Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Republican Party’

The Perversion of Democracy by Donald Trump and the Republican Party

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. – Edward R. Murrow

Introduction

     The people of the United States have been on a roller coaster ride since June 2015 when Donald Trump came down that escalator in New York and declared his decision to run for President of the United States. In 2020 the Nation will do more than just vote for a president; this coming election is also a referendum on democracy itself. That is, the future of democracy is on the ballot. The underlying question of this election is: Who are we as a people? The best way to discern who we are is to be look back at our history. One of the most important and influential books of the 19th century was Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America.

     Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) was a French sociologist and political theorist who traveled to the United States in 1831 to study its prisons and returned with a wealth of broader observations that he codified in “Democracy in America” (1835). With its trenchant observations on equality and individualism, Tocqueville’s work remains a valuable explanation of America to Europeans and of Americans to themselves.

     As “Democracy in America” revealed, Tocqueville believed that equality was the great political and social idea of his era, and he thought that the United States offered the most advanced example of equality in action. He admired American individualism but warned that a society of individuals can easily become atomized and paradoxically uniform when “every citizen, being assimilated to all the rest, is lost in the crowd.” He felt that a society of individuals lacked the intermediate social structures—such as those provided by traditional hierarchies—to mediate relations with the state. The result could be a democratic “tyranny of the majority” in which individual rights were compromised.

     Tocqueville was impressed by much of what he saw in American life, admiring the stability of its economy and wondering at the popularity of its churches. He also noted the irony of the freedom-loving nation’s mistreatment of Native Americans and its embrace of slavery.

     Tocqueville’s works shaped 19th-century discussions of liberalism and equality, and were rediscovered in the 20th century as sociologists debated the causes and cures of tyranny. “Democracy in America” remains widely read and even more widely quoted by politicians, philosophers, historians and anyone seeking to understand the American character.

Questions for you to Ponder with the 2020 Election

     You are at a crossroads my friend and you better get your head straight before you vote this November.  

     Are we as a people worthy to overcome a country where our behavior often does not act in sync with the very principles of a true democracy? The principles I’m referring to are those expressed in the original documents that were laid down in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights by our founding fathers.

     The notion of people in a democracy always being a “work in progress” has always seemed to me like clever conservative rationalizations for keeping the status quo. If you’re always a “work in progress” then by implication with respect to democracy, one doesn’t really need to move quickly toward a more perfect democracy.   

     That status quo in 2020 is the reality of slowly transforming ourselves into a fascist dictatorship with a new monarch—Donald Trump. It is he who overtly wants a “King Trump Dynasty” that would last a 1,000 years. As Dirty Harry once said to a police bureaucrat in the movie of the same name, “You’re a legend in your own mind.” Also, Trump is envious of dictators around the globe, and he despises our allies all the time.

     As Mary Trump reported in her new book, “Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man,” Donald Trump is the most dangerous man in the world.

     Trump’s quixotic world view is based on Adolf Hitler’s world view. Trump’s brown shirts are ultra-right wing extremists who are “un-American to the core.” They are the Republican Congressman and Senators who are soulless banshees who hide behind closed doors plotting to do everything they can to keep POWER and screw over the American people.

     Trump continues to surround himself with people who only agree with him despite how treasonous his own behavior might be. His current administration is run by totally ineffectual small minded sycophants. If this is what you want to vote for, then you are no more America than Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong un.

     Beyond Trump, who is headed for a trial and a possible prison sentence sometime after the election, his near term political destiny is actually rather clear-cut. More than 65% of the country disapproves of the job Donald Trump has been doing. The level of disapproval has been growing ever since he first entered office.

     Trump’s job approval rating is the death knell for his reelection. People who disdain his job approval are not likely to suddenly turn around and vote for him. That’s why I think job approval rating is a significant metric. In November the vast majority of voters in the United States are going to tell Donald Trump—“You’re Fired! And get the f@#k out of Dodge!”

 Where are we in the Upcoming Election?

     As of September 19, 2020, polls are showing Biden is leading in several battleground states and overall nationally. And, it’s true national polls are more accurate than state polls where the standard error rate in sampling is much higher.

     Instead of “Election Day,” we need to rethink the 2020 election as, “Election Month.” We have to be concerned that Trump is illegally trying to cheat to win re-election in 2020. It is likely the election could end up being decided by the United States Supreme Court. With that in mind, here are some polls that have been done so far in September.

     New polls in four key battleground states show Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden with the edge over President Donald Trump. A set of New York Times Upshot/Siena College surveys released Saturday had Biden leading Trump in Minnesota, 50 percent to 41 percent, and more narrowly ahead in Wisconsin, 48 percent to 43 percent. The polls show close races in two more states: Nevada, where the results showed Biden at 46 percent and Trump at 42 percent, and New Hampshire, where Biden had 45 percent to Trump’s 42 percent.

     Back on September 12, 2020 CNN (which shows the national average or poll of polls) shows Joe Biden leading 56% to Donald Trump’s 43%. Politico reports that a Quinnipiac poll shows Biden up by 10% among likely voters. Even Fox News, not known for its objectivity, shows Biden up by an upper single digit lead over Donald Trump. Quite interestingly, only 86% of Trump original voters in 2016 will vote for him again in 2020. Basically, he has now lost 14% of his original 2016 base.  

     Based on the polls so far in 2020, Donald Trump will lose the election by a landslide to former Vice-President Joe Biden. Technically, a candidate for political office just has to earn one more vote than its rival candidate to win a state. One has to remember that even a one-half percent lead in a state may represent thousands of votes. If Biden currently leads nationally by 7-13% he will win a major landslide over Donald Trump. How great a landslide will it be? Now, I do need to point out that landslides in political contests do differ from one another. Consider the following historical facts:

Electoral College

  When Nixon beat George McGovern in 1972 it was one of the largest landslides in recent United States History. Richard Nixon received 520 Electoral College votes to McGovern’s 17 Electoral College votes. Only the District of Columbia (3) and Massachusetts (14) were won by McGovern.

        The Economist publication analyzes three sources of data that includes polling, economic and demographic data. According to an article in the Economist a few days ago, Joe Biden is very likely to beat Donald Trump in the Electoral College. Since there are a total of 538 Electoral College votes Joe Biden is predicted to receive 334 Electoral College votes to 204 for Donald Trump. Only 270 Electoral College votes are needed to become President.

Popular Vote

     In terms of the popular vote, Richard Nixon won 60.7% of the popular vote while McGovern won only 37.5% of the popular vote. In history of the United States only Franklin Delano Roosevelt won larger popular votes (88.9%) in 1932 and (98.5%) in 1936. If we go back to 2016 there were a total of 128,864,246 votes cast in the election.

     Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9% over Donald Trump. There were 65,884,610 votes for Clinton and 62,979,636 for Trump. There is currently a 97% probability Joe Biden will win the popular vote in 2020 and a 3% probability for Trump. I would conclude from these data that Biden’s landslide win over Trump will be large but not the largest in American History in terms of Electoral College votes or the popular vote.

     After the first one hundred days of the Biden administration, legislation should be introduced to reform government procedures. Part of the process should be to initiate a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate the antiquated system of an Electoral College in deference to a popular vote. Had Congress done that prior to 2016, Donald Trump would never have been elected in the first place. In my opinion the Electoral College should have disappeared at the beginning of the twentieth century. Those in the younger generation these days like to say, “That’s my bad!” Well, for many older generations during the last 120 years failure to get rid of the Electoral College was “our bad!”

     I know Donald Trump is a habitual liar, a thief, and a cheat who is doing everything he can to pervert democracy and remain in office for at least another term. Worst case scenario, Donald Trump is reelected. However, consider this: If the Senate wins a few more seats for the Democrats in 2020 (and it looks like it will), the Democrats will become the dominant party in Congress plus Kamala Harris will become the deciding vote (as Vice President) if ever there is a tie in the U.S. Senate. If that happens, they will impeach Donald Trump again with a plethora of criminal and violations of government offenses during his term. But this time he will be permanently removed from office. Either way, Trump’s days are likely numbered.

