November’s Real Choice

The line is now clearly drawn.  Progressive socialism or Conservative capitalism.  The contrast is stark and those with clear opinions do not understand how anyone could take the other side.  But they do and they will.   This is not an election to sit out; it is not an election to vote for a third party.  This election will indeed determine the future of America.   And, sadly, this election places your choice as one of two extremes.  But you must choose one. 

I, like most Americans, would prefer to have a choice somewhere in the middle.  But we do not.  And the choice that the people of America make this November will truly decide the irreversible direction that this country will take. 

While the most extreme desires and promises of both sides will likely not take effect in the near future, they do give one a sense of what aspects of America each side values.  And there are, indeed, some rational arguments for both sides.  But everyone must stop and think what about America they hold dear and how they envision the America, with whatever natural improvements and evolution, that they would like to perpetuate for future generations of Americans. 

This is not an election about specific candidates and their personalities, though both parties would like to make it so.  Put the individual candidates aside and look at the differences and the goals and ideals of Progressive socialism vs Conservative capitalism.  Look at the realities of each (we have some of both in our current America as well as clear examples elsewhere in the world).  In which sort of country and society do you want to live?  In which will your day-to-day life and that of those you love be most comfortable?  Do you prefer groupthink and conformity or are you more comfortable with individual acknowledgement and responsibilities? Those are the sorts of questions you should be asking yourself.  Not whether the individual personalities of Harris/Walz or Trump/ Vance impress you more. 

Those individual candidates are merely place holders for the choice that we voters are really making this coming November.  We are truly deciding the future of this country, for America is definitely going to change in the coming years.  The real question we are deciding is do we want to keep our core principles (Constitution, form of government, rule of law) and improve upon what we already have, or do we want to give up on those traditional institutions and essentially rewrite America in the socialist mode? 

That question is not something to be answered lightly, without thought, or based on traditional party affinities.  This is the time to stand up as an American, think about what that means, and vote for the country that you love.  And, in order to do that, you must base your decision on the truth, not the political propaganda and the distorted “news” presentations that bombard every one of us 24/7.    

Each and every one of us has a brain, and while it seems we are inclined more often than not to let others think for us, in this election we must use those brains and think for ourselves.  Then, armed with true knowledge and understanding of what we are really voting for along with what we may be giving up and the stark contrast between the two possible choices, we must all show up at the polls and vote.  America needs we the people, and we must show her that we understand and care.

The Power of WHY

 We all know that Biden repeatedly tells the country that we must vote Democratic as he repeatedly vilifies all Republicans.  Down the ballot most Democrats do the same.

But it is not only Democrats who demand unwavering and indeed unthinking party loyalty.  In my state the voters can vote to retain or not retain state judges who are already sitting on the bench.  The state judges are identified by party affiliation.   The Republican party recently posted an ad telling voters to vote no on every single judge who is up for retention simply because they are Democrats. 

It is not just political parties that demand unthinking decision making.  My state’s major newspaper apparently based its endorsements on the answer to one question – whether the candidate agreed with Trump that the 2020 election was stolen.  A clear No got you the endorsement but a Yes or even an answer that tried to explain the complexities of that question meant you would not be endorsed.  The paper itself noted that despite the Republican governor candidate coming out on top on nearly all the issues, he would not have received the endorsement had he not answered a clear No to that one question, while it failed to endorse a Republican candidate for House because that candidate failed to give an unexplained yes or no  (that was the only negative noted in the paper’s discussion of that candidate and her opponent who answered no and whom they endorsed).   

These demands that one decide a vote simply on one question or merely a party label are wrong on so many levels.  Let me suggest three.

First, candidates are individuals.  Voters need to look at each candidate as a full person, not as simply a cardboard cutout representing one label or one yes or no answer.  For example, in the judicial retention elections in my state voters have access to in-depth studies done by our Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission.  These include surveys of litigants, attorneys, and others appearing in that judge’s courtroom as well as surveys of the judge’s staff, and the Commission’s evaluation of each judge.  That is a starting point for voters to understand whether or not they believe a particular judge should be retained.  There are judges belonging to both parties that deserve to be retained, and some of each party that do not.  The total picture of each individual judge includes far more than just their party affiliation.

