THE BEST DEMOCRATIC ANSWER TO TRUMP

Since 1956 when, as a youngster of ten, I distributed cards for Adlai Stevenson for President, I have in some fashion or other participated in Presidential campaigns.  I have supported the candidates of the Democratic Party.  And often I have engaged in primary campaigns seeking to influence the selection of the Party’s nominee.

We are now engaged in the 2016 selection process and the Democratic Party, with an incumbent President term limited and an incumbent Vice-President opting not to run, has three candidates for the nomination: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. If we exclude incumbent Presidents seeking re-election this contest is similar to one 60 years ago when the front runner, though facing opposition, was presumed and did become the nominee.

Hillary Clinton by all measurements of political prognostication will be the Democratic nominee.  Unless she falters in the early primaries she is favored to run the board.  She is representative of many Democrats of my generation - liberally progressive but not populist progressive.  She is consensus liberal on economic issues, liberal on social issues and somewhat interventionist on foreign affairs.  She would be the first woman President and would fulfill a dream of my generation as did Barack Obama in 2008. .

Former Gov. O’Malley is a fine man with an excellent progressive record as Governor of Maryland and is the kind of candidate that the Party saw many of in the 1980's and 90's. And yet he has failed to gain any traction in the campaign as the Democratic public appears to prefer a two candidate race perhaps bemused by the Republican gaggle of contenders.

Then there is Senator Bernie Sanders.  An independent who describes himself as a Democratic Socialist (a label some would apply to Franklin Delano Roosevelt), and espouses a 21st century Populism with echoes of William Jennings Bryan and Robert Lafollette.   From the relative obscurity of Vermont he has gained thousands of followers who, if they become a movement, could rival and even surpass in intensity the anti-war and civil rights movements of the sixties.  Sanders campaigns to end the dominance of America by the richest 1%.  He fights for an America where 99% will share the wealth, the political power and the American dream.  He raises the call for economic reform and fair distribution of the nation’s wealth that Populists, Progressives and New Dealers of the 20th century crusaded for. And  just as in 1896, and 1912 and 1932 while the establishment figures of the Democratic party endorse the safer  more moderate candidate the crowds gather to hear one who speaks for and to them.

Senator Sanders makes the case for addressing the problem of income inequality in America that is now dividing us into two classes: have a lot and have a little. The great American middle class built and prospered by the programs of the New Deal and the GI Bill is disappearing.  The Senator from Vermont argues for a $15 minimum wage which works out to an annual income of $30,000 hardly enough to raise a family in today's economy.  The Senator while supporting Obamacare, which has made medical insurance accessible to most, campaigns for health care as a right and a single payer Medicare for All program.  Senator Sanders has called for a constitutional amendment to guarantee all Americans the right to vote and challenge the myriad of right wing voter suppression proposals.  And, the Senator from the Green Mountain state has echoed the call of Democrat leaders since 1896 to reign in the billionaires (once called robber barons) and restore control of the American government to the people.

When I was an elected Assemblyman in New York, Presidential candidates actually sought out my endorsement (1976, 1980 and 1984); and likewise, when I served as chairman of the Delaware Co. PA Democratic Party (1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). Sometimes my endorsement even made news and helped a candidate.

Today I lead my party in a small borough in the southeastern part of my  Pennsylvania county. Whom I support is of little matter to most and of no concern to the candidates. .  My endorsement carries with it no donations, no delegates and no votes other than my own. 

Then why make an endorsement other than to have an excuse to weigh in with a blog post?  It may matter to no one in 2015 who I endorse for President in 2016 but it matters to me.  For my entire adult life I have been engaged in politics. My study of history has led me to a profound belief in the values of democracy, and in the role in America of the Democratic Party as the party that in most cases can be found on the side of the ordinary men and women of the country. The entrepreneurs of the 1830's; the factory workers of the 1890's; the forgotten men and women of the 1930's; the oppressed minorities of the 1960's; the equality seeking women of the 1970's; and those who seek the freedom to live their lives as they see fit in today’s otherwise conformist culture; these have found their champions in the Democratic Party.

I have considered myself a Liberal and a Progressive and a Populist. I have often, but not always (to my regret), been on the right side of history early on. I have tried to be true to the things I have believed in and to the positions I have taken and the votes I have cast, when I have endorsed candidates. I have never asked if a candidate could win but only should they win. I have never insisted on 100% consistency between my positions on issues and those of the candidate I supported.  In fact in this contest I find myself in agreement with Senator Sanders on domestic issues more often than on foreign and with Secretary Clinton the reverse.

I have three grandchildren and I want an America for them that is free and prosperous and that allows that prosperity to reach everyone.  I want an America that assures access to all the education that one’s mind can absorb. I want an America where your gender, your lifestyle, your race and your wealth, or lack thereof, does not define your station in life or limit your opportunities.  I want an America where my grandchildren can raise their children and grandchildren with the same values of freedom and democracy that I was raised with and with the same hopes and dreams that I had; and, I want those to be realizable.  