     Let’s just hope his tactics are thwarted by the courts and he is overwhelmingly defeated at the ballot box this November.  

How Republicans Failed American’s Interests

Lack of true Governing

     Trump shoots himself in the foot every day where political issues are concerned; it is very unlikely anyone will suddenly see a surge in his popularity. For now I’m going to address the issue of the Republican Party.

     In a bestselling book (The Impostors) by Steve Benen, he describes the underlying motivations of the Republican Party over the last decade. I think the Republican’s metamorphosis actually started in the mid-term election of 1994 when people were told the Republican Party was putting forth “A Contract with America.” Years later it became clear they failed to implement any part of their “Contract with America.” It was just more Republican bullshit because nothing happened. It became so obvious that President Bill Clinton once remarked that he thought “The Contract with America” was really more like a “Contract on America.”

According to Steve Benen:

“Most American voters innocently assume the two major parties are equally mature and responsible governing entities, ideological differences aside. That belief is due for an overhaul; over the past decade, the Republican Party has undergone an astonishing metamorphosis, one so baffling and complete that few have fully reckoned with the reality and its consequences.

Republicans, simply put, have stopped governing. As MSNBC’s Steve Benin chart’s in his new groundbreaking new book, the contemporary GOP has become a post-policy party. Republicans are effectively imposters, presenting themselves as officials who are ready to take seriously the substance of problem solving, but whose sole focus is the pursuit and maintenance of power. Astonishingly, they are succeeding—at the cost of pushing the political system to the breaking point.

Despite having built itself as the ‘party of ideas’ the GOP has walked away from the hard but necessary work of policy making. It is disdainful of expertise and hostile toward evidence and arithmetic. It is tethered to few, if any, meaningful policy preferences. It does not know, and does not care, how competing proposals should be crafted, scrutinized, or implemented.

This policy nihilism dominated the party’s posture throughout Barack Obama’s presidency, which in turn opened the door to Donald Trump—who has cemented the GOP’s status in ways that were difficult even to imagine a few years ago. Voters routinely elect Republicans such as Mitch McDonnell and Mike Pense to powerful offices, expecting GOP policymakers to have the technocratic wherewithal to identify problems, weigh alternative solutions, forge coalitions, accept compromises, and apply some level of governmental competence, if not expertise. The party has consistently proven those hopes misguided.

The result is an untenable political model that’s undermining the American policy-making process and failing to serve the public’s interests. The vital challenge facing the civil polity is coming to terms with the party’s collapse as a governing entity and considering what the party can do to finding its footing anew.”                      

     Please see an earlier blog of mine on WordPress that gets into the influence Russians have over the Republican Party titled:

What Really Underlies the Impeachment Decision to Acquit Donald J. Trump?

[The Republican Party in Congress and Their Ties to Russian Money and Foreign National Donations]

Here is a little excerpt from that Blog:   

 “The Republican Party in the United States Senate has just taken a dump on the American people (and that includes also craping on that part of the electorate that voted Trump into office in the first place). In addition, the United States Constitution has just been shredded while the Republican Party has thumbed their noses at all of us with glee.

     Along with our democratic principles, and our moral convictions of what is right and wrong, the country has just been unceremoniously screwed by the Republican Party. People are outraged throughout the country, and do you want to know why the Republican Party voted as they did?”

Past and Current Concerns with Donald Trump    

     Just how much can Americans tolerate not having a real President in office? People often forget but Donald Trump came into office in 2016 having never held any public office. Now he’s the President and has been in office almost four years. Has he been a responsible President and government servant faithfully carrying out and respecting our laws? Absolutely not!

     Donald Trump is currently calling himself the “law and order” president. That’s really funny! Trump could care less about the laws he breaks, and he constantly disregards any laws he perceives as not in his own personal interest. His phoniness extends to everything in his life. I don’t know about “order,” but I do know he needs a good dose of the “law” right now.

     With respect to Donald Trump we know he has ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder). You see Donald Trump did not write the best-selling book, “Art of the Deal.” Most people don’t know this, but Donald Trump used a ghost writer who ended up writing the entire book on his own. The real author of the book Tony Schwartz said this of Trump, “He has a short attention span.”  He also called Trump a “sociopath.” And, Tony Schwartz absolutely regrets having done this favor for Trump back in 1987.

     I have been covering as a Blogger Donald Trump since 2015. During this 5 year period, I have reported on this man in terms of criminal activity and his deviant behavior psychologically, sociologically and financially, in both his public and private domains.

     I have covered his conduct from his many business failures to his fraudulent undertaking with Trump University. Later I looked at his connection with Jeffery Epstein, a registered sex offender. Along the way there was a federal investigation of his racist attempt to abuse and violate federal civil rights laws. This pertained to apartments he owned in connection with federal Fair Housing Statutes. Racism, angry hate in general, and abuse of women make up his core values and behavior.

     Just consider his racist views of the Central Park Five in New York. Also, he and Jeffery Epstein raped and beat a 13 year old prostitute in 1994. During that time Trump also threated to destroy the family of the child. As it turned out during this time, Jeffery Epstein was committing felonies related to the slave-trafficking of teenage girls.

     The moral repugnancy of this type of behavior didn’t bother Donald Trump in the least. But Epstein also provided the place where all criminal activities occurred. Who was Jeffery Epstein? Jeffery Epstein was a very wealthy millionaire (net worth in 2019 was 559 million) and a registered sex offender, and a very close friend of Donald Trump. At that time, they were rich compatriots in “evil.”

     As we all know from many news reports over the years, Donald Trump has been accused by many women of either rape or sexual assault. And, he was not above using hush money to quiet women from coming forward. Nevertheless, many women have shown much courage in coming forward to report such sexual crimes committed by Donald Trump. Many of these offenses have yet to be adjudicated in the courts. In a way, Donald Trump is very much like the late John Gotti, Jr. a crime and mafia boss in New York known as The Teflon Don. Maybe Donald Trump can be called The Teflon President.”

     In addition to his core values of systemic racism, angry hate and misogyny Donald Trump has engaged in treasonous behavior as well. On May 10, 2017 Trump disclosed classified information to two Russians, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

     The classified information came from Israel. The data was given by the Russians to Iran and resulted in Trump’s disclosure endangering the life of a spy placed by Israel in ISIL –held territory in Syria. Nobody in the intelligence business, foreign and domestic, would ever trust Donald Trump again.

     In 2019, the highlight of my year was watching Donald Trump being impeached by the House of Representatives. As we all know Donald Trump deserved to be removed from Office of the Presidency. The Senate Republicans held a “fake trial” and Donald Trump was subsequently acquitted. The Democratic presentation was great, even awe inspiring, but the Republican Party’s response at Trial was a complete and total farce.

     Since last February people in the United States began to see the real consequences of the Pandemic known as Coved-19.  The “King Trump Dynasty” treated the warning signs of the seriousness of this disease like it was all just “fake news.” Trump said it was because he didn’t want to panic the people. This was a lie. If he really didn’t want people to panic in general, why is he still trying so hard to scare the public into believing the nation will be victim to all that anarchy, doom and gloom? Now he is the “sky is falling” president. Trump actually wants people to panic; he could care less if people are scared or panicky. HE WILL DO ANYTHING TO GET RE- ELECTED!!!

     Very soon there will be more than 200,000 Coved-19 deaths nationwide. It is very likely that a significant number of those who supported Donald Trump will not survive the Coronavirus because Trump continues to promote anti-healthy activity like not wearing a mask or not practicing social distancing. As a result more Trump supporters will die disproportionately from Coved-19 compared to all other demographics.  

     Other than Trump’s slowing down our country’s efforts to deal with climate change, I can’t think of any other issue that will adversely affect the United States more than Coved-19. Your health is the most important thing in your life. If you don’t have your health, by comparison all other concerns you may have are secondary or tertiary in importance.