Second: it’s identity politics.  Using a party label to paint a broad and unvarying picture of everyone belonging to that party is simply the game of identity politics, something that we know the Democrats are very good at.  It is the Democrats who paint all opponents as “deplorables” or “terrorists” or “destroyers of democracy.”  The Democrats have given us excellent examples of how to pit one identity group against another as they do such things as paint all whites as racist or all Christians as intolerant or all Trump supporters as violent.

When the Republicans paint all Democrats as bad judges or when the newspaper paints all people with one answer to a question as not endorsable, they too are playing the identity politics game which is simply taking one characteristic of an individual’s many facets and painting all who have that characteristic with the same broad brush.

Group-think or don’t think.  The third and most troubling aspect of these party or single-question-based directives is that they are essentially orders to the voting public not to think.  Because if one thinks, they will go beyond the narrowness that creates cardboard cutouts rather than individuals:  they will think for themselves.

The danger of labeling based on one characteristic or identity factor out of the many that we all carry goes far beyond voting.  It destroys us by dehumanizing each and every one of us.

Humanity requires thinking and debate

Interestingly, in the SCOTUS arguments about affirmative action earlier this week, the justices sincerely grappled with the need for a diverse classroom environment while prohibiting race-based (essentially group identity based) decision making.

Diverse environments are essential to open all our eyes as we learn about, debate, and understand the diverse views of our pluralist democracy.  Labeling any one view as definitive of all who may hold that view is disingenuous and destructive of every positive aspect of pluralism. 

Questioning and debating is essential to human growth, but that debate needs to be based upon reality, not cardboard cutouts based on identity factors.  The debate needs to be individualized if the debaters are to learn and grow.  But the necessary partner with debate is the ability to think as an individual about other individuals.  Demanding thought and action based on group identity defeats the entire purpose.

Yeshiva schools understand how important true debate (debate and questioning in order to grow and learn) is to education.  In such schools the students, along with their rabbis, question the Torah, debating, often quite passionately, about its meaning and its application to their lives.  They are taught not to accept, but to question.  And with questioning comes not only thinking, but an evolution in one’s thinking as they grow deeper and deeper understanding of that which they are studying.

WHY – An act of love

The idea of questioning, even questioning God Himself, goes back to the story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis.  We are told that Eve’s mission is to be a helper against Adam.  The rabbinic commentators on this passage explain that this “teaches us a model of friendly antagonism, one in which, in order to support you, I challenge you.” (Prof. Elie Wiesel, quoted in Witness by Ariel Burger).  Such challenging refines the thinking of those involved, allowing them to refine and develop their ideas about the subject being debated. 

Learning about the beliefs of others allows one to challenge one’s own deeply held beliefs, something which is vitally important for one to grow in both spirit and intellect.  Disagreement and debate for the sake of learning, understanding, and growing and not simply to defeat or silence the other’s view is an act of love – for oneself and for the other.  It allows us to see one another for the complex individuals we each are.

Excluding debate, even when done with the misguided motive of protecting delicate feelings, is not an act of kindness but rather an act that serves to stifle individuality.  Demanding that someone vote or base any other activity solely on a group identity classification stifles the individual capacity to think.

Not only in voting, but in the world at large, we need to see people for the complex individuals that they are.  We need to question our candidates and the information that we have about them, not simply base an important decision on one alleged identity characteristic that may or may not be true for that individual candidate, whether based on party affiliation or single question answer. 

If we open our hearts and our minds to question and debate we can reach deeper levels of understanding about ourselves, those we interact with and society at large.  But those questions must not be in the nature of HOW CAN YOU disagree with me/say that? 

Rather, we must learn to ask WHY?  In the context of elections:  WHY are you a member of that party?  WHY do you support that?  In the broader context:  WHY do you say/believe that – help me to understand WHY you hold that view.

That simple word WHY used with curiosity and openness rather than with a closed-minded intent to shut unfamiliar or opposing views down, can go far.  Not only will it likely do more to elect the best candidates, it will also do much to heal our world.

Look Forward

 Whether or not you say that he won, Joe Biden will be our next president.  One can continue to look back at what happened, or one can look forward to what needs to be done.

               The Election is Over.

We had an election.  Irregularities and fraud were alleged.  Legal processes for those allegations were followed.  The states certified their results.  The electors voted.  Joe Biden won that election.  The votes of electors and the slates of electors can be challenged on Jan. 6, but those challenges will most certainly fail.  The vote of the electors will be certified, and Joe Biden will be inaugurated as our 46^th President.  That is how it works in America.

