Many Americans believe I represent the return to the "good old days" before the current administration. They would be in error with that belief. They were not entirely the "bad old days" like what America has had to endure during the past four years. But they were not exactly ideal, either. America, at the hands of past political leadership, had and still has many problems and challenges that impact more of our people every day. That cannot continue, and it does not have to.
Wednesday, October 21, 2020
A Speech I Would Love To Hear Joe Biden Make
Many Americans believe I represent the return to the "good old days" before the current administration. They would be in error with that belief. They were not entirely the "bad old days" like what America has had to endure during the past four years. But they were not exactly ideal, either. America, at the hands of past political leadership, had and still has many problems and challenges that impact more of our people every day. That cannot continue, and it does not have to.
Saturday, October 3, 2020
Can America save democracy?
Can we save our democracy?
The state of Nebraska has a unicameral legislature. It has been thus since 1937. By all accounts I have heard, they love this system. It is very efficient and economical. Are the other 49 states missing out on the opportunity to solve a lot of electoral and governance problems by not considering this electoral method?
In case you may have forgotten what is unique about a unicameral legislative body, it means there are no political parties. It is not a “one party” system. There simply are no parties. There is only a body of senators who are unaffiliated with any political organization. The people of the state choose the best person without having to contend with what party they are associated with.
In the case of Nebraska, only federal office holders declare a party affiliation, in which case they tend to be members of one of the two dominant national parties. But Nebraska has been a model for a very long time that proves a “no party” governing system works very efficiently.
I am opening this conversation with the Nebraska example because I want to question the merit of the continuation of our train wreck of a national two-party system. Some of our nation’s founders were worried about the possibility of America falling into such a trap, but their concerns were not adequate warnings. It is not a radical statement to say the present-day system is threatening the survival and veracity of American democracy. We have been living with the damage that loyalty to party instead of country and state has been causing for many decades now. Is it too far reaching to predict that we may be approaching a pivotal point where the dominant two-party system and democracy can no longer co-exist? Let’s think about this.
There is a movement in America trying to gain momentum right now to change the voting method from a plurality platform with primaries and general elections, to a ranked choice voting (RCV) system. The state of Maine installed this election platform only to have their state legislature try to kill it. But they were not successful in entirely ending it and localities around the state have continued to use this platform. Currently, there is an initiative underway to switch the state of Massachusetts to the RCV platform. Work is underway in Missouri and Kansas as I write this to build interest in RCV as well.
Is RCV a solution, or at least a step in the direction to evolving away from the predominant two-party system by ending the plurality election platform? I believe it very well could be so. Perhaps the best chance to retire the two-party system is to zig zag our way out of it by installing an alternative voting platform that reduces the ability of major political parties to control the system. The best way to move toward this option may be to start with local municipal offices, then add county and ultimately state offices. This would accustom the voting population to the merits and effectiveness of RCV.
Another platform option is the non-partisan blanket primary, also known as the jungle primary. Jungle primaries aggregate every candidate regardless of party affiliation into a single primary grouping. This method results in deciding the winner for the contested office with a single election event eliminating multiple cycles to determine which party controls the office. Both ranked choice voting and jungle primaries save a lot of expense and complication. Holding elections is costly, and unnecessarily so.
Democracy is clearly being revealed today as a very fragile governing model that can be compromised and corrupted much easier than we like to believe. It is being seriously threatened presently because the current POTUS is chipping away at its tenets in order to retain office against the will of the people. Democracy unprotected and undefended cannot survive on its own. This fact can perhaps be better understood by realizing that democracy is not a natural order. Most governing and leadership managed institutions, franchises and organizations do not use a democratic system. Families are not democratic in nature. Neither are business organizations, churches, and the military. They would struggle to function and achieve their mission effectively if they were democratic in the way we claim to want for governance.
At this time in our national history, the Democratic and Republican parties are actually institutions. Both parties attempt to act and operate like franchises. But they do not epitomize the traits of true franchises. Organizations that start out to be service providers focus on reaching out to those they want to serve and help. Most of their energy is outward. As these organizations grow and mature, their focus increasingly turns inward. That may not be their intention, but it is a difficult tendency to resist and they nearly always fail to avoid it. By turning inward, they become focused on self-preservation, access to and retention of power, elimination of competition and resistance of any kind. This is a clear description of what both major political parties in America have become. And that has resulted in their corruption and inability to truly serve the American people. That mission now amounts to little more than lip service during election cycles to retain their power.
Citizens United licensed elected officials to conduct auctions for their favors and services to the highest special interest bidder. There is not even a pretense to the contrary at this time. Models such as unicameral government, ranked choice voting, and non-partisan blanket primaries are processes that would begin to dissolve the power and control of special interests that currently enjoy ownership of our governing methods. If we are truly committed to saving democracy, we would do well to consider these electoral alternatives as a means to put us back on course. Else, we are headed toward an autocratic system that is certain to lead to unabashed fascism.
Monday, May 25, 2020
Floating
Sunday, May 10, 2020
You should take acting lessons!