     In the last few weeks several devastating issues have surfaced. These issues include: (1) Donald Trump’s abusive behavior calling deceased World War I marine’s losers and suckers, his continuous jealous rant with deceased John McCain over John’s POW hero status, and his general disdain for both American service members and military veterans. He also continues to call them losers and suckers. (2) Bob Woodward’s book detailing, from filmed interviews, that back in early February 2020 Donald Trump knew how deadly the Coronavirus really was. And, that the virus could be transmitted by air. His National Security Advisor had advised Trump earlier of all dangers of Coved-19 and the greatest threat to his presidency. This was back on January 28, 2020.

     As I reported earlier, Donald Trump is destined to go to prison following his removal as President of the United States. To Trump supporters who have pulled away from him since 2016, you are to be congratulated. As they say, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!

     Eric Hoffer in 1951 wrote the seminal work, “The True Believer.” Shame and dishonor awaits the diehard Trump believers who are fooled again by him in 2020. Why would anyone act so stupid and allow themselves from being fooled twice?  

     One way to look at these phenomena is through the lens of mass movements. That’s because they possess unusual psychiatric characteristics that can only be described as sociopathic in nature. They are the closest group form of mentally disturbed White Trash that ever voted. They are all “True Believers.”

Root Causes of Pain and Turmoil in America   

      Surprisingly, there are really only two root causes that are responsible for all the pain and turmoil we as Americans have had to endure. One problem is sociological in nature related to our culture, and the other root cause is psychological in nature arising from Donald Trump’s mental illness.

     The essence of the sociological root cause is White Fright and White Flight. There has always been systemic racism from the very beginning of this country. Sad, but true! However, White Fright and White Flight began to make a bigger impact on the white population when whites began to realize that national statistical projections were showing that white America was fast becoming a majority minority. Twenty-five years from now (2045), America will be 49.7% white. With less than 50% population, white America will be a minority racial group for the very first time. It will still be the largest minority, but a minority nonetheless. I wish I had enough space to explain why I think whites have nothing to fear and also every reason to be glad about it.

     It’s time to focus briefly on the second root cause—Donald Trump’s mental illness. As an ultra-liberal person I have to step away from the politics for a moment. To be really objective I have to say, like cancer, mental illness is a scourge on society.

     Part of me really feels sorry for Donald Trump. The very real internal pain, anguish and suffering he probably experiences are only protected by his fragile ego. That kind of suffering I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemies. His mental illness is Narcissistic Personality Disorder. What is a Narcissistic Personality Disorder? According to the Mayo Clinic:  

“Narcissistic personality disorder — one of several types of personality disorders — is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that’s vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

A narcissistic personality disorder causes problems in many areas of life, such as relationships, work, school or financial affairs. People with narcissistic personality disorder may be generally unhappy and disappointed when they’re not given the special favors or admiration they believe they deserve. They may find their relationships unfulfilling, and others may not enjoy being around them.

Symptoms

Signs and symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder and the severity of symptoms vary. People with the disorder can:

•Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance

•Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration

•Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it

•Exaggerate achievements and talents

•Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate

•Believe they are superior and can only associate with equally special people

•Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior

•Expect special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations

•Take advantage of others to get what they want

•Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others

•Be envious of others and believe others envy them

•Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious

•Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office

At the same time, people with narcissistic personality disorder have trouble handling anything they perceive as criticism, and they can:

•Become impatient or angry when they don’t receive special treatment

•Have significant interpersonal problems and easily feel slighted

•React with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make themselves appear superior

•Have difficulty regulating emotions and behavior

•Experience major problems dealing with stress and adapting to change

•Feel depressed and moody because they fall short of perfection

•Have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliation

People with narcissistic personality disorder may not want to think that anything could be wrong, so they may be unlikely to seek treatment. If they do seek treatment, it’s more likely to be for symptoms of depression, drug or alcohol use, or another mental health problem. But perceived insults to self-esteem may make it difficult to accept and follow through with treatment.

Causes

It’s not known what causes narcissistic personality disorder. As with personality development and with other mental health disorders, the cause of narcissistic personality disorder is likely complex. Narcissistic personality disorder may be linked to:

•Environment ― mismatches in parent-child relationships with either excessive adoration or excessive criticism that is poorly attuned to the child’s experience

•Genetics ― inherited characteristics

•Neurobiology — the connection between the brain and behavior and thinking”

Suggestions for the Voting Public

     As you begin to head to your favorite polling place this fall, or send back your ballot in the mail, just keep this in mind: The future of democracy is on the ballot this year.

     This November 3, 2020 election is going to be the most important election in modern American History. I have felt for some time that the train wreck that is Donald Trump’s Presidency would eventually come to an unceremoniously inauspicious ending. You can have a voting role here that will be truly historic. Please get out and vote. The country needs you in its time of need.

Read Full Post »

What a White Majority Minority might look like in 2044

Background

Since the first settlers came to America the country has been a predominantly white nation. The country stayed largely white (90% of the population) until the 1950s. Since then the percentage of the population that is white has been declining. It is currently 61 % of the entire U.S. population. A white majority minority in America isn’t expected until 2044 (25 years from now). What are the population projections for 2044?

“Census data projections released by the U.S. Census Bureau indicate that the U.S. population will become “majority minority” in 2044. At that time, whites will make up 49.7 percent of the population compared with 25 percent for Hispanics, 12.7 percent for blacks, 7.9 percent for Asians and 3.7 for percent multiracial persons. This tipping point will result from two countervailing trends that are projected to continue between now and 2060:

  • A long term decline for the nation’s white population. The white population is projected to increase modestly until 2025 when it reaches 199,867,000; after that, it will sustain a continued decrease until 2060 when whites will make up only 44 percent of the population. Natural decrease, the excess of deaths over births, for this aging population will be the primary component of this decline.
  • A growth of new minorities—Asians, Hispanics and multiracial persons. Between 2014 and 2060 both the Asian and Hispanic populations will more than double at growth rates of 129 percent and 115 percent respectively. Multiracial persons will more than triple, growing at nearly 220 percent. These new projections assume a greater gain for Asians than in previous projections but reduced gains for Hispanics. The former reflects rising Asian immigration and the latter a drop-off in Hispanic fertility.

In addition to the emergence of a majority minority nation, continued racial disparity across generations will occur because of the exit of whites from the younger ages as both old and new minorities take up the slack. Between 2014 and 2060 the minority share of the youth population will rise from 48 percent to 64 percent. While the senior population will also become more diverse, in 2060 whites will still comprise a majority of the age 65 and older population at 55 percent.”

These are the facts as based on projections. Now, we must ask ourselves another important question: What does it all mean and what will be the social effects of such changes? This is a complex question but I have a few ideas.

How has such Population Projections Affected American Culture?

Many people in America today seem to feel exacerbated, frustrated (and exhausted) over the fact our country is so politically divided. Unfortunately, race seems to be the hidden bogyman in the room.

Race should be a non-issue in an educated and democratic country. But lack of education in some quarters, along with a moderately sized group (guess who I’m referring to folks) who only reticently give lip service to democratic institutions, has kept race alive as an issue of some concern.

A predicated notion of race should really be based on knowledge and awareness that most of us really have more in common with each other, rather than differences. At an individualistic level, it is both our similarities and differences that make humans so unique.

Socially dividing people today by skin color is a mindless activity that has little meaning when looking back as to where we all originated.

All of us have an identical origin. We are all Afrikaners. Most of our ancestors in the distant past were migrants who left Africa between 180,000-200,000 years ago. Those who stayed in Africa formed what are the African nations today. Not only are we all brothers and sisters under the sun, but we all have the same mitochondrial DNA from one black maternal grandmother living in Africa prior to the mass migrations that occurred so long ago.

In human genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living humans, i.e., the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers, and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman.

