican woman named Linda McMahon is running for the US Senate and she has no qualifications other than having been a founder of the World Wrestling Federation. However I am afraid that she has a good chance of winning because her Democratic opponent, Congressman Chris Murphy seems to be bored with the campaign, and is hardly visible. He has not even solicited a donation from me. I am hopeful, but not confident, that the Presidential debates will tip the election in Obama's favor.

Finally Leonard Levenson of Manhattan, NY wrote a long exposition of his views as follows:

I was moved by you recent letter about this election. I agree with you that this election is about the creation of an emerging Oligarchy in the US. The disparity between rich and poor in the US today is greater than at any time since the roaring 20's and far greater than the days of the war on poverty under Johnson. It is not an accident that the greatest jump in the stock market since WWII occurred in the 60's under Kennedy and Johnson and under Clinton in the 90s. We did well under Eisenhower but that was probably caused by the spending spree following the end of the war. 

The present Republican Party seems intent on limiting the vote of minorities by discouraging immigration, by passing burdensome laws dealing with voter registration and by excluding Felons from voting (in some states for life) no matter how minor the crime. The worldview of the present Republican Party harks back to meanest period of economic and social life in our history. It glorifies the Laissez Faire Capitalism of the Robber Baron era of the 1890s and the small mindedness of Victorian England. It begrudges aid to the poor even though all Federal and State aid for food stamps and welfare did not exceed $100 billion dollars last year in a Federal budget in excess of 1 trillion dollars and State budgets of an equal amount.  

Unfortunately, I have been discouraged by the lack of firm and vigorous leadership of Obama and blue dog Democrats. If Obama were Lyndon Johnson or TIP O’Neal or FDR, I believe the Senate would not have been able to block meaningful legislation by a small minority of senators. Obama's record on Civil rights has not been good and he has cow-towed to republican objections to closing Guantanamo. He has been responsible for vigorously deporting large numbers of illegal immigrants until just recently and has not used the "bully pulpit" effectively to push his program. However, these failings are as nothing compared to the disaster that would befall this country with a Romney win.   

I am chilled by the prospects of a Supreme Court made up of a majority of Alitos', Thomas' and Roberts' for the rest of my lifetime. I am depressed by the prospect of a cruel and insensitive Government which believes the answer to crime is more and harsher punishment; that the answer to poverty is for the poor to work longer and harder for less pay and the answer for the sick who cannot afford medical care is to die.  

However, in my more optimistic moments I think of other periods in our history when hysteria and hatred have taken over until the American people came to their senses. I think of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1802, of the "know nothings" and anti immigration movements of the 1840s, of slavery from the early 17th century to 1865, of the robber barons of the post Civil War, of Jim Crow for 100 years, of the Palmer raids of the 1919-1920 period, of McCarthyism, of Vietnam and of Bush era politics. I think of Lincoln and his hope that "you can't fool all of the people all of the time". We survived all of these calamitous periods and I hope that we could survive a Romney Presidency if that disaster should befall us.

This required a response and accordingly, I wrote:

Good to hear from you, and I appreciate the contents of your remarks in most of what you say.

                       

However, I must take exception to your third and fifth paragraphs.

                       

As to the third paragraph, we have been over this in previous discussions and I am surprised and disappointed that you raise this again now.

           

I guess once a mindset gets set, it is hard to let it go. But rather than repeat all that has been said in the past, I refer you to my posts "The Trojan Horse - Comments," "The Trojan Horse – Comments II", and "The Trojan Horse – Comments II (continued)" where you graciously conceded, "You may have a point when you suggest that my anger at Obama is really disappointment at the lack of progress that I hoped for. Perhaps no Democrat could have made any substantial progress against the know nothing Republicans. I think I would have preferred a battle royale (even a losing one) than accepting a weakened Health Care Bill, an inadequate deficit reduction bill and the many other compromises, which Obama probably was forced to make."

                            

The problem of course is, and has always been the totally unreasonable expectations that the election of Obama aroused. I anticipated this and warned against it, when I posted my commentary "Obama Walks on Water"

I might add that even as early in the President's term as August of 2011 I wrote of his long list of accomplishments. Please see "The Achievements of Barack Obama."

