The Democrat First Primary Debate, Part 2, Thursday, 2019-06-27

The candidates for this second round (of the first debate) were:

Marianne	Williamson	(Author, and spiritual guru)
John	Hickenlooper	(former Colorado Governor)
Andrew	Yang	(former Corporate executive)
Pete	Buttigieg	(Mayor of South Bend, Indiana)
Joe	Biden	(former Vice President, with Obama)
Bernie	Sanders	(Senator for Vermont)
Kamala	Harris	(Senator for California)
Kirsten	Gillibrand	(Senator for New York)
Michael	Bennett	(Senator for Colorado)
Eric	Swalwell	(California Congressman)

Marianne Williamson:  Almost all of what Ms. Williamson said was sensible and rational, even if out of place in a presidential debate.  Her closing statement was that she would counter Trump's strategy of mobilizing fear for political purposes, with love.  At the risk of discrediting myself, I think this should really be what we try to do, but obviously, with more conventional rhetoric!  To my great satisfaction, I admit that both nights, the Democratic candidates were firm, sometimes fierce, but never harsh.  There is a significant chunk of our population that thinks that US politics and foreign policy should be conducted with testosterone and bullying.  But few of them are in the Democrat Party.

John Hickenlooper:  He came across as a centrist, who disagreed very little with the other candidates, and did not bring a lot that was different to the table.  He is evidently a geologist by training (?), and can be depended upon to support climate change initiatives.

Andrew Yang:  Yang had an interesting idea that every citizen should receive a $1000 / month income.  I'm not sure this is an idea whose time has come, and it is a not a bad one; it would be more palatable if it was linked to some service that was required.  But at this time, other problems need more attention.

Pete Buttigieg:  Made an excellent impression whenever he was called.  Interestingly, he did not support the steps toward universal health care supported by the others.

Joe Biden:  Did not present any distinctive policy ideas; his main feature seemed to be that he had a better chance to replace Trump than any of the others.  This panders to the increasing belief among those who are observing politics as complete outsiders, that style is more important than substance.  This may be true, in the noxious style environment that Trump has wielded, but on principle, it is too much of a concession of decadence to go along with.  We must cling to our belief that we have a rational electorate for at least a little longer.

Bernie Sanders:  Said nothing surprising.  But a new perception emerged last night; it seemed that a lot of his initiatives are fueled by a very personal anger toward the insurance industry, Wall Street, Big Oil, and so on.  It sometimes makes sense to become heated when condemning these entities, but a cool head when dealing with them is needed, in my humble opinion.  As I said in my previous post, we do need specifics when dealing with major initiatives with enormous consequences.

Kamala Harris:  Came across very well indeed.  She raised her hand when the entire row of candidates was asked who would support abolishing private health insurance; she is now evidently on board with Medicare For All, and certainly for Universal Health Care.  As someone said, people do not necessarily like their present insurance company; what they may like is their present health provider.  With Medicare, you can continue to get treatment from your preferred provider, who will find it simpler to bill Medicare.  When asked how she would pay for Medicare For All, she retorted that she appreciated the question.  But where was this question, she demanded, when Trump pushed through that massive tax cut in 2017?  Nobody seemed to worry about how to pay for it then!  This was essentially Jill Stein's position, when asked how she would pay for free college education.  (Stein went further; she said she would print more money.)

Kirsten Gillibrand:  was not very aggressive, and as a result, did not get a lot of talk time (a total of about 7.5 minutes, compared to the longest time of all the candidates of Joe Biden: 13.6 minutes).  But she emphasized that she participated with Bernie Sanders in some Medicare For All bill, which implemented a transition phase in which private health insurance still played a role (which many of the other candidates seemed to want.  Bernie himself chose not to mention this feature, which seems to indicate to me that he is driven by considerable anti-health-insurance-industry animus).  Kirsten G. soft-pedalled her interest in Equality of Women, Female Reproductive Rights, and other social justice issues, which received considerable applause.

Michael Bennett:  Seemed very centrist to me, except when he gave his opinions about Trump.  His views were in line with most of the other candidates (except for supporting private medical insurance, at least as an intermediate step).  His speech is a little difficult to understand.