In an article (New gene variants reveal the evolution of human skin color) by Ann Gibbons dated October 12, 2017, she reports:

“Most people associate Africans with dark skin. But different groups of people in Africa have almost every skin color on the planet, from deepest black in the Dinka of South Sudan to beige in the San of South Africa. Now, researchers have discovered a handful of new gene variants responsible for this palette of tones.

The study, published online this week in Science, traces the evolution of these genes and how they traveled around the world. While the dark skin of some Pacific Islanders can be traced to Africa, gene variants from Eurasia also seem to have made their way back to Africa. And surprisingly, some of the mutations responsible for lighter skin in Europeans turn out to have an ancient African origin.

“This is really a landmark study of skin color diversity,” says geneticist Greg Barsh of the Hudson Alpha Institute for Biotechnology in Huntsville, Alabama.

Researchers agree that our early australopithecine ancestors in Africa probably had light skin beneath hairy pelts. “If you shave a chimpanzee, its skin is light,” says evolutionary geneticist Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania, the lead author of the new study. “If you have body hair, you don’t need dark skin to protect you from ultraviolet [UV] radiation.”

Until recently, researchers assumed that after human ancestors shed most body hair, sometime before 2 million years ago, they quickly evolved dark skin for protection from skin cancer and other harmful effects of UV radiation. Then, when humans migrated out of Africa and headed to the far north, they evolved lighter skin as an adaptation to limited sunlight. (Pale skin synthesizes more vitamin D when light is scarce.)”

Most anthropologists today will view race as a very flawed concept. But that discussion is reserved for another time.

As a former social scientist I tend to think of human behavior in factual, psychological, sociological, anthropological and historical terms. This viewpoint is broad, not narrow in scope or limiting. It’s all part of the scientific approach to understanding human behavior. Some people will say culture is more important than one’s genetic make-up. Really? Well, both are important!

Assessment of American Culture Today

Right now, nothing is more contrary to a collective understanding of human behavior than the disconcerting fact that American society has so misread their own social environment. The causes of this are numerous. But fear stands out as a major factor in seeing the world as only “us” and “them.” It is simplicity of observation at its most absurd. Said another way some people prefer to see differences only; other people tend to see our similarities. Those that see similarities are using a wide-angle lens. Those who have a tendency to see only differences just can’t seem to get their social camera working in the first place.

This fear I’m referring to doesn’t act in a social vacuum. It is constantly reinforced by two major elements of American society: (1) Donald R. Trump, and (2) an underlying racist Republican Party, at best a party of abject fools in denial of facts, and at worst, a political party intent on destroying America from within so their treasonous connections to Russia can be hidden from public view. Both elements feed off each other in a callous and sordid political drama that serves no one but themselves.

White America has allowed itself to be duped (and sucker punched) by a racist Republican Party and by that degenerate, bombastic, narcissistic personality defect in the White House. Their purpose is to divide people and instigate conflict—all in the vain hope of returning America to a white dominant society.

All of the recent racist and religious violence from the Ultra-conservative, Nazi, KKK and Alt Right affiliates have been based on a racist ideology (for example, the Charlottesville fiasco and murder, murders committed by Dylann Roof of nine black churchgoers, and the murders of people in various Jewish synagogues across the country).

The assumptions made by these ideological entities, or individuals, have no basis in fact. They simply manifest value judgments that run counter to most values such as egalitarianism, humanism, or moral principles like everyday decency,  sensibilities, and caring for other people.

Why is White Paranoia so unjustified?

As corny as this sounds at times President Franklin Roosevelt got it right. He said, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

There are several major reasons whites have viewed their future in America incorrectly. For one obvious reason, a white majority minority will still outnumber any non-white racial/ethnic group in 2044. At that time, whites will make up 49.7 percent of the population compared with 25 percent for Hispanics, 12.7 percent for blacks, 7.9 percent for Asians and 3.7 for percent multiracial persons. Collectively, non-white minorities will be 49.3 percent of the entire population in 2044.

Here are some speculations that generally support the belief that whites will have nothing much to fear in 2044:

  1. There will be both positive and negative unintended consequences as a result of a new white majority minority. Liberals and moderates will thrive in 2044 while conservatives will lose much political power except in the rural areas of America (if we still have rural areas that haven’t been made into a paved-over tarmac by then).
  2. Whites will continue to have a disproportionate influence on society but will lose their power through strength in numbers. In this regard issues, not racial designations, may finally become more important. This will impact non-white minority voters as well as white majority minority voters. If this is the case, people having common objectives just might start to act like adults and individuals, not defined any longer by their racial identity. Or at least, less so!
  3. All groups need to finally acknowledge that racial identity is a non-issue. Only social cooperation and individuality is all that really matters. Only time will tell if society in general is capable of achieving Dr. Martin Luther King’s original dream. His speech was a message of unity, not division. He set the bar high for the country.
  4. The country will truly become more democratic consistent with the original intent of our nation’s founding fathers.
  5. Whites will continue to maintain a higher average income but its middle class will continue to shrink. Helping every group’s middle class is an important goal. In order to achieve greater income equality liberals and independents must retake the White House and Congress in 2020.
  6. Whites, for better or worse, will continue to be the best armed majority minority consistent with its income level, and consistent with a 2nd Amendment that remains unaltered.
  7. Assumptions about a monolithic voting block among different racial groups just does not exist. Why? Because thinking the same way on any issue is very unlikely. No group thinks monolithically; all groups are made up of individuals. People vote across racial lines all the time. Joe Biden, a white politician, is favored by 51% among blacks in South Carolina. Or Just think back to 2016 when a fair number of minority voters went for Trump. Obviously, whites were not the only people who got duped in 2016. This reinforces my argument. It doesn’t matter—no one thinks alike. This is at the heart of democratic principles. In a democracy—we want people to think for themselves.
  8. I predict politics will, for the most part, remain the same. There will still be liberals, moderates and conservatives. There will still be a left, right, and a center.
  9. Society will become much more egalitarian with women occupying more places in the House and Senate. Women will have much more political power in 2044.
  10. I predict more non-white minorities will become judges at every level. And they will occupy more seats in local elections and more seats in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. More minorities need to be nominated to the United States Supreme Court.
  11. Democracy will demand accountability in 2044 just as it should now. I predict a century from now historians will look back on 2016-2020 as a pivotal point at which American society had to internally step up and protect the grand experiment of a democratic country against all forms of tyranny foreign and domestic.

Final Comments

Recent comments on Twitter against four women of color suggest that the notion that Donald R. Trump is a racist American is no longer in any doubt. There is a long history that has also documented his racism. His father was a racist who had been arrested at an altercation at a rally for the KKK in Queen’s New York in 1927.

In the 1970s Donald Trump was sued by the U.S. Department of Justice for violation of the Fair Housing Act. He discriminated against blacks by lying about the availability of his apartments. In 1989 Trump went on a crusade to villainize the Central Park Five, all four blacks and one Hispanic teenager for a vicious attack on a white female jogger in New York’s Central Park. All five were later exonerated by DNA evidence.

Trump’s opening campaign address was riddled with racial epithets toward Mexican immigrants as rapists and drug dealers. When he engaged in the racist Twitter rants about four minority black women in Congress, Civil-Rights Icon John Lewis of Georgia was asked about that. He said of the President’s remarks, “I know Racism when I see it.”

It’s now time for Americans to stand up and take back the country. A good first start is to Impeach Donald R. Trump. There is one book that will never be written by a Republican. The name of that book is, “Profiles in Courage.”

Read Full Post »

Transformational Ideas in the Era of Social Change and the Upcoming Presidential Election

Seeing Society through the Crystal-Ball of Ideas

 

Introduction

I’m feeling a little bit overwhelmed these days during this political season. This is because there are so many candidates running for the Office of the President of the United States. At last count there were potentially 24 democratic candidates (some declared and some not), five or more independents, and potentially several Republicans ready to challenge Donald Trump in 2020.