Wednesday, April 15, 2020
The Tale of Two Joes
Thursday, April 2, 2020
Are You Sure You Understand Socialism?
I am both amused and dismayed when I see people claim that dreaded socialism is creeping into the American culture and redefining how various vital services are created and distributed. If the definition presented above, which is the standard dictionary version, is accurate then much of what is being labeled as socialism is not even close.
Instead, what is being labeled as socialism is actually anything that shifts responsibility away from individuals and distributes it collectively across the population spectrum. The usual suspects who often cry “socialism” are those who believe they are being asked to carry part, if not all of the burden for others who have less access, or assets, with which to acquire vital personal needs.
When those basic needs become economically out of reach for a growing percentage of the population, this can reveal that something is out of line and a mechanism for addressing this misalignment is advisable in order to avoid social unrest. But that typically is not the case. Instead, the less affluent populations are often chastised for their circumstance without any regard to the reasons for why they are disadvantaged. While there may be some merit to classifying reasons for economic inequity, this alone does not resolve the reality that such inequity exists and may even be increasing at a dangerous rate of speed. There will always be inequities of one sort or another, and I think that is actually appropriate in a number of situations. Sometimes fairness is overrated, especially when it negates enterprise and innovation. But social inequity that places large numbers of the population at risk where health and safety is concerned should not be encouraged or supported.
One very interesting example of this incorrect interpretation of socialism is the entire insurance industry. If you think about it, the very premise of the insurance industry is the idea that an individual can escape the fiscal responsibility for their experiences and actions by passing off the financial consequences to a broader population instead of absorbing the total cost personally. Doesn’t that idea have a socialist implication? For example, I wreck my car, and then you help me pay for repairing it by means of the insurance premiums you also paid, be it to the same company or another one. The company writes the checks to the repair service but the funds do not come from my premium payments alone, but yours and everyone else who is a policy holder. Sounds like most people’s version of socialism, or perhaps even more like communism, doesn’t it?
This model is even more obvious in health care coverage. Insurance companies are complaining that they cannot get healthy young people to contribute to the pool even though they often do not need any services. So they are pushing for laws that force this population group to buy their services regardless of need in order to maintain their profit levels while absorbing the costs for the population segment that does need expensive services. Isn’t that a very clear example of socialism and communism? Just because there is someone making a profit from the system doesn’t mean it is a purely capitalistic enterprise.
Of course I am picking on the insurance industry here, largely because they deserve it. Historically, they have been nearly as successful at writing and passing their own laws as the banking industry has. But it is also true that very large corporations are paradoxically singing the praises of free market capitalism while working diligently behind the scenes to write and revise laws and regulations that help them avoid the harsh the realities of the market place. True capitalism is what they want their competitors to struggle with while they socialize as much of their expenses and responsibilities as possible. Perhaps it has always been thus, but it seems it is even more so today.
As a side note, two people that most Americans revere and take pride in claiming as national treasures were avowed socialists. Albert Einstein is one of them, and the author of the pledge of allegiance to the American flag, Edward Bellamy, is the other. But we generally choose not to recall those facts when we think of the two men, right?
If you share my interest about this issue, what should you and I do about it on a daily basis? I have some suggestions that could make a difference. How much difference remains the question.
First, choose to patronize the smallest, most local businesses available to you that deliver good service and quality at a price you can afford. Did I say the cheapest price? No, I did not, nor did I mean to. Stay away from the big box national chains as much as possible. When you do patronize the giants, shamelessly cherry pick them by only taking advantage of the ‘loss leaders’ they offer, and only if it is something you really need, and walk out of the store without spending another dime for anything else. It is quite ok for the big box national chains to go out of business. Regardless of what the ‘big boys’ claim to the contrary, they will be quickly replaced with local entrepreneurs when they die, and they never paid their staff well or contributed significantly to your community anyway. They only extract value from your community by selling you cheap Chinese manufactured merchandise and sending the cash they collect to the giant banks in faraway places.
Next, do your banking business with your smaller, local banks. There isn’t any disadvantage to doing that today, especially if you are not a multimillion dollar borrower. All of them have debit card services that give you access to accounts and services anywhere in the world. They typically charge smaller fees for their services and you can actually become personally acquainted with the staff from the president down to the tellers if you choose to. When you do have a need they can serve, they are much more likely to be interested in helping you than the monster banks. And when you need to phone them you can talk to a real person who knows you. Try to do that with a huge banking organization. I dare you.
And third, conduct a careful assessment of your personal lifestyle, financially and otherwise. Just for fun, see how many things you buy and use at this time that you could eliminate if you chose and it would not have any real impact on your well being. Calculate the dollar value and savings that eliminating those things would represent to you. I’m not going to tell you to take immediate action on the results of that exercise, but I think you will enjoy the empowerment you will realize from just knowing you could.
That’s the kind of ‘socialism’ I can get behind. How about you?
Finally, send me a note telling me what you think about these ideas and how they might fit into your personal paradigm.
As always, thanks for reading!