The wealthy and the ideological crazy dominate the Republican Party and the public is fascinated by potential candidates who are anti-science (climate change deniers), and anti-history (Joseph built the pyramids), and anti immigrant and anti gay and anti just about everything except guns.

The ordinary people of America: young and old, black, white and Latino, gay and straight, poor and middle class, need their party - the Democratic Party- to galvanize the public with a vision of One America for All - an America whose land is their land and an America that will be a land of peace and prosperity for All. 

In my opinion the candidate for President in 2016 who offers that vision and would lead another Crusade for Economic and Social Justice is Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont. 

I was at the Democratic National Convention in 1980 when Senator Ted Kennedy, to the roars of thousands, declared to the delegates that “the dream will never die”.  It is the task of every generation to keep alive the hopes and dreams that are America.  Perhaps we have lost sight of that. Perhaps we have allowed ourselves to be so immersed in the myriad of problems facing our nation that we have lost sight of the forest for the trees.  We need a leader who offers America the kind of Revolution that it has had in the past (1800, 1828, 1932) and the only kind that succeeds in our country a Political Revolution.   FEEL THE  BERN  

19 December 2015  

IRAN: DEAL OR NO DEAL

For the next few weeks the Congress and the Media will pontificate, dissect and proclaim the virtues and the defects of the Agreement with Iran that was just signed by the US and the major world powers: Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and Europe.  The agreement will be endorsed by the UN and by all the signatory nations.  And the world will watch to see if the US Congress will uphold the diplomacy of its President and Secretary of State or like 1919 reject it.

Iran seeks to be a nuclear power as Pakistan and India are (and Israel and South Africa may be).  The United States and rest of the world feels world peace is more secure if Iran does not become a nuclear power.  The question became how do you stop that from happening.  As in most situations when a nation seeks to go a way that other nations do not want there are two options War and Negotiation.  President Obama united the nations of the world including such disparate “partners” and China and Russia and imposed the most extensive program of economic sanctions ever to pressure Iran to agree to forgo its nuclear plans.  Economic sanctions have, in the past not succeeded in their objective.  Sanctions did not affect Italy after it invaded Ethiopia in the 1930's and while they may yet be successful have not stopped the Russian aggression against Ukraine.

The Iran sanctions regime worked. It worked because the world united behind it and it was tough.  Iran was pressured into negotiating knowing that the end result would be an admission on their part that they were developing a nuclear military capability and would cease doing so.  And the negotiations succeeded in an Agreement that would end for at least ten years such nuclear development and give the world some time after that to prevent, it wished to the resumption of a nuclear Iran.  Without these negotiations and the earlier interim agreement adopted early last year Iran would likely have a nuclear weapon albeit at the expense of reducing many of her people to poverty level.  Unless of course the US and/or Israel used military force to stop the nuclear development.

So what faced the US was a decision between War and Negotiation to stop the Iran bomb.  President Obama chose the course of negotiation heeding the words of John F Kennedy that we “never fear to negotiate”.  And the negotiation was successful.  It brought about an Agreement with verification procedures akin to those that were agreed upon with the Soviet Union in the 1980's by President Reagan.    

As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once opined “If Barack Obama walked on Water the Republicans would say ‘the President can’t swim”.   And so of course the Republican party its candidates and it’s voices in Washington immediately attacked the Agreement as too weak and a Munich like appeasement of an enemy, The Republicans will seek to get the House and Senate to reject the agreement. The President can then veto their Resolution of Rejection and his veto will be upheld and the Agreement in effect as long as one-third plus one of the members of either house stand with the Agreement.  The Agreement is going to take effect.

If the Agreement is successfully implemented Iran will not have nuclear military capability for ten to 12 years if ever.  If the Agreement is broken Iran can become a nuclear power within a year of further development.   If there were no Agreement Iran would be or would be about to e a nuclear power.  While all the commentators and candidates enunciate their positions and discuss the complexity of the Agreement and its 80 or 150 (if you include the appendixes) pages the American people will reduce this Agreement to the simple question of do we want a War with Iran now or do we want to wait ten years in the hope that no war will then be necessary. 

The 20th century was a century of the most horrible war and genocide in the first half and a second half of fear of nuclear annihilation. The President has two young daughters.  I have three grandchildren and my nieces and nephews have some dozen young children between them;  these youngsters deserve to live in a century of relative peace and security.

The Answer to the Question of the Agreement with Iran is Simple - GIVE PEACE A CHANCE.

15 July 2015

The War is Over - the Union Prevailed - “Take Down That Flag”

“Take Down this wall” was the now famous imperative that Ronald Reagan challenged Mikhail Gorbachev with in 1987.  Two years later that wall was taken down by the people of East Germany; that nation was re-united and the Cold War ended.  All within 45 years of the end of World War II.