So how does one decide who to vote for in the next election when there are so many candidates? What criteria does one use to make sound judgments? It is a daunting task, especially if one wants to do diligence and cares about our democracy. So, what do you do?

Many factors may guide you (e.g., party affiliation, values, facts on issues, beliefs, prejudice, social pressure, past history of voting or lack thereof, what your significant other(s) may think, etc.). However, voting is, for the most part, a solitary decision. So once you’re in that polling booth or filling out a form at home, the question still remains—what do you do?

In order to answer this question one needs to take a long term and wide view at politicians and their promises in addition to culture, society and the individual. Each individual operates in his/her own realm of individuality and consciousness. That realm is mostly in the present, the here and now, where immediate needs play our center stage of concern. We all have needs every moment of every day. But voting should be an activity that transcends the present. One needs to look beyond his/her immediate environment, and think about the future needs of others, not just oneself.

Sociology I-A

While our immediate daily needs are important to meet, the act of Voting is more than this, or should be. Voting is a statement of desired direction, a kind of non-descript message to a culture and society bigger than ourselves. We are all trying to say with our vote, “You better wake up and pay attention.” Well, you say wake up and pay attention, but what you really mean is—You want change, however ill-defined and nebulous at that moment it might be.

If you’re conservative you’re probably thinking to yourself—change for what? The conservative mindset is very troubled these days. Conservatives prefer no change to society most of the time, despite a long history of change they have also benefitted from. Nevertheless, they are all fearful of a changing world and landscape they do not understand or control anymore. They dwell psychologically in a constant state of perpetual uncertainty and many have secretly underlying doubts and misapprehensions about their own beliefs.

Most conservatives are white. Most sociologists suspect that the underlying concern of not wanting things to change is the irrational fear of “White Fright-White Flight.” While there are interesting sociological questions ahead to be answered, like will America become more harmonious, less violent and less group oriented, once there is real equality when only minorities (including a white minority) will make up America? That discussion is for a latter Blog. While such a question is titillating to the academic community, there is still an irrational fear on the part of conservatives that the sky is falling all around them. And that intense fear translates into blaming all others for their own short-comings in life.

The driving force in culture (defined as our learned behavior patterns) and society is for change, or a desire for no change. It is predicated on values and value judgments. Change does not create value judgment per se, only people do. Some may argue that value judgments are a product of early childhood experiences in growing up in small social unit or group like the family. And it is true that by age 25 most of our personal beliefs and values are firmly lodged in “social concrete.” But as people become adults, larger social forces begin to enter their lives and influence them. I’m being polite. Let’s call it what it is—Social Control.

What is Change Anyway?

Observing change is simply a perception of difference in our physical and mental environment. It is a catchword used to describe movement in time. Either something occurs or it doesn’t. That is the nexus of change that connects the past to the present and the present to the future.

But when we talk about social change, and its importance, we’re really talking about value judgments and ideology directed by something very specific. Society doesn’t always change because one holds value judgments; society changes because of something very specific. Change for change sake is unto itself—meaningless.

What are those specifics? They are ideas folks. Ideas move society. Ideas move individuals. Ideas, and their formulation, are the real basis for social change in society. Value judgments and ideology may still play a role in evaluating what is a “good” idea from a “bad” idea. But ideas turned into actions are what ultimately will lead to social change.

     So, if good ideas are the real pathway to social change, why then aren’t there more of them? I don’t know. My theory is that it takes real effort to come up with good ideas. Most people would prefer to be lazy and rest, not on their laurels per se, but rather depend on their value judgments alone.

     However, sometimes politicians are capable of creating and coming up with good ideas. Ahead you’ll hear about one candidate for the highest office who has the best most transformational ideas at this point in time, and has done his/her homework.

     The best political presentations, by the way, are well crafted when they collectively incorporate transformational ideas, values, and facts and describe issues with the precision of a jeweler’s eye. That kind of political presentation gives a more complete and total picture from which to make choices or judgments.

Read on.

It is ideas that propel what we call change. But ideas are not all alike in nature. Some ideas are rather ordinary, while other ideas can be transformational.

Transformational Ideas

When I talk about ideas in the context above, I’m not referring to everyday or ordinary ideas that lead to human decisions of little relevance, such as making decisions as to what car to buy or what neighborhood to buy a home in.

Transformational ideas by comparison to ordinary ones, can and do affect the lives of large numbers of people, or even an entire nation. They have a much bigger impact on society; they generate real currency value in any society.

Transformational ideas are what you need to look for in a candidate for public office, especially the Office of President of the United States.

Warning: If a candidate talks about issues, that is fine. But if their stock answer is—we need to change—but solutions are absent in the presentation, you might take that as a sign that the candidate for office really has not thought about the issue(s) very deeply.

We all know talk is cheap, but actionable ideas require planning and insight. Said again, transformational ideas have great value when they are highly specific, not obtuse statements lacking specificity or time frames. Otherwise, you as a voter are passing off “bullshit” for insight. Don’t be misled by the politics of obfuscation in political speeches whenever, wherever, and by whom it comes from. Listen carefully to what is being said. I know this requires effort on your part, but who you vote for really matters.

Another way politicians obfuscate their presentation is they constantly dwell on “values rather than facts.” Value statements are fine because values reinforce what they believe you care about. Politicians on the left and the right do this all the time. They know voters are influenced more by their values than by facts alone. Just be careful not to get caught up in the emotion candidates like to drum up.

People can get quite emotional about their values. We’ve seen this idea of values and emotions when they merge into a lethal combination that leads to hatred expressed, and violence carried out, at political rallies. You may agree or disagree with their statements, but you are the one who ultimately must decide who to vote for.

I’m not so naïve as to think that the masses of voters in our country will be astute enough to decipher “bullshit” from well-thought-out analytical assessments of political candidates. If this were not the case, then the country might not have elected a mentally and socially challenged degenerate president in 2016.

A lot of time remains before November 2020. Nevertheless, many democratic candidates have announced their candidacies. I’ve made it my personal duty to listen intently to first campaign speeches because they tend to set the tone for what is important to each candidate. Who I will actually vote for in 2020 will have to wait until I have a clear idea of the transformational ideas, if any, from all the candidates regardless of party.

Nevertheless, right now my analysis has led me back to whom I supported during the 2016 campaign season. I’ll keep this a secret for now and let you guess. This candidate, in my opinion, already has a plethora of transformational ideas. These ideas I like.

I want to make two things perfectly clear at the onset. I like, with one exception, all the democratic candidates this year running for the Office of the President of the United States. I say Kudos to Corry Booker, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren. They are all worthy candidates and decent human beings. There are other democratic candidates running for president and may be just as worthy. We as citizens just need to get to know them a little better.

The second point I want to make is this: It is a myth that conservatives don’t care for social change. They do and especially when it benefits them personally. Does anyone really think conservatives in Congress today would sponsor a bill to overturn the 1935 Social Security Act? I think not! They pay into the social security system just like everyone else. Social security was a profound social change to this country (transformational) and it is now 84 years old.

Now that conservatives have daughters playing organized sports in grammar school, high school and college, do you really think they want to go backwards in time when all the money went to just male sports teams? I think not.

Virtually every good thing that has ever been passed into law since our nation’s inception has also benefitted conservatives as much as the rest of society. They basically enjoy things now they themselves may have originally opposed. That makes them the most disingenuous hypocritical mental slackers ever to inhabit our great nation. Someday, I’ll tell you what I really think of them!

As I have now redundantly said, conservatives embrace change in their own lives when it benefits them. But their eternal characteristic is just the fact that they have the nasty propensity to deny, unwittingly or otherwise, others their rights to the good life. Just like everyone else Conservatives are the type of people who always book a flight on a plane whose destination is the future. Problem is—once onboard that flight, they just don’t seem to want anyone else sitting next to them.