But this is in particular bad taste when the point that I made in my last post is that this election is not about Obama. It is about the future of America and posterity.

Which brings me to the last paragraph of your comment. Yes the US survived other terrible periods in its history. But that totally misses the point. It is like saying that the Jews, as a people survived the Holocaust, or that African-Americans survived slavery and Jim Crow. Yes, the nation and the world go on, but the tens of thousands who die for lack of health care do not. Those who are denied an education are not only set back, but so are their children and often it is multigenerational. What counts is people, as people, as individuals and as groups. They suffer, even if the nation and they survive, and to make light of such suffering is unbecoming.

Even Syria will survive. But at what cost?

The Election

It has not been so long since I said "Adieu." The response was gratifying as can be seen from my post "Adieu (Comments)" but it did not solve either the problem of the small size of my audience, nor its consumption of an amount of my time that forced neglect of many of my personal duties and interests.

Nevertheless, I am back because I can no longer endure the apathy that seems to be greeting this campaign, and I cringe when I hear of people saying, “Well, I will vote for Obama, but will make no further effort. He has disappointed me.” So allow me to say, nay shout from the rooftops, this election is not about Obama. This election is not about you; this election is not about me.

This election is about the heart and soul of America!!! It is about the survival of the USA as a great power. It is about the future of our children, and our children’s children. It is about the survival of our middle class, which has been the source of the nation’s success, and the envy of the world.

Since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 there has been an inexorable decline of the Middle Class in America. There has been a steady redistribution of wealth upward. Slowly but steadily. First we found that families had to have two breadwinners to earn enough to stay in the middle class. We thought that this meant progress because we associated it with the Women’s Movement that allowed women their place in the workplace, and it was a good thing that women could now, for the first time make careers as lawyers, as doctors, and even to a limited extent as CEOs. What we didn’t see was that this had not become a freedom, a choice; it had become a necessity. Without two wage-earners it was no longer possible to stay in the middle class.

It used to be that every generation could look forward to the next generation doing better than the previous one. This is no longer true, except for people like Trump, like the Bushes, like Romney, who begin life with all the advantages of coming from the wealthy aristocracy. It used to be the landed aristocracy – now wealth is held differently, but it is no different.

Our tax code used to be graduated. During the last year of the Republican Administration of Dwight Eisenhower in 1960, there were 24 tax brackets ranging from 20% to 91% on all incomes over $400,000. To be sure $400,000 in today’s dollars is the equivalent of over three million dollars. But it used to be 65% on all incomes over $64,000, the equivalent of half a million in today’s dollars and as I have said 91% on incomes over three million dollars. No wonder the Federal government now cannot pay its bills without huge deficits or by decimating government services. But they tell us that high taxes on the rich (they have renamed them “job creators” - clever) keep the economy from thriving. Really? Was the Eisenhower economy bad? Was the Bush economy good? What about the Clinton economy? Even Reagan had high taxes and after lowering them too much, increased them by the largest amount in history according to the right-wing website The Free Market.

Our tax code now has Romney, with his hundreds of millions, paying a tax rate by his own account of 13%. I, like most middle class families, pay more than that, and if Romney wins we will pay more, he and those similarly situated, will pay substantially less. Where will the money to meet our needs come from?

Are we going to end up with a tax system similar to the one that existed under the French monarchy before the revolution, where nobility (read today - the wealthy) held the highest positions and were exempt from taxes?

This election is not about the deficit.  It is not about the size of government.  It isn’t even about jobs.

This election is not about the deficit.

These are phony issues cooked up by the Republican Tea Party, and promoted by our craven media echo chamber. According to the Tea Party's website the Ryan-proposed budget would balance the budget in 2040 or eighteen years from now. Does that sound like a plan that has real concern with balancing the budget, particularly when it is considered that at the beginning of the last Republican Administration the United States had a projected federal budget surpluses for the indefinite future and with Ryan’s support, put through policies that wiped out the surpluses and substituted deficits as far as the eye can see. Furthermore even the 2040 projection seems phony because to achieve them would require the elimination of tax expenditures, which have not been specified, and which appear to be nothing but pie in the sky, or worse, would further impact the middle class and the poor.

Is it about the size of government?