Eric Swalwell:  Seemed frustrated at not being called upon more frequently.  His words about gun control, and assault weapons ban, were moving and persuasive.  Whatever happens, they will not be forgotten.

To summarize, I feel, with considerable surprise, that---with the exception of Andrew Yang, who has a good idea, but was not a persuasive speaker under debate stage conditions---the younger candidates did better than Bernie and Joe; and Elizabeth Warren did pretty well, and she may well end up the candidate who wins the nomination; but very clearly, the women did better than the men.

The women outshone the men for both parts of this first debate; something that the News companies are not shouting about because (A) they want Trump voted out, as do most of us, and (B) they think a woman is not electable, remembering 2016, perhaps, and being persuaded that misogyny is more deeply rooted in US politics than racism is!  For pure charisma, it would be difficult to beat Kamala Harris.  For sheer determination, and preparedness, and thoughtfulness, it would be hard to beat Kirsten Gillibrand, and Elizabeth Warren.  Amy Klobuchar has a strong list of achievements in the Senate, and seems to be able to support good initiatives from others in a thoughtful way.  Thulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson have good ideas, but don't appear to have the charisma that being a presidential candidate in the US seems to require.  This is unfortunate, because some people who do indeed have little or no charisma can fake it, and that's what we have now!  Trump's charisma seems to consist entirely of saying: "I'm very, very rich," which seems to gild him in the eyes of feeble-minded strangers to the world of rational thought.  The very idea that a presidential candidate would even consider pandering to the feeble-minded just makes me want to stay home on election day, which is utter foolishness, of course.

Passing the Torch

I'm trying to think what drives Joe Biden.  It could be sheer ambition; he ran once, for president, and was bullied off the candidacy, for having borrowed rhetoric from John Kennedy, or someone.  It was a more morally upright time in terms of intellectual property, I guess, before China lowered the bar.

It could be fear that no one else can defeat Trump, because the latter appeals to the unfortunates in the Midwest (and certainly in Pennsylvania, a place in which I had been proud to live at one time; I still live here, but I'm less proud of it), and the so-called Rust Belt.  It is not so much a belt as a sort of half-ripped-off patch on a pair of jeans.  Just as it is difficult to got one's head around out-of-work coal miner, it is equally tough to worry about those who helped to put together the metal monsters that cheerfully participate in this climate change we're seeing.  Americans are not about to give up their destructive personal transportation any time soon, which means that (non-unionized) workers in other countries earn money for the cars that we drive, which is what Trump parlays into votes.  It's all parlay and parlay, and no substance.

It could be---and I don't really believe this---that Joe does not think an ideas man can win the election (and this is what Marianne Williamson says too: we need the right tone rather than detailed plans).  Perhaps he thinks that these young firebrands---and the old firebrand---are likely to alienate voters, while Slick Joe can schmooze them, after which, all the good ideas can cut in.

It could be that those in his bubble are all of the previous generation, and they all desperately want to have a few more years of comfort, before they go on practically permanent pro environment austerity.  If nothing else, the Green New Deal raises the specter that, in order to delay and postpone environmental ragnarok, belts will have to be tightened.

I sincerely wish that those participating in these debates take a few hours to watch and listen to them.  Someday, a Democrat president will have to listen to Republican colleagues in Washington.  They should practice by listening to their fellow-candidates for a start.

Wouldn't it have been wonderful if one of the candidates had said the following in their closing statements?:

"Look, friends; for the purpose of this debate, I have made it look as though I have all the answers.  But it is actually a team effort.  I can provide leadership, but once we win this election, we must have a team to do the spadework; the mental and physical spadework.  We have watched, with horror, a president who has no idea how to put together a team, and a party that has no one to offer for that team, anyway.  If I win the nomination, and subsequently, the election, I would like all of you on my team.  If I lose the nomination, I would be delighted to be on your team, any one of you!"