A Candidate with Transformational ideas

This shouldn’t be a difficult test for you to identify the candidate I am supporting at the moment. This particular candidate announced his/her candidacy within the last two months. In his/her opening speech issues, facts, reinforcing values and transformational ideas were all presented. This candidate is the complete package for integrity, likeability, insight and comprehensive vision and understanding.

The clock is ticking now. Let’s see how long it takes you to figure who I am talking about. The following is a listing of the transformational ideas, issue statements and value statements made by this candidate.

“When we are in the White House, we will attack the problem of urban gentrification and build the affordable housing our nation desperately needs.”

“We are not going to cut Social Security benefits. We are going to expand them.”

“Yes. We will pass a Medicare for all single-payer program.”

“We intend to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy and, in the process, create millions of good paying jobs.”

“Today we say to the American people that we will rebuild our crumbling infrastructure: our roads, our bridges, our rail system and subways, our water systems and wastewater plants and our airports-and when we do that we create up to 13 million good paying jobs.”

“Today we say to the parents in this country that you and your kids deserve quality, affordable childcare. The children are our future; they deserve the best possible head start in life with a high quality, universal pre-K program.”

“Good jobs require a good education. That is why we are going to make public colleges and universities tuition free, and substantially lower the outrageous student debt that currently exists.”

“Today, we say to our senior citizens, that we understand you cannot live in dignity when you are trying to survive on $13,000 or $14,000 a year in Social Security Benefits. My Republican colleagues want to cut Social Security Benefits but we have some bad news for them. We’re not going to cut Social Security benefits. We are going to expand them.

“We are going to provide legal status to the 1.8 million young people eligible for the DACA program, and develop a humane border policy for those who seek asylum. No more snatching babies from the arms of their mothers.”

“We will move aggressively to end the epidemic of gun violence in this country and pass the common sense gun safety legislation that the overwhelming majority of Americans want.”

Final Observations

Bernie Sanders launched his initial speech in Brooklyn New York on March 2, 2019 (if you haven’t figured out whom I was referring to by now).

Bernie Sanders has lots of other ideas that are transformational. But I wanted to convey to you most of the really good ideas. The interesting thing about a lot of politicians on both sides of the aisle is that few ever tell us how they are going to pay for their intended legislation. Bernie however, does tell us how he is going to pay for his transformational ideas. He’ll tax the very rich and the super-rich or the top 1% of Americans who own 50% of the wealth in this country.

As Bernie said on March 2, 2019:

“no, we will no longer stand idly by and allow 3 people in this country to own more wealth than the bottom half of America while, at the same time, over 20 percent of our children live in poverty, veterans sleep out on the streets and seniors cannot afford their prescription drugs. We will no longer accept 46 percent of al new income going to the top 1 %, while millions of Americans are forced to work 2 or 3 jobs just to survive and over half of our people live paycheck to paycheck frightened to death about what happens to them financially if their car breaks down or their child becomes sick. Today, we fight for a political revolution.”

Other candidates on the democratic side have ideas as well. Even a few Republicans have a few good ideas. But unfortunately, Republicans in a political environment doesn’t lend itself to getting things done. Just like the Freedom Caucus among the larger body of Republicans in Congress they get nothing done and have certainly earned the reputation as the party of “NO.”

Trust me! When Bernie’s transformational ideas eventually come to fruition, Republicans will be first in line (hat in hand) with glassy eyes, like an exuberant panting little puppy (and not so cute), begging for their fair share of society’s benefits.

One other issue does deserve some discussion, but will have to wait for a future Blog. Fear mongering is the stock and trade of the Republican Party these days. Now they want you to tremble in your shoes because Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist. Somehow that label foretells doom and gloom. This is, of course, total nonsense. Democratic Socialism is a good thing not a bad thing.

In a future Blog I will explore this false narrative promoted by the Republican Party in more detail. I will discuss Socialism and Democratic Socialism and how they differ. I will also explore both the strengths and weaknesses of Capitalism and suggest to you how merging two different underlying philosophies and economic systems just might produce the best of all worlds. There are no perfect economic systems in the world. Who knows perhaps merging just might be a Transformational Idea people in society can get behind and really embrace?

 

Just like Paul Harvey would end his famous newscasts (1952-2008) I say to you—“Now you know the rest of the story and Good Day!”

 

Read Full Post »

Weak and Feckless:

The True Believer in American Society 

Their impact on Democratic Institutions

“It is above all in the present democratic age that the true friends of liberty and human grandeur must remain constantly vigilant and ready to prevent the social power from lightly sacrificing the particular rights of a few individuals to the general execution of its designs. In such times there is no citizen so obscure that it is not very dangerous to allow him to be oppressed, and there are no individual rights so unimportant that they can be sacrificed to arbitrariness with impunity.”

― Alexis de Tocqueville (Author, Democracy in America)

    

Introduction

One of the most important sociological facts in the study of society is the existence of “The True Believer.” Who is the true believer? According to the late Eric Hoffer, “He’s a guilt-ridden hitchhiker who thumbs a ride on every cause from Christianity to Communism. He’s a fanatic needing a Stalin (or a Christ) to worship or die for. He’s the mortal enemy of things-as-they-are, and he insists on sacrificing himself for a dream impossible to attain. He is today everywhere on the march.”

Although Eric Hoffer’s seminal sociological work was published in 1951, his book made a crucial impact on sociology and our understanding of fanaticism and deviant behavior. And that understanding applies historically to the most ancient of times as it does in the present day.

Fanaticism as the most ideological deviant of human behaviors continues to plague all of us in democratic societies worldwide. And what do we see today as we look out at the world?

We see ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the malevolent murderous dictators in Saudi Arabia. In addition to this, we have long witnessed entire countries run by dictators who violate human rights every day. This includes such dictators as Vladimir Putin of Russia, President Xi Jinping serving as General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un who is a dictator of one of the ugliest regimes of all time.

     Unfortunately, America, a democratic country with democratic institutions, is not immune to fanaticism. And this fanaticism has come from both the left and the right.        

A Short History Lesson

Throughout history in our country the True Believer has existed. In the modern era two prime examples come to mind in the political arena where the True Believer is concerned:  The Era of Eugene Victor Debs and the era of Donald Trump, the former a Socialist and the later a White Nationalist. Let’s begin by exploring these two people.

The Father of American Socialism

One of the most influential people during the early years of the 20th Century was Eugene Victor Debs.  He was born in Terre Haute, Indiana in 1855 to a family of French Alsatian immigrants. Making his way in the railroad industry, Debs formed the American Railway Union in 1892.

Two years later he found himself leading one of the largest strikes in American history — the great Pullman strike. When its workers refused to accept a pay cut, The Pullman Car Company fired 5000 employees.

To show support, Debs called for the members of the American Railway Union to refrain from operating any trains that used Pullman cars. When the strike was declared illegal by a court injunction, chaos erupted.

President Cleveland ordered federal troops to quell the strikers and Debs was arrested. Soon order was restored and the strike failed. Eugene Debs was also one of the founding members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW or the Wobblies), and five times the candidate of the Socialist Party of America for President of the United States. Through his presidential candidacies, as well as his work with labor movements, Debs eventually became one of the best-known socialists living in the United States.

Debs was not originally a socialist, but his experience with the Pullman Strike and his subsequent six-month jail term led him to believe that drastic action was necessary. Debs chose to confine his activity to the political arena. In 1900 he ran for President of the United States as a socialist and garnered some 87,000 votes.

The following year, leading sympathizers joined with him to form the Socialist Party. At its height, the party numbered over 100,000 active members.

In the election of 1912 he received over 900,000 votes. After being arrested for antiwar activities during World War I, he ran for President from his jail cell and polled 919,000 votes. Debs died in 1926 having never won an election, but over one thousand Socialist Party members were elected to state and city governments.

Eugene Victor Debs left an indelible mark among candidates for President of the United States. Eugene Debs ran as a Socialist candidate for President of the United States five times, including 1900 (earning 0.6% of the popular vote), 1904 (3.0%), 1908 (2.8%), 1912 (6.0%), and 1920 (3.4%), the last time from a prison cell. He was also a candidate for United States Congress from his native state of Indiana in 1916.