It is about the role of government The proposals are for increasing the military, doing away with Roe vs. Wade and increasing government intrusion into the bedroom of every married or unmarried couple, and even blocking access to contraception services. It is not likely to reduce abortion, since unwanted pregnancies would increase as contraceptive services decrease, but rather move abortion for desperate women from the offices of reputable physicians to the back alleys of yore.

It would increase surveillance of our citizenry while reducing their constitutional rights in the name of the war on terrorists and would continue the war on drugs, while taking us into what may well be perpetual war, in an effort to protect the profits of our defense industries and by creating a gun culture that feeds the profits of gun makers.

It is not about the size of government. It is about the role of government. It is whether government’s role is to protect us from the avarice and the dishonesty of the unscrupulous who inhabit too much of our banking and business sector, or whether government should become the protectors of these so called job creators, who have no interest in creating jobs, but whose object by definition is to maximize profits. It is whether government is to be the ally of the Gordon Gekkos of the world, or the protectors of their victims. The media has accepted without question that Staples was a job creator. But were they? For every job they created how many small stationery stores, the real small businesses of the USA, went bust. How many of the owners of these businesses were forced into bankruptcy and how many of their employees lost their jobs. How good are Staples' jobs? $8.92, $8.47, $9.35 an hour. See here.

  

It isn’t even about jobs.

It is about jobs in the minds of the public. But there is nothing in the Republican program that on the basis of experience is likely to improve the jobs picture. Just as The Democratic Clinton Administration handed the Republican party a positive economy and a good jobs picture which in eight years they decimated, so it is more than likely that a return to the policies that destroyed jobs and brought us to the edge of depression, would only exacerbate the jobs picture. High unemployment is not exactly something that makes employers unhappy. It puts downward pressure on wages, and cheap labor is something that our rich, re-named job creators, relish.

Their supply-side economics may sound good in textbooks of the Chicago school, but they have proven time and time again as fallacious in the real world. Jobs, as experience has proven, time and time again, are created when demand for goods and services exist. No employer will hire to create goods or services for which there is no demand. No matter how much money is on hand, no matter how low taxes, no employer hires, unless he/she needs those employees. All is circular. When demand falls because of unemployment, or low wages, or because consumers have over extended themselves, employers will reduce employees because they don’t need them. This loss of jobs decreases the ability to make purchases, further decreasing demand, which lead to further layoffs, etc. The reverse is equally true! When money is placed into the hands of consumers, by the only entity that can do so in a declining economy, the government, it increases demand, requiring the production of more goods, which requires the hiring of staff, which increases demand, etc. The only time this fails is when demand outstrips supply, which leads to inflation, not something that is a threat in the foreseeable future.

What is this election about?

This election is truly a class struggle. Republicans tell us by calling it that we are in some way preaching a communist doctrine. But calling something what it is, is never any doctrine. As I have indicated, we have had over thirty years of an inexorable decline of the middle class, which was exacerbated during 8 years of the last Republican Administration. The last time we had a chance to reverse this trend was at the end of the Clinton Administration. Clinton was hampered not only by Republican obstructionism, but by the deficit he inherited from the Reagan/Bush years, (and when we look at the record we find that despite the propaganda, the party of deficits is the Republican party) which made desperately needed expenditures undesirable. With our fiscal situation in order and improving further, the election of Al Gore could have ushered in a period of American constructive growth. At the same time with Republican Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retiring, Gore could have swung the Supreme Court in a more liberal direction. Maybe that is why for the first time in American history the Supreme Court stepped in and decreed George W. Bush the winner.

Bush cemented the Republican majority on the court, which now decreed in the “United case” that money is speech, and that the right to use money to buy elections; to intimidate opponents; and to dominate the political landscape has constitutional protection.

And we had the Bush tax cuts, the war in Iraq, which has removed a counter-weight to Iran and created a Shiite state with a natural affinity to Iran, which together turned the Clinton surpluses into huge deficits and further undermined the middle class.

If Republicans win this election they will secure a majority on the Court that will be unchallengeable for decades, and will embolden the court further.

They will push through further tax cuts that will further empower the rich, who will push through further cuts. The circle works here too. Money leads to power – power to money – money to more power, to more money, etc.