The  American Civil War was fought from 1861 to 1865.  And it seems like it has continued to be fought in the halls of government and in the minds of Americans and in the media that entertains us for the past 150 years.  We debate the cause of that war when it is clear in the very declarations of secession that the underlying motivation was to preserve the system of slavery and bondage that underpinned the southern economy.  We admire and even revere the good men who fought against the Union such as Robert E. Lee and we even overlook those who displayed sadistic and racist aspects such as Nathan Bedford Forest.

The northern states, unexpectedly magnanimous in victory, restored the southern states and allowed the restoration of pre Civil War conditions (except for de jure slavery). The southern states, defiant in defeat, re-enslaved the African Americans with Jim Crow laws and segregation and thumbed their collective nose at the United States of America.

By way of full disclosure I should say that three of my great great great grandfathers fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War. Whether their units, from Alabama and Georgia, ever fought under the battle flag of Lee’s army - the Stars and Bars - I do not know. I do know that my great great great grandfathers did not own slaves and like many white southern farmers fought for what they believed was their land and their homes and their families.  That they were misled and used by economic interests and plantation owners who depended on human bondage as their source of income is an historical fact.

Another of my great great great grandfathers, a native of Tennessee, fought for the federal union.  He fought to preserve the Union but the nature of the struggle was such that it became, on the union side, a battle, even a crusade, to end slavery.

One hundred years after the start of that Civil War a movement began to reclaim for the African Americans of this country the rights that were assured them in the Constitution by the amendments passed after the North (Union) was victorious.  Those who opposed that movement and held on to the ignorant belief in white supremacy raised the Confederate battle flag as their symbol.  And like minded Americans began to use that flag, and place it on badges and license plates and car decals to send a message of solidarity based on hate.

Decent Americans overlooked this and in the spirit of the First Amendment and Lincoln’s pleas for reconciliation thought well let them play with their symbols of a lost cause.  Now the battle flag of the Confederacy is incorporated in three state flags; it is found in the halls of the national Congress; it flies at public buildings and is treated with respect. Only in America would the battle flag of a rebellion, i.e. treason, be accorded such deference.

Now finally 150 years after the surrender of the last Confederate troops there is a rising outrage at the use of this symbol of hate. Retailers are now refusing to sell these items; and some manufacturers refusing to produce them.  White Political leaders of southern states are calling for an end to the use of these symbols. 

All this because a sick young man motivated by a misguided belief in the supremacy of one race and an admiration for what he believed was the cause of the Confederacy, shot and killed nine peaceful citizens as they prayed in their church. He did so under the banner of that rebel battle flag and he chose his victims because they were black,

It is too soon to know whether South Carolina will listen to the son of Strom Thurmond and take down the battle flag from the capitol grounds.  We will have to wait and see if Mississippi follows its US Senators and removes the stars and bars from the state flag or whether Georgia will then follow suit...

The massacre at the AME church in Charleston SC could fade into history and become just another episode in the racial conflicts that have engulfed this nation since colonial days.  Or perhaps, just perhaps, the shots fired inside the AME church in Charleston (the city where the first shots of the Civil War were fired) could become the last shots of the American Civil War. Let us pray God that this be so.

When Abraham Lincoln was asked which side in the War, North or South, God was on he replied that the real question was who was on God’s side.  This nation has an opportunity to be on God’s side - Take Down This Flag - Remove These Symbols. 

25 June 2015 

BLESSED ARE THE PEACE MAKERS -- FOR THEY SHALL BE CALLED THE CHILDREN OF GOD.

The terms of the agreement framework between the great powers and Iran were more balanced between the two sides and stronger than expected in the agreed upon controls over Iran=s nuclear development. But the responses were predictable.  The Republicans went on the attack as they were expected to do on any proposal, of lack of one, which might have been the result of the negotiations. And, the Democrats tepidly and often with lack of enthusiasm supported the agreement negotiated by their past Presidential candidate John Kerry on behalf of their twice elected President Barack Obama.

History shows us that the immediate reaction to an international agreement is sometimes different than the ultimate historical opinion.   When the Webster-Ashburton treaty with Great Britain was signed in 1842, Americans thought it was a momentary thawing of relations with the United Kingdom and settling of the Canadian border.  History shows that it was the beginning of almost two hundred years of close cooperation between the three nations involved - the US, Britain and Canada.

When Teddy Roosevelt negotiated the end of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905   it was hailed as historic and he was awarded the Nobel Prize.  Within a decade both countries were involved, albeit on the same side initially, in World War I and the ending of the earlier war had few if any ramifications.