I am in my 70s and every election that I can remember, whether for president or dog catcher or anything in between, has included allegations of cheating and irregularities.  Sometimes recounts do change a result.  That did not happen in this election. 

Certainly, with mass mail-in ballots, use of electronics with its possibilities for hacking or other tampering, one can perhaps reasonably assume that some fraud occurred.  There is documented evidence of some irregularities and even some cheating.  There are certainly suspicious vote drops and failures to follow some state election procedures that should make one at least question what went on.  But fraud has not been proven.  And even if it were, that does not mean that the fraud would necessarily change the ultimate outcome of the election.

In America, we are supposed to accept the results of elections, of due legal processes, even when we do not like those results.  In recent years more and more seem to find doing that to be difficult if not impossible.  How many Democrats never accepted that Trump was a legitimate president?  Before that, how many Republicans refused to accept that Obama was their president?  How many Democrats refused to accept that Bush, not Gore, was the legitimate winner of that election?

Refusal to accept suggests not only a selfishness, but also a lack of understanding of how America works.  It sounds like schoolyard kids.  I don’t accept you.  Well then, I won’t accept you.  He started it.  No, he started it.  If he did it then I will do it.  And on and on.  But it goes nowhere.

Time to grow up.  Time to review our Constitution and begin to understand how our Democratic Republic works.

I realize that some may say, “but state election procedures themselves were not followed, so this is different.”  No, it is not.  Those procedures could have been, and many were challenged before the election even took place.   The challenges either resulted in some changes or failed.  Others were challenged after the fact; those challenges also failed. Either way, there was due legal process before, during, and after the election. 

Just because one thinks that legal challenges were wrongly decided does not change the decision or make it procedurally or legally wrong.  Anyone who follows and understands our legal processes knows that sometimes the outcome of those processes is not what one might have wished it to be.  Sometimes they are not or do not seem to be fair.  But, in this country, in our Democratic Republic, we follow the legal processes and accept their results.  That is how we avoid the rule of the mob, the rule of dictatorship, and how we keep our freedoms.

You do not have to congratulate Joe Biden, you do not have to like Joe Biden, you do not have to say that he won, but pursuant to our Constitution and our rule of law you do have to accept that he will be our President on Jan. 20 of 2021.

               For the Future

So, rather than whine because one did not get what one wanted, rather than continue the schoolyard name calling, it might be far more productive to work to make elections more secure in the future. 

Here is one suggestion. People unhappy with the questionable integrity of this election (that should be all Americans!) can mobilize within their states to petition their state lawmakers to make changes in their election laws.  I would suggest the following:

1.       Requirement that voting occur only in one of two ways:  in person during the designated voting period or by a requested absentee ballot.

a.      In person voting must require that the voter show a photo ID of a type approved by the state’s voting authority.

b.      Absentee ballot must be requested, and a valid reason must be given for the request.  Such reasons might include but not be limited to:  being out of the state during the election period; being an invalid or impaired in a way that prohibits one from physically going to the polls; having no reasonable means of transportation to the polls; etc.

c.      Submitted absentee ballots shall use signature matching or similar verification before the vote is counted.

2.      Required steps for security of the voting and counting procedures.

a.      Requirement that appropriate steps be taken to guard against cyber-interference with the election, including but not limited to checking and protecting voting machines and tallying machines.

b.      Requirement that even when machines tabulate votes that paper ballots be preserved.

c.      Requirement that one observer from every major party represented on the ballot must be present in each polling place during voting and present during any handling, including verification and counting of ballots and votes. 

With relatively simple steps such as these, perhaps we could instill a greater faith in our election process.  None of the above are difficult to implement and would go a long way towards election integrity, and in dispelling allegations of cheating, irregularities, and fraud, whether real or imagined.

In the meantime, we all need to remember that this is America and we are Americans.  We don’t always get what we want.  Neither do we necessarily get what we need.  But, because this is a government of/for/by the people, we are always able to look forward and do more than simply wring our hands over what has already happened.  Even if we feel what happened was wrong, we have the right and the power to stand up and turn whatever hate we may have for what has passed to hope and action for the future.  That is America. 