Before the next four years are over, they very likely will have succeeded in making their vision irreversible. Medicare gone, not for us, but certainly for our children and grandchildren. Social Security gone –not for us, but certainly for our children and grandchildren. Continuing rising Health care costs, but the burden moved from society to the individual, and with that good health care only for the rich. Ever greater impoverishment of the poor and near poor as the minimum wage is, at the least, allowed to be decimated over the years by inflation, and quite possibly abolished, and the ladder out of poverty, and upward mobility, already shredded, disappears.

The despoilment of our air and water as the EPA is at least undermined, and very likely abolished.

I could go on and on and some will say I exaggerate. I don’t !!!! Most of what I warn will happen is in the Republican platform. They have said they will do it. Why would one doubt it?

Can Democrats stop all this with the filibuster? Not likely. Once the Tea Party people have control of all branches of government, they will end the filibuster, which they will no longer need and reign supreme.

What will happen to our schools? What made the US great was that we were the first to institute a class free educational system with high school free. In the 21^st century we need state colleges to be tuition free. Instead we already see a trend where private college tuition is skyrocketing and public institutions are not far behind. We need to reverse this. But a Republican victory will exacerbate it. Less and less money for public schools, larger classes and increasingly obsolescent buildings and plants, a trend already under way.

And our public schools will teach Creationism instead of Evolution, the Denial of Global Warming, and all about Adam and Eve. Maybe not in all states, but in quite a few!

All this does not even cover the many other areas that are threatened. Our prisons turned over to private industry so that prisoners can be used as profit centers, something akin to slavery. Increasing attempts to disenfranchise minorities, the poor, and the aged.

What about federal lands that have been owned by the nation since they were acquired. Romney has already proposed they be turned over to the states. And what will many states do? Sell them off so they can cut taxes!

I don’t agree with much of what Ryan says, but I do agree with him on this quote: “We're not just picking the next president for a few years. We are picking the pathway for America for a generation.”

Some will say I am playing Cassandra. I am afraid that I am, because like Cassandra who warned the Trojans of “the destruction of Troy (… about the Trojan Horse the death of Agamemnon, and her own demise), (but) she was unable to do anything to forestall these tragedies since no one believed her.” 

What can we do to stop this tragedy? We can start by taking the threat seriously. We can stop talking about our disappointments with the President, and we can start taking the election as the most important thing in our lives.

That means contributing money till it hurts. It means joining phone banks. It means doing all that is within our power to forestall the tragedy that looms for our country and posterity. And it means distributing this warning to all your friends, acquaintances, and anyone else who will listen.

Yes, it is that serious.

Adieu (Comments)

When I posted my last commentary entitled "Adieu" on June 21, I truly expected not to post another commentary, at least for a long time to come.

However, after the very disappointing five person response to my request for an indication of who had read the post preceding "The Inscrutable Center Keeps Moving Rightward (Continued III)" I received a surprising and heart warming response to my "Adieu" from 25 readers who are geographically diverse.

The one from Irving Lesnick Esq. of Boca Ratan, Florida and Waltham, Massachusetts went a long way in explaining the meager response to my request for an indication of who had read my previous post. 

He wrote:

I am afraid that I am one of your public who read your posts as they came in, and generally agreed (writing to you when I did not). I confess, however, that I did not read the stuff at the bottom of the post, probably, without thinking about it, that it was boiler plate. Be all that as it may, if you really are retired this time, I will miss your analysis.

And from Pearl Duncan of Manhattan, New York came this:

I hate to see you go. Please do not silence your voice. Your articles were so insightful; I hope you continue to write. Writing is like tossing a pebble in the ocean; you do not always see the ripples but there are ripples on the water, and readers, and the best you can do is try to reach as many readers as you can, even readers you do not know and readers who read, digest and appreciate your insight and analysis but do not respond. Using the social media such as Facebook and Twitter is one way of reaching more readers who are fascinated by political analysis. I write cultural history and I hear from busy readers who save the articles and read them when they can. It’s okay to build your readership, one reader at a time. 