In 1919 President Woodrow Wilson personally negotiated at the worlds

first great summit the Treaty of Versailles.  A group of Republican Senators, led by Henry Cabot Lodge, announced before Wilson had even returned from Paris that they would oppose the treaty and US membership in the League of Nations. They succeeded and America retreated into isolation.  The verdict of history and of the American people in 1945, after the cataclysm of WWII was that Wilson=s League (for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize) might have prevented WWII and international collective security of democratic and peaceful nations became the keystone of US foreign policy.

And what of the postwar era?  History now shows that the policy recognizing the Soviet Union in 1933 (by FDR) and the subsequent American strategy of containment and then detente and then competition from Truman though Reagan were the right policies because of the demise of communism and the USSR.

Nixon=s opening to Red China has resulted not in a war with that power but almost a half century of peace and economic competition.  So he is hailed as a visionary.

Barack Obama has pursued a foreign policy, some points of which I have disagreed with, that prefers to use all peaceful means, e.g. economic sanctions against an enemy and negotiation with that enemy before resorting to military action.  His predecessor George Bush certainly seemed to do the opposite -- shoot first and talk later.  History will judge who was right in Afghanistan and Iraq; events will unfold in the next decade that will show us whether Obama is correct in Iran and Cuba.

Critics of this Iranian nuclear agreement compare it to Munich and the west=s appeasement of Hitler.  But even the severest critic of that agreement, Winston Churchill, said, A to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war@.  And the prescient analyst of Britain=s failure to prepare for WWII, John F Kennedy, took office telling our people: A Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate@.

Obama has chosen to advocate trying to coexist with Iran, as Presidents from FDR through Reagan coexisted with the Soviet Union; and, President=s since Nixon have followed a policy of amiable relations with China.  Is Obama correct? I don=t know - history will judge and events over the next decade will determine that judgment.

We lionize our Presidents who use military force to initiate policy (Polk in Mexico, McKinley with Spain, and Reagan in Grenada to list only a few). We should at the least respect that President who has heard the voice of the American people and for their children and grandchildren has decided to A give peace a chance@.  

If the twenty-first century is not to be a repetition of the twentieth century=s brutal wars, genocidal killings and mass slaughters the President of the world=s greatest power must earn the Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded in his first year in office. With the restoration of relations with Cuba and the nuclear control agreement with Iran he has.  

3 April 2015

SESTAK IS WALKING THE WALK

My former Congressman and retired Admiral, Joe Sestak, has started a walk across Pennsylvania. As he walks from county to county he highlights an issue of importance to the Commonwealth and gathers with local citizens to discuss it. Admiral Sestak ran for the US Senate I 2010 as a Democrat.  He lost narrowly in what was otherwise a banner Republican year. Now he is running again for that Senate seat.

Political pundits and consultants will tell you and anyone who wants to listen that you can’t run for the Senate a second time unless you hold an office or run for some high visibility office in the interim years.  And that’s what I told Joe Sestak in 2011.  But he has decided to again disprove the prognosticators and professional pundits and has been maintaining a campaign schedule across this Commonwealth since Nov. 2010.

Admiral Sestak is not a typical politician -- in fact don’t let his candidate skills and governing skills fool you He Is Not a Politician.  Neither politics nor polls sway his opinion once he has studied a question and determined his approach to a solution. He is in my opinion a pragmatic liberal who seeks the solutions that help the most people and hurt the fewest. 

As a retired military officer he is the antithesis of John McCain - holding to the belief that the military needs to be modern and strong and used only as a last resort when diplomatic and economic means are unsuccessful.  He long thought the Iraq war was a mistake and makes a sound argument for same as regards Libya. With chaos reigning in those countries today few would debate him on this.

He knows how to fight and hold his own in War and in Politics.  He took on and defeated two of the political giants of Pennsylvania: Cong. Curt Weldon and Sen. Arlen Specter. He cast his votes in Washington as a Democrat whom I would classify and independent progressive.

Now that Admiral Sestak has again decided to defy the odds and run a second time for the same seat after a gap of five years the self anointed “party leaders” have spent these past months denigrating his candidacy and floating every trial balloon they can blow up as a primary opponent.  They will argue that Sestak is not a friend of the Democratic organization nor its leaders and marches to his own drummer.  I was county leader of the Democratic of Delaware County during Joe Sestak’s terms in the House of Representatives -- they are right he does his own thing and doesn’t follow lock step the orders of party leaders.  I can personally attest to that.

I have been an elected state legislator and a county party chairman.  Our democratic system will work for all our citizens when conscientious elected officials do what they believe is right not what power or money tell them to do.

The US Senate was once considered the most deliberative body in the democratic lexicon.  Today it has become almost a joke.  It desperately needs more Senators of stature, ethical character, courage of conviction and unflagging devotion to the nation.

Admiral Joe Sestak has served our nation on the high seas and in the hallowed halls of Congress.  He is ready to serve again and this Commonwealth and this nation need him.

10 March 2015