Why Were Socialists beliefs popular?

Despite the success of the American Federation of Labor, American radicalism was not dead. The number of those who felt the American capitalist system was fundamentally flawed was in fact growing fast.

American socialists based their beliefs on the writings of Karl Marx, the German philosopher. Many asked why so many working Americans should have so little while a few owners grew incredibly wealthy. No wealth could exist without the sweat and blood of its workforce. They suggested that the government should own all industries and divide the profits among those who actually created the products. While the current management class would stand to lose, many more people would gain. These radicals grew in number as industries spread. But their enemies were legion.

While most Americans today would feel sympathy for Eugene Debs and his cause for fairness between management and labor in an era of crass capitalism gone amuck, it is still a fact that there were fanatics among many of his supporters.

There is an uncanny resemblance I can see between Eugene Deb’s fanatical supporters and Donald Trump’s core base of Republicans where violence several times has made its way to attacking reporters. In addition, his white racist lunatic supporters have even attacked Trump’s own African American supporters who show up at Donald Trump rallies. Oops! I digress for a moment. Back to Eugene Debs and the saga of the Wobblies.

The Wobblies

Even more radical than the Socialists were the members of the Industrial Workers of the World. This union believed that compromise with owners was no solution. Founded in 1905 and led by William “Big Bill” Haywood, the “Wobblies,” as they were called, encouraged their members to fight for justice directly against their employers.

Although small in number, they led hundreds of strikes across America, calling for the overthrow of the capitalist system. The I.W.W. won few battles, but their efforts sent a strong message across America that workers were being mistreated.

When the United States entered World War I, the “Wobblies” launched an active antiwar movement. Many were arrested or beaten. One unlucky member in Oregon was tied to the front end of an automobile with his knees touching the ground and driven until his flesh was torn to the bone.

Membership declined after the war, but for two decades the I.W.W. was the anchor of radical American activism. This minority of Wobblers were indeed “true believers” in their cause.

This leads to my example of fanaticism from the right in politics. What makes this relevant is that this new era of political fanaticism is occurring in the here and now.

The Trump Administration and the High Priest of Hate

Donald Trump was elected to the presidency of the United States in 2016. Based on a philosophy of white nationalism, similar in tone to the promoters of Aryan beliefs fostered during the reign of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Brown Shirts (Sturmabteilung a.k.a., Storm Troopers), Donald Trump is be-loved by the Aryans of today as reflected in the violent confrontation in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017 as well as at his political rallies.

After the 2016 presidential election, it became crystal clear that the American voter had made an egregious mistake in judgment when picking a person to be the Commander in Chief and President of the United States. Immediately, women and independent voters who had got him elected pulled away their support when their error in judgment came home to roost.

Now following the 2016 election, research has shown that Trump voters were lacking education, lacking intelligent insight, devoid of basic humanitarian values, overly naïve in their beliefs, and simply lacked adroitness to the maximum degree. In my opinion all of these things may have been present in the Trump voter in 2016.

Russian collusion and interference, un-democratic gerrymandering, voter suppression and the unnecessary (and undemocratic) Electoral College system conspired to give the presidency to Donald Trump. Scandal after scandal has plagued his presidency both before and after his becoming president.

He has committed both impeachable offenses (including treason) as well as engaged in criminal behavior. Donald is an infantile mental case and has delusions of grandeur about his self-worth. He is a wanna-be mafia don. I can understand Donald Trump’s infatuation with the concept of “fake news.” After all, since January 20, 2017 the United States of America has had a fake president.

At no previous time in the history of the United States has a president or his administration brought such dishonor and disrespect. As a result the United States has lost status as a protector of human rights in the eyes of the world.

Given the bomb threats that have been made against liberal democratic politicians including the attempted murder of two prior American presidents, the FBI need to investigate these incredibly serious criminal acts leaving no stone unturned.

And, the racist connections to Donald Trump continue to shed a light and give direction to such an investigation. The motivation of the bomber(s) is very clear. Just how deep racism runs rampant through Donald Trump and his supporters is reflected in an article written back in 2016.

In May, 2016 Robert L. Tsai wrote an article for Slate Magazine, titled: “What Aryans See in Donald Trump—He is the Aryan warrior, come to save whiteness itself.

By Robert L. Tsai

May 26, 2016•3:49 PM

“In recent years, white supremacists have tended to avoid taking part in national politics in the belief that both parties have been conquered by nonwhites who pursue their own racial interests over others. This year represents a sea change. Rarely have so many open racists flocked to a presidential candidate’s banner as they have done for Donald Trump. They have shown up at rallies to do gleeful battle with Black Lives Matter protesters and jumped at the opportunity to serve as Trump delegates to the Republican National Convention.

The reasons for white nationalists’ renewed hope in mainstream politics are more complicated than the caricature of jackbooted youths saluting one of their own. Trump has disavowed the endorsement of overt racists such as David Duke, but somehow white nationalists have “never been more optimistic.” Despite Trump’s profession, “I don’t have a racist bone in my body,” his brand of race-fueled populism promises to reforge broken psychological ties among large swaths of demoralized white voters, whether or not they self-identify as white nationalists or belong to extremist organizations. Trump seeks to recreate a coalition that includes dislocated rural workers and dissatisfied denizens of urban democracy, the relatively prosperous and the hardly working, weary defenders of the Old South and armed isolationists in the Pacific Northwest. Through a mix of policy and symbolism, Trump unites them all with a sneering form of nationalism that, more than ever, helps rekindle the racial consciousness of mainstream white voters.

A key to Trump’s appeal is that his agenda to “Make America Great Again” revolves around an iron-fisted leadership style for which many disaffected white voters have been searching. The fractured elements of white nationalist America, meanwhile, perceive Trump to be the embodiment of the Aryan warrior, a mythic figure who will liberate white people from their current state of malaise, infighting, and almost certain extinction. White nationalists trace their lineage through Northern Europe (some claim to descend from the Lost Tribes of Israel) and find their role models in the various soldiers and statesmen who supposedly defended the purity of the white civilization. Today, any person of Western European stock can theoretically become an Aryan warrior by swearing to preserve the white race, but some white supremacist groups believe a single figure will be called from among the people to fulfill a more unifying role. Trump, who is of German and Scottish ancestry, fits the ethnic profile of this savior to a T. But it’s Trump’s political self-presentation that is truly arousing.

Unhappy white Americans are not monolithic; Trump’s appeal goes beyond his potential Aryan saviorhood. In a Republican Party that has tilted decidedly rightward, he outflanked Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz—figures who are more faithful conservatives than Trump—by shrewdly appealing to a complex belief system shared by many disgruntled white voters.

But for the most extreme of these resentment-oriented citizens, Trump’s appeal is manifold. These citizens believe that the founding generation established the United States as a republic for the pursuit of liberty and happiness as white people alone define those ideals. Members of this alt-community despise pluralism, bristling at any emphasis of race, sex, or gender differences.

Many distrust liberal education, which is blamed for fostering white guilt and destroying a sense of racial identity among whites. A number of them fear the global economy. Sensing their influence greatly diminished, such individuals have opted out of electoral politics. They have felt abandoned by the old Democratic Party after it became the party of black civil rights and betrayed by the modern Republican Party, which has cynically used dog-whistle politics to gain their votes without, in their view, doing enough to safeguard their interests. Some of the discontented have become radicalized, joining patriot groups, separatist strongholds, or white supremacist organizations.