Janet Cooke of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania sent this note:

I look forward to reading the next post, but I am sorry that you're discontinuing the commentaries. Maybe I do understand a little how you are feeling. As much as anyone can know what another person is really feeling. What is clear to me is that you've really contributed to a lot of people's thinking about the current state of things. And I sincerely believe that your commentaries have made a difference for people in a very meaningful way. And I want you to know that.

Roger Berkeley of Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey wrote:

I am surprised and saddened by your decision. I'm not as diligent as you have been, but I write for myself. I post a link on my Facebook page so my Facebook friends can read what I've written if they're so inclined. I enjoy the writing process and that's enough. Are you so busy? I'm not.

To which I responded:

I enjoy both the research and the writing process, but it isn't enough. My posts can sometimes take 10 to 20 hours counting research, which keeps me from doing a lot of other things. I am surprised that you say that you are not so busy. Don't you have a business to run?

As for me, since I decided to stop blogging I have redone my Will and my Trust. Done an irrevocable Power of Attorney. Learned how to use iTunes and started loading my extensive collection of CDs into my computer. Have taken computer lessons. Continue to discuss issues with a select group of friends. Started catching up on my magazine reading - finished reading some classics, and watch all the wonderful documentaries, operas, etc on PBS etc. and in many cases record them to DVD for permanent retention. Of course as I always did, my wife and I spend much time in New York at the theater, concerts, and the museums.

Yes, I keep busy.

Roger Streit of West Orange, New Jersey expressed this sentiment:

I hate to see you go. Maybe you can offer your ideas as a column in a well-established forum, such as Huffington Post, Salon, Politico.

To which my reply was "I would love to, but they aren't interested."

Mike Cerrato Esq. of Westville, New Jersey chimed in with:

Your insight and always thoughtful analysis will be sorely missed. 

Ernst Hauser of the Bronx, NY simply indicated “Read” belatedly, as did Jeanne Swartelé-Wood of Baltimore, Maryland.

Bruno Lederer of Stamford, Connecticut made this observation on June 27, 2012:

I am disappointed that you have decided to discontinue your blog, at a crucial time like this. Tomorrow there will be a decision by the Supreme Court on the Healthcare bill, and yesterday the Court ruled on the Immigration issues in Arizona. In November we will have a Presidential election as well as Congressional elections. I for one think that your input at this time is important. I read most of your blog writings and find them very enlightening. 

Albert Nekimken PhD of Vienna, Virginia made this observation:

I was sorry to read this posting, though not surprised and I could certainly understand your disappointment. Personally, I have carefully kept a file of all of your blog entries and I look forward to reading them over time, sending comments along the way. Unfortunately, they may not be as topical as they were when first written, but I suspect most of them will have enduring value beyond the news of the day. I hope you find a more rewarding and responsive audience for your writing. I urge you to shift from a production mode to a marketing mode, at least temporarily, to explore the possibilities.

My response was:

That is exactly what I will do after taking time off. I need to go into a marketing mode.

Pat Burns of Edgewater, NJ offered this generous appraisal. After explaining that she has problems with her eyesight she explains:

That my work has been “much appreciated… (as is the) “hard work and the scholarship that goes into every word you write. Only a difficulty like this, would ever stop me from keeping up with your valuable analysis of this maddening political disaster we are experiencing. I do send some of your articles to my family, and I was very touched by your comments on my Times letter re: Nuns. I still try to follow this travesty, but today, hearing that the Vatican has hired a Fox correspondent in Rome to do PR for them, is the worst yet. The Vatican is NOT my church at this time. But I hold to all it has been in the past in my long life, as exemplified by the Nuns and their work of social activism in their care for the poor and unfortunates in our society.  

In the meantime, fact check, Politico, will be happy to have you aboard and you will find the readership you deserve - AND get paid. Make them an offer they can't refuse with one of your current articles. You are a friend.

Charles Dryfoos of Boca Ratan, Florida had these good wishes:

 Good luck on what ever you do next.

Benjamin Feinberg had these kind words:

Your research articles are always interesting and enlightening, and sometimes a bit scary.

George Garver simply wrote: 

Thanks – I’ll miss your commentary!

Stephen Baird M.D. of Solana, California simply indicated, “Read.”

And Paul Neustadt expressed these kind thoughts: 

Sorry to see you go. Your thoughts and comments are most welcome.