Arch

The Debates, Part 1 (Miami, Wednesday, 2019-06-26)

Last night, ten of the Democrate candidates for the Presidential election of 2020, had a face-off sponsored by (the DNC, of course, and) the NBC and MSNBC networks.  Some of the candidates were:
Bill DeBlasio (Mayor of NYC),
Tim Ryan (Ohio Congressman),
Julian Castro (Mayor of San Antonio, Texas, and former Congressman),
Cory Booker (Senator for NJ, and former Mayor of Newark),
Elizabeth Warren (Senator for Mass, and former Academic),
Beto O'Rourke (Former congressman from Texas),
Amy Klobuchar (Senator for Massachusetts),
Tulsi Gabbard (Former Representative from Hawaii),
Jay Inslee (Governor of Washington State), and
John Delaney (Former Representative from Maryland).

From the Economic point of view, the candidates were all pretty much on the same page.  The present economy---even before the GOP, and then Trump, tinkered with it to its detriment---was stacked against the typical citizen, and in favor of the most wealthy; the so-called 1%.

From the point of view of Health, there were small differences.  Some were adamant that only the public 'option' should be permitted; that is, Medicare for all; others said private insurance should be permitted.  But all of them supported universal coverage, which is the important thing.

Immigration was another issue where approaches differed; Julian Castro and a few others were adamant that the specific paragraph that permitted undocumented immigrant children to be separated from their parents should be struck down; others wanted a more holistic approach to reforming immigration.  But it was a mistake to try to debate such a technically tricky subject in real time.  Bill De Blasio made the important point that there was wide belief that immigrants were ruining the economic well-being of the US population.  Rather, he said, it was the large corporations that were responsible.

There seemed to be universal agreement on the subject of sensible gun control legislation.  The moderators tried to ask whether the government should try to remove certain sorts of guns from the hands of owners, but that idea did not get far.

Foreign policy was an issue that Tulsi Gabbard stressed, and there was agreement that the current administration had mishandled it, and continued to mishandle it.  Amy Klobuchar said that she had participated in the Obama agreement with Iran, which Trump abandoned.  She said they would negotiate something better if the chance arose once Trump was gone.

The problems with International Trade (read: tariffs), and much frustration on the economic burdens placed (by the Trump Administration) on our closest trade partners, namely Mexico and Canada.

Bill de Blasio, among several others, stressed the importance of paying attention to childhood education, and making Kindergarten free for all children.

Generally speaking, I was pleased that so many Democrats---not all of them experts, by any means; some of them were merely former Congressmen, which does not guarantee expert status in any department, though anyone running for President should have some expertise in most areas---I was pleased that so many of them were so much more knowledgeable about so many things than Trump has been.  Their attitudes were almost invariably appropriate, and their solutions were mostly quite sensible.  Tim Ryan seemed a little confused about Iraq and Afghanistan, and their relationship to 9/11, unforgivable in a Presidential candidate, really.  But the Bush Administration tried to confuse everyone about the facts, just so they could invade Iraq, with a view to stealing some of their oil.  Sad.

Day 2

I just took a break from watching this second part of the debate, and it seems to me as if it is not going as smoothly as did the first part.  The candidates seem a little more desperate, they seem more at odds with each other; the consensus on issues we saw yesterday seem absent.

Vice President Joe Biden, though he is the favorite of a lot of Democrats, seems an undesirable choice.  To me, he appears to have yesterday's answers to tomorrow's problems; he seems to be banking on his record of past achievements, which are certainly numerous, but I believe he does not have the ideas that will work for the present era.

There is a lot of Presidential Rhetoric flying around; a lot of podium thumping that really isn't necessary; the measured speeches of Pete Buttigieg is a pleasant relief from the emotionalism of even my favorite candidates, including Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand.  Even Bernie Sanders seems to be trying to finesse giving straight answers about ways and means by supplying abstract principles instead.

More to come.

Archie

Issues For This Election

I'm getting very disheartened at the state of the nomination process of the Democrat Party.

The number of presidential hopefuls has exceeded 24 (to date: June 2019.  I don't count things very well anymore, since I retired from teaching mathematics), and shows no sign of significantly slowing down.