Anxiety about biological and cultural extinction is pervasive among these disaffected whites. Before his downfall and death, Richard Girnt Butler gathered self-identified Aryans to his compound in Hayden Lake, Idaho. On social media today, racially conscious whites assemble around the hashtag #WhiteGenocide or lodge their grievances at Stormfront.org. (Trump once actually retweeted a user named “White Genocide.”) The late David Lane, an influential Aryan thinker and member of a violent organization called the Order, helped popularize the view that the white race was “now a small minority in the world,” beset by forced integration, intermarriage, and “inter-species compassion.” According to this worldview, only those who aspire to the ideal of the Aryan warrior can restore the civic republicanism of America’s forefathers and save the white race. Enter Trump.

The cultural image of the Aryan warrior combines romantic masculinity, chest-beating race pride, and a relish for legal violence. Lane’s writings put the Aryan warrior in explicitly political terms. His tract 88 Precepts prophesies the coming of the “strongman,” who will emerge in the late stages of a dying democracy. That figure will display a keen ability to see that “political, economic, and religious systems may be destroyed and resurrected” in ways to prevent the eternal destruction of the white race. Some will call the strongman “a dictator,” but Lane insists that a ruthless leadership style “is the only way to restore order out of the chaos caused by a democracy.”

Trump’s style of governance seems to fulfill this prophesy: His entire self-presentation is a rebuke to liberalism and gradual legal change. Instead, he promises political revolution through charismatic leadership. Trump’s vulgar, unvarnished manner of speaking and his penchant for favoring extreme measures—the very characteristics deemed un-presidential and dangerous by his critics—are seen as not only refreshing but also as essential for the rebirth of the Aryan nation-state.

When Trump calls Hispanic immigrants “criminals, drug dealers, rapists,” and vows to “take our country back” from those “taking our jobs” and “taking our money,” white nationalists hear Trump telling the same uncomfortable truths about the sorry state of white society they have voiced for decades. Every time he eggs followers on to forcefully confront detractors or swears to “take out the families” of terrorists, he projects a muscular approach to protecting the white republic.

His calling card is a plan to build a massive wall between the United States and Mexico to stem illegal immigration and somehow force Mexico to pay for it. Policy analysts have scoffed at this proposal, but its real power lies not in policy but in metaphor, one that taps into a hardened, survivalist mindset. It is an image that resonates with a community that already believes it is losing the war against nonwhite civilizations. When Trump ritually invokes the wall or recommends the creation of a national deportation force, he signals to this constituency that he agrees the future of the white race is at stake.

To Aryans, a resurgence of public masculinity is central to sovereignty. They believe that the power to command others, and then to spark a revolution, emanates from one’s power to control the traditional family. This is why Trump’s crude comments about female appearances and the proper role of women excite rather than repulse these core supporters. It is also why, in trading on fears of white male helplessness, his claims that “Mexico sends its people” to rape and pillage and that China is “raping our country” through unfair trade practices appeal so powerfully to the racist mind. For Trump, as for the white nationalist community, sovereignty and maleness are forever interlinked.

Additionally, the scorn heaped upon Trump simply confirms for these racially motivated white voters that they have discovered the right leader, one who might defeat the forces of liberalism and multiculturalism that have corrupted American law. Lane urged white people to select a strongman “wisely.” “Choose one who has sacrificed all in the face of tyranny; choose one who has endured and persevered,” he writes. “This is the only reliable evidence of his worthiness and motives.” On this front, Trump has more than proved his mettle by drawing the arrows of his enemies in the Republican primary and emerging more powerful for it, while the battlefield is littered with opponents who underestimated him.

How far can he go? Trump has actively courted fringe parts of the electorate by assenting to their racially inflected diagnosis of what ails America and has thrown his support behind whites-first prescriptions. From this point on, Trump’s ceiling as a vehicle for white nationalism will depend on the willingness of mainstream voters to take responsibility for his promise to restore white self-governance and his systematic scapegoating of nonwhites.

By casting himself as a virtuous guardian of white people’s welfare and claiming a “mandate” to be provocative, Trump has gotten further than any similar politician in recent years. Win or lose, as the presumptive Republican nominee for president, he is already more successful than Pat Buchanan or David Duke, which makes him the most prominent Aryan warrior of the modern age.”

The Commonality of Unifying Agents among Differing Fanatical Groups

According to Eric Hoffer true believers for any cause have certain things in common. They include: Hatred, Imitation, Persuasion and Coercion, Leadership, Action, Suspicion, and The Effects of Unification. Given the limitations of this Blog I will only discuss the unifying factor of hatred.

 Hatred

According to Eric Hoffer, “Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all unifying agents…Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil.” He also reported that, “The theoreticians of the Kremlin hardly waited for the guns of Second World War to cool before they picked the democratic West, and particularly America, as the chosen enemy.”

For Donald Trump the devil is liberals, democrats, the free press and anyone else who criticizes him. By his stoking the fires of hatred, it has led to the discovery of several bombs reported on Wednesday, October 24th, 2018 whereby democrats, liberals and the free press were targeted for murder and assassination.

Donald Trump, as an advocate of violence at his rallies, no matter how surreptitiously displayed, bears great similarity to Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Joseph Stalin. These latter historical figures of World War II along with Eugene Debs and the Wobblies share an important characteristic with the fatuous oaf in the White House—They were all ‘True Believers.’”

Final Comments

The evidence shows that fanaticism and the “true believer” has been around for thousands of years. As long as mankind exists and, in the absence of a world-wide nuclear catastrophe, people of extreme views and mindsets will likely continue to exist in the future.

Groups like the Ku Klux Klan, the American mafia, including different ethnic versions of it, were filled with members who might have manifested the characteristics of a “True Believer.” And, there may have been some who had additional motives like avarice and greed.

The real test of the degree of being a “True Believer” is whether or not (as Eric Hoffer pointed out) one is willing to sacrifice oneself for a dream impossible to attain. We know that some people cave-in to pressure while others do not. This applies to anyone in any group. Measuring this attribute of people in fanatical groups of “True Believers” is probably impossible to do.

I could have chosen to write about other groups as evidence of the “True Believer,” but I chose instead to write about Eugene Debs of the 20th Century and Donald Trump in the 21st Century. I think I have shown that “True Believers” runs the full political landscape or gamut from left to right, However, I want to zero-in now on Donald Trump.

I do this because the effects, and soon-to-be after effects, are happening now in this day and age. Critical to all of this is motivation of people, particularly those who supported and those who continue to support Donald Trump. And it pertains to comments made by author, Robert L Tsai.  I may too have some insight to contribute in this regard.

      In 1900 there was no television, cell phones or the Internet. In today’s world we get pummeled every day with a barrage of “breaking news” on a nearly 24 hour basis. In a few prior blogs I pointed out the sociological concept of “White Fright—White Flight.” This concept has generated intense psychological fear among a sizeable portion of white voters.

The underlying reason many whites are terrified is not economic; rather, it is an irrational fear of losing one’s social status in society. This is sad, but true. The insecurity of losing one’s status seems to reinforce the idea that constitutional principles of freedom and justice for all people under the United States Constitution, must somehow take a back seat to one’s loss of social status.

No one knows what American will be like in 30 years when there is no majority, only minorities of different population sizes. As a social scientist there is one question that begs to be answered. As a result of population changes favoring no one and favoring everyone at the time, will there be less stress and strife among groups in society as a result of this?

Intuitively, I think the United States Constitution will still be the law of the land. Hopefully people will strive for the good life as individuals no longer burdened by some arbitrarily defined social group label or status. If we see everyone as individuals, not members of some group, I think this would be a very good thing. However, I don’t know definitively if this will be the case. I can only speculate and say I am a very optimistic person and hope for the best all the time.

On the negative side today, I make this pronouncement:

If these attempted assassinations are connected to Trump himself or his voters and core supporters, drastic steps may need to be taken when the House and the Senate are changed by the mid-term elections.

It may very well be that such individuals responsible will need to be incarcerated for life if they are proven guilty of attempted murder and assassination.  Given the more civilized nature of the Democratic Party, I doubt children of the Trump supporter will be locked in cages, permanently separated from their parents or forcibly sent to Mexico or Guatemala.

If Donald Trump