Eric Offner of Manhasset Hills, NY wrote concisely: 

I have read every article. I enjoyed reading them.

Joel Wiener Esq. of Boca Ratan, Florida wrote: 

With the election looming, how can you resist?

Paula Billiard wrote:

You will be missed.

Professor Louise Mayo PhD of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania wrote: 

I have read but not commented and I must confess I must have missed that last request. I have been very busy with a multitude of volunteer work and teaching.

Sonya Leopold of San Augustine, Texas commented with: 

Sorry to see you go. I found your comments always interesting and intelligent. Good luck. 

Sally Share of Fort Lee, NJ expressed her thoughts with:

I’m one of those who don't always read your emails in a timely manner. I tucked them away until I had time to read them, sometimes a few weeks would go by until I had time to sit down and give them proper attention. I enjoyed your commentary. It filled a gap that I felt after Harold passed. His views usually coincided with yours to such a great extent and so your Emails were always stimulating food for thought that I did not find among conversations with my friends. I understand your feeling neglected, but I wanted you to know your efforts and views were appreciated, whether in your Emails or your Letters to the Editors. Thank you for your efforts. Sorry to lose access to your thoughts. I hope you find a more satisfying venue for them.

Elaine Krigsman of Montclair, NJ expressed her feeling in this way:

I will miss your postings. Perhaps the reason I haven't commented is that politics these days is DEPRESSING. I am finding it difficult to read the newspaper without muttering. Your writing has been welcome reading, but you're preaching to the choir in my case. 

To which I responded:

I assume that all my readers belonged to the choir. Unfortunately, we are living in an age when a thought that does not concur with ones predilections quickly gets tuned off. It is sad!

Nancy Vieira, of Bethesda Md. made it all worthwhile with:

I am so sorry that you are saying "Adieu!” I have been an avid reader of your column for at least 4 (or more) years and I apologize for never having sent you a response thanking you for your efforts. I send your posts (I receive your columns within an email text) to friends and have shared with a fellow colleague who has been on your email list for the past 2 years. As it turns out, your previous post on which you had asked for the reader to, at least, respond with a "Read" in the subject field of an email was one that I had not yet opened. I was disappointed the first time you had bid "Adieu!” but was so happy when I started to receive our posts again! I now am again disappointed since your posts give me the foundation of knowledge that I, working full time (and overtime), do not have the time to research for myself. I look forward to the day that you decide to pick up your pen again! 

Thank-you again for all your efforts in enlightening me of the facts of our everyday political and historical news.

And last, but not least, Herb Reiner of Cedar Grove, NJ wrote:

You shouldn’t feel disillusioned, even if only a few of your readers expressed appreciation for your commentaries (and I’m sure there were many). Remember the Internet gives all of us access to hundreds of the world’s best political commentators and writers, many of whom spend all of every working day researching their columns. Many on-line publications now give readers the space to critique the columnists and they can interact with each other, if not directly with the columnists. In addition, anyone who so desires can publish his or her own blog and there are probably thousands (if not tens of thousands) of bloggers with a wide range of talents and persuasions, whom we can follow. Unless you can continually produce commentaries with exceptional wit, style, new insight, and clarity of expression, don’t expect much of a readership to follow and interact with you for very long. There’s just too much competition. But just attempting to write commentaries with the aforementioned qualities might still be worth the effort as an exercise in keeping your mind and critical faculties sharp and focused.

To which I responded with:

Thank you for your encouraging words, but as is so often the case, I don't agree with you. But as far as I am concerned disagreement is good.

It wasn't the lack of appreciation. Over time I received many words of appreciation. I never had that large an audience. Only about 80 opted in.

But the problem was not having a base from which to solicit. All I ever had was taking the distribution lists of my friends and acquaintances and that did not net that many people, even as potential readers. But it did at one time net over 800, but they were random and not at all a group that would be interested in reading analysis. I tried to reduce that by getting rid of the chaff by asking them to opt out. Some did, but not that many, because most wouldn't even go to that effort.

Even among some of the ones I knew, I asked again and again for them to opt in or out. I couldn't get them to respond. Finally on my last go around I made it a strictly opt in list. That netted 80.