 

Some Short Notes on the Election

Here are some quick notes for those elected and for those interested in the elections and their aftermath:

1.  Democrats, stop being angry and get something done.  You have had 2 years to vent your anger over the 2016 election.  Now you have control of the House.  This is your opportunity to show us that you can do something besides hate.  I am concerned that already you have ramped up the name calling and hatred against Trump and his administration.  I realize that you don’t like his bluntness and sometimes unsophisticated words, and that, more importantly, you are still angry that he won the presidential election.  But, please, get over it.  Stop acting like angry children and start acting like adult legislators.   Many in this country look at what the President has accomplished for our economy and jobs and in our foreign relations.  They look at his actions rather than his personality and they either support him or believe in working with him and the Republicans to accomplish good things for the country.  Would that the Democrats and the Left would act like that.

2.  Please stop counting numbers of identity groups elected.  If I hear one more time how many women or Blacks or Native Americans or gays or (name any other identity group) that were elected I think I will scream.  Really, who cares? (Sadly, too many).  What I wish we could say is not that the (name your identity group) was elected, but that the best qualified was elected.  Let me make this clear:  simply being a (name your favorite identity group) does not make one qualified for a political job.  Voting based on identity groups just makes it easier for people who don’t want to think and easier for those who don’t want you to think to convince you to vote for their candidate.

3.  Those of you that made promises in order to get elected.  Show the people that you can keep them.  (That, by the way, is what our president has done)

4.  Those of you that won, remember that now you represent all the people within your district or state, not just those who supported you.  Do what is right for all of them, even if sometimes that is not what you personally want.  Don’t be afraid to work across the aisle and don’t think you must always simply regurgitate your Party’s line.  Remember, it is not about you; you are now a public servant and you represent the people.

5.  Those of you elected were elected to the greatest democracy in the world.  Please remember and respect that.  America is a Democratic Republic.  It is not a democracy of mob rule.  It is not socialist.  It is a country with borders and with a Constitution and rule of law that governs and protects us all.   You will be required to take an oath to support that.  Please take your oath seriously.

Who is Thwarting Democracy?

All the Democrats are hollering that for the sake of democracy we must get rid of Trump and to do so we must vote against his supporters in November.  But, let’s just look beyond the surface of that assertion.

The Democrats are doing everything in their power to thwart our democracy, beginning with their refusal to admit that Donald Trump is the president of the United States of America.  I just saw (again) a meme on social media asking folks to share if they were proud that they had never called Trump the president.  Huh?  That is the proud stance of many Democrats – we wanted the other candidate, so we will refuse to recognize your presidency.  Wow, that’s really democratic (Not!).

Consider how democratic the actions and agenda of the Democrats really are.  At every chance they get they try to silence voices that disagree with them:  they shame people into silence; they demean the views of opponents; they twist the words of opponents to make them in some way offensive; they shout down opponents who are trying to speak; they base their positions on half-truths and opinions rather than facts; they assert that supporters of the president should be harassed in public simply because of their affiliation with the president; they state opinion as if it were fact while condemning any contrary fact as mere opinion; they make up their minds on important issues such as confirmation of Supreme Court Justice based on the fact that he was appointed by Trump and is not a Democrat, rather than on his sterling record as a judge;  they make up their minds on every issue based on party agenda even before hearing facts; they punish anyone who supports or is affiliated with the president, perhaps in payback for the fact that their own candidate lost; they believe their feelings and their agenda outweighs the rule of law. These are not the actions of people who support democracy.

Our democracy requires tolerance.  It requires an acknowledgement that there exists more than one view on an issue.  It requires respect for diverse views and an ability to listen to those views rather than simply silence them.  It requires objective examination of relevant facts prior to reaching a conclusion.  One thing that can certainly thwart our democracy is the silencing of diverse voices and views.

So, let’s look at the actions rather than the words of the Democrats.  Their words may sound as if they care about the country, its people, and our democracy.   Their actions, however, speak to a desire for a society that is anything but democratic; a society in which their views must be accepted by all.  Is there any reason to believe that if the Democrats take power their actions will be any different?  I suspect not.  Rather, it is more likely their words that will change as they use new words to mandate a far less democratic country: a country that places their party and its views in power, rather than the many diverse views of the people. 

The actions reveal the true color of the agenda.  It is not democracy, but a world where only the “approved” view exists.  The words, the emotional arguments, the crocodile tears and cares, the attacks all serve one purpose only:  power to the party.   For the “sake of democracy” it is not the legitimate president that must be removed.  It is the Democrat view that opposing views may be legitimately silenced.  It is the Democrat view that any election that does not result in their power is in some way illegitimate.  Pay attention to the actions:  is that really how you see a democracy?  If not, why would you in any way empower those who approve and carry out those actions?