Having only a few candidates for president is---in itself---not necessarily a good thing.  Taking the psychology of the population into account, though, practically anything is bad.  The US population that we have today is more conducive to electing an idiot than to electing someone competent; the Presidential Election is a struggle; has been one, for decades, and will be a struggle for the foreseeable future.

Some of these candidates seem to be single-issue candidates.  There are some very pleasant, attractive people who are campaigning for a policy change, or for legislation to accomplish, some very specific goal.

There are those who are campaigning for gun-control legislation.

Some are campaigning for women's rights almost exclusively.

Pretty soon, someone is going to come along to campaign specifically for voting access legislation exclusively.

We need to address the issue of gerrymandering, but do we need a candidate who campaigns only on that issue?

Elizabeth Warren is campaigning on banking reform.  Luckily for us, this is not her only issue.  Honestly, I can get behind this candidate because she supports most of the things I consider important.

At least one candidate is campaigning on a cluster of issues---or the single issue---of the environment.  If ever there was a single issue worth supporting, that one is it.  On a recent visit by Donald Trump to the UK, Prince Charles cornered him, and talked at him for half an hour about the issue of climate change.  He impressed on Donald Trump (who is currently president, in case you're reading this in the distant future, and are confused about why I say things) that his (Prince Charles's) concern for the environment flows from his concern for future generations.  Apparently this angle had not occurred to Trump, who mused on that fact, saying that Charles was very much into Climate Change.  If there is a God, we are being punished for something, being saddled with a president who specializes in sabotaging the legislation and the judiciary, and society in general, and has practically no grasp about things we have all known well for more than a decade.

Abortion rights are another issue that has fired the imagination of some folks.  This is an important issue, but I can't help thinking that the conservatives toss out these quickie landmines to distract everyone from more serious issues.  These issues are by no means trivial.  But their introduction and their timing are trivial exercises in the bullying capability of the administration.

I'm not sure whether anyone is running for President solely on the intention of unseating Trump.  Of course, without unseating Trump no one else can be President, so it is an essential part of anyone's plan to win the White House.  But, so far, it appears to be central to Joe Biden's platform.  Actually, I think it will become fairly clear that, though no one has put it forward as their main slogan, defeating Trump is something on which all the candidates are agreed.

What I would like to see is a candidate who lists all these things as what they want to do.  By far the hardest thing to address is alleviating income inequality, which is built-into the system.  As the New Left (which means Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and numerous folk whose names I still don't know) has emphasized, the powerful ultra-capitalists, who have acquired the ability to use the resources of the government and the nation for their own enrichment, and the privilege of polluting at will, and essentially making choices at will which result in accelerating climate change, are now revealed to be climate-changing bullies, who drain the nation's resources, deprive the people of income, refuse to support government essential services, and force poor working people to pay through their noses to support the profits of the private health insurance racket, all with the same hand.  When the climate fights back with hurricanes and extreme weather, these same oligarchs force the government to withhold emergency services.

What makes a lot of this possible is that Trump and his friends have put a very seductive Us against Them face on these policies, which are ultimately nothing but racism in disguise.  Trump supporters may not support many policies, but they do support racism.

Simply talking about racism doesn't help the problem of racism very much.  It puts everyone on the defensive, which is not good.

Another major problem, and one which is not easy to deal with, is that of US aggression abroad.  At the moment, the US is helping to worsen the humanitarian crises in several parts of the world, including Yemen, and Syria.  We may not be directly responsible, but the developing crisis in Venezuela is soon likely to be aggravated by US interference.

To summarize: there are so many things that need to be fixed that, given the need for Democrats to make nice with people who are hostile to almost any progressive legislation, and given the recent weak performance of Democrats at the voting booth, the repairs must proceed at such a slow pace that we will all be in Climate Crisis mode before we're even halfway through the next president's term, or Democrats will have to be a much more dominant force in electing appropriate leaders.

Arch

See here for a list of candidates as of March 2019.

The Primary Season

I can't avoid trying to say something about the political situation.

It certainly is upsetting to have to treat each election cycle as if it was going to be the last one we are ever going to have.  This escalating sense of departing normalcy is Trump's bequest to the adopted country of his grandfather, in which his family has bullied its way into fame and fortune---more fame than fortune, from all we hear.  Anyway, the Trumps were not the first, and won't be the last, to try their Robber Baron tricks in the USA; bigger crooks than they have roamed free on our prairies.