But the advantage of blogging is that one gets not only the subscribers, but people who find your posts by Googling. Using that I had 734 page views last month.

Those might be more important than my subscribers, but I get no satisfaction from that.

Disillusioned is the wrong word. I need to get paid in proportion to the work I do and the many hours I invest. Feedback is my pay. And when I get only five who indicate they read the last blog that becomes the final downer. But it was misleading. Upon announcing my retirement 20 expressed disappointment and regret.

You say, "Unless you can continually produce commentaries with exceptional wit, style, new insight and clarity of expression,” but in all modesty I believe that is exactly what I did. Well, I rarely attempted wit. But the other three I believe I did in abundance. I don't believe that my problem was ever content. I had too few people to begin with, some were half hearted to begin with, and most were, and are, very busy.

What you say about the many blogs I am competing with is true, but not really a factor, because few if any of my subscribers read other blogs, and unlike you few research the web.

As for "exercise in keeping your mind and critical faculties sharp and focused" that is a major reward to be sure, but not enough when it becomes so time consuming as not to allow many other activities.

If I return, and sooner or later I will want to return, because I believe that I have insights not shared by others, it will only be because I have found a way to vastly increase my readership. I have some idea along this line that I need to explore. We shall see.

As for the professionals, writing columns for the major newspapers, it is their shallowness that prompts me to write. If I thought the media was doing their job I would not feel the need to write.

But above all, what gets distributed widely is the sensational, which most of the time has not a scintilla of truth to it, but a gullible public that aught to know better hits the forward button without checking the veracity of what they are forwarding. I have often urged use of Snopes, but people are too lazy to check. Hitting the forward button is easier.

Adieu

I have for some time had a sinking feeling that I was spending huge amounts of time researching and writing for an ever-dwindling audience. To be sure I like researching, even for my own edification and my own enlightenment. I even like putting my thoughts into words, but given the amount of time and effort involved, gratification from the knowledge that many are benefiting from my effort and appreciative of same, is absolutely necessary, as is an exchange of views. After all I do not get any monetary compensation, so I expect at least some psychic rewards. When those fail, it becomes harder and harder to invest the time and effort required for this endeavor.

When I found myself getting fewer and fewer comments, I changed my comments invitation from simply “comments” to “comments, questions, or corrections.” When that did not bring the desired exchanges, I moved my request for input from the bottom to the top of my commentaries.

Finally, when the silence became deafening, I decided to specifically try to find out how many actually read my posts to the end, by placing at the end of my last post "The Inscrutable Center Keeps Moving Rightward (Continued III)," the request:

If you have read this please click here: es628@columbia.edu put "read" in the subject and hit send. A note will be welcome but it is not necessary.

I did not expect a huge response, but I did expect a reasonable one. I received a total of five responses indicating that the post had been read. I am sure that more than five had read the post, but the minute response indicated, at the very least, a lack of attention.

Under the circumstances I find it impossible to continue. This is not the first time I have parted from my readers only to return, because I find it difficult to be silent in the light of the poor coverage of the facts by our media and its echo chamber, and the huge stakes for the future of our children, our grandchildren and of our nation. And so I may return again. But this is unlikely unless I find a means for reaching a larger audience, large enough to justify my huge effort.

To those who have been reading my posts faithfully, I say thank you for your attention. To those who have shown appreciation with positive comments and other valuable input, I say thank you for your comments and input.

For now, however, I say with regret: Adieu.

The Inscrutable Center Keeps Moving Rightward (Continued III)

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

In my last post entitled "The Inscrutable Center Keeps Moving Rightward (Continued II)" as well as in the posts preceding that, namely "The Inscrutable Center Keeps Moving Rightward (Continued)" and "The Inscrutable Center Keeps Moving Rightward," I discussed at length how the Republican Party has drifted further and further Right, with that movement having now accelerated beyond anything that preceded it with the advent of the Tea Party basically taking over the G.O.P.

Most would assume that this rightward trek started with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, but it actually began long before. In 1964 while Lyndon Johnson was basking in his Congressional successes and was getting ready to run for re-election in his own right, after succeeding the martyred John F. Kennedy, a battle for the soul of the Republican Party was taking place. Barry Goldwater, representing the extreme Right of the Republican Party, ran for the party’s nomination against Nelson Rockefeller, who even though now identified with the infamous Rockefeller Drug Laws, was considered the liberal wing of the Republican Party. Goldwater won the nomination and even though he went on to a landslide defeat at the hands of Lyndon Johnson, the Right-wing control of the G.O.P. was never seriously in doubt thereafter.

Today, we are shocked as we see moderate and even conservative Republicans lose primary contests to the extreme Right wing of that party, but most have undoubtedly forgotten just how long this has been going on.

Yet it was as early as 1978 (two years before the election of Ronald Reagan) that Republican Senator Clifford P. Case, a liberal Republican from New Jersey, was defeated in the Republican primary, presaging the Rightward march that has since been identified with Ronald Reagan.

The Republican Party has now marched so far Right that Ronald Reagan would undoubtedly be considered a RINO (Republican In Name Only) by today’s standards. After all it was he who was enough of a pragmatist, despite his rhetoric, that when he was faced with a growing deficit introduced TEFRA, which is described by the Right-wing blog The Free Market as “the largest tax increase in American history”

And so we now have a Republican party that is so far Right that the Cato Institute, The Libertarian Think Tank speaking through its spokesperson, Daniel Mitchell, on the Newshour, referred to Nixon and Bush as: “big-government interventionists.” What might he have said of President Eisenhower who warned that “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” And added.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. 

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. 

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. 

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. 

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. 

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. 

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. 

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road. the world has been taking. 

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

But the party has gone so far Right that its official Ryan “budget” endorsed by its Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, was denounced by the Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in these words:

I reiterate our strong opposition to an unfair proposal that would alter the Child Tax Credit to exclude children of hard-working, immigrant families,” wrote Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development. “Denying the credit to children of working poor immigrant families--the large majority of whom are American citizens--would hurt vulnerable kids, increase poverty, and would not advance the common good.   

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), provides vital food security to families during tough economic times,” Bishop Blaire added. “It is estimated that cuts proposed in this bill would deny assistance to two million families, and cut the benefit for everyone else. No poor family that receives food assistance would be unaffected, constituting a direct threat to their human dignity.   

The Social Services Block Grant is an important source of funding for programs throughout the country that serve vulnerable members of our communities--the homeless, the elderly, people with disabilities, children living in poverty, and abuse victims,” he continued. “We should prioritize programs that serve “the least of these,” not eliminate them.   

The Catholic bishops of the United States recognize the serious deficits our country faces, and we acknowledge that Congress must make difficult decisions about how to allocate burdens and sacrifices and balance resources and needs,” Bishop Blaire added. “However, deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts must protect and not undermine the needs of poor and vulnerable people. The proposed cuts to programs in the budget reconciliation fail this basic moral test.

And Bishop Stephen Blaire, the chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice, Peace and Human Development, added:

Just solutions, however, must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs. The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.

And on their web site the US Conference of Catholic Bishops set forth these criteria for evaluating a budget.

1.Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.  

2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first. 

3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times…  

Just solutions, however, must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs.

In April 16 and April 17 letters to the House Agriculture Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee addressing cuts required by the budget resolution, Bishop Blaire said:

The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.

Bishop Blaire also wrote that cuts to nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP- food stamps) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) will hurt hungry children, poor families, low-income workers and other vulnerable people. Additionally, he wrote that if cuts to the federal budget need to be made, savings should first be found in programs that target more affluent and powerful interests.

Altogether three letters were written by the Bishops. The can be found here, here and here.

Other religious leaders' statements can be found here.

But our so-called middle and even many on the so-called Left do not find it in their hearts to express outrage and our media -- – Well, They see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil.

They are busy analyzing events only from the perspective of a horse race.

But I have gone far afield from where I intended to go. In my last post I concluded with: “But before I close this subject I must examine one more column by [David] Brooks. It is dated April 16, 2012 and is entitled “The White House Argument.” I suggest the reader examine it before my next post. It is one of Brooks’ best jobs yet at sophism. But like all his others, it does far better at obfuscation than at clarification.

Well, I guess that will have to wait till next time.

If you have read this please click here: es628@columbia.edu put "read" in the subject and hit send. A note will be welcome but it is not necessary.