Anyway, what is our sanity worth?  Democrats and other folks are using up all their energy in getting upset over the state of the country; relax, kids.  When it is time for action, you're all going to be spent, and panting on the sidelines.

The ultimate effort for this election will be to get out the Democrat Vote.  The Democrat Vote has now been so spoiled that it will not come out unless Democrats come and knock on its doors, and issue a personal invitation for it to go to the polls!

Why should the Democrat Vote be any different from anybody else?  Have you noticed that people need to be absolutely forced to do anything that is good for them?

Almost 30 Democrats
Some people are anxious about the number of people running for President in the Democrat Party.  Calm down; if this is bad (which I'm not convinced of), then its too late to do anything about it.  Most of them are not accepting money from PACs (large groups of businesses and anonymous donors that give money to politicians), which is a good thing.  Most of the nominee wannabes are decent choices, though there are a few about whom we know almost nothing.  But it seems that the people we do know something about, such as Trump, should not be allowed into high office.  In these times, only notorious exhibitionists with no sense of restraint are known widely; the last thing we need is another Reality TV star in the White House, representing either party.

Many people consider this Primary Season as a sort of battle.  Women against men, gay against straight, fighters for Income Inequality against conservatives; those who want to attack the GOP versus those who want a return to civility; those who want to sacrifice the Environment to restore the Economy, and so on.  A lot of the candidates are single-issue people.  But, in the best of all possible Post Trumpian Dystopian Worlds, we should see this season as the one in which the Democrats forge the party platform.  If things go well, that platform will look a lot like The Green New Deal, even if it isn't exactly that.

Each candidate comes in with his or her own issues they want to bring to the campaign season.  Each of us---candidates included---have, unfortunately, the little bubble in which we live: the idea cloud that our reading and our friends create around us.  These things are important to us, but other things may be just as important, and possibly more important to the Democratic Voters.  The Primary Season is where each candidate should listen to the other candidates, and those poor fools who ask the questions, called the Moderators, and consider changing their issue cache.  (I was going to call it a quiver, but I couldn't remember the word.)

On one hand, if the candidates are unwilling to change their ideas about what is important to do in the next few years, then we have to conclude that they're inflexible, and will not listen to the people.  On the other hand, if they're too willing to change their minds about anything, they're open to the accusation of flip-flopping, which some media geniuses have made into a Thing.  They accused Kirsten Gillibrand of Flip-Flopping on Guns---she had initially said she was for guns, and later came out in favor of strongly controlling them, I believe.  Of all the silly things to accuse people about!

So listening to the Candidates Debates, as Paul Simon famously said, is going to be an important thing.  We must realize that there is at least one person in the White House who will be watching them carefully, with a view to dreaming up something cleverly disparaging, but of course he can't be too clever, or he will leave some of his fans behind. (Somehow, I had gotten the idea that the debates were this month.  Never mind . . . We'll get to hear the candidates over the course of the next few months.)

Impeachment
The major objection to Impeachment proceedings is that it will take time away from more fruitful legislation, if there is any that can be carried out without being vetoed by the White House.  Meanwhile, it will be close to impossible to have the Senate go along with the removal of Donald Trump, which is what follows a positive vote on impeachment.  So Impeachment will be a lot of fun, but will not result in anything.

Chipping In
If you're like me, you regularly get numerous appeals to Chip In a dollar or two, to get some candidate into the debates.  Remember, once you have chipped in, you should not be able to raise the count of small donors by chipping in again.  On the other hand, if they need more money, and if you have lots, you could always give them a little more, especially those candidates whose issues coincide with yours.

It might be a good idea to not respond to appeals in social media, and instead go to the websites of the candidates, and Chip In there.  I don't know whether Facebook, for instance, keeps track of the members who respond to fB ads, but if they do, you're going to be pestered beyond your tolerance.  Chances are, fB does keep track of those who respond to ads---including appeals---from within fB.  It's my impression that they keep track of everything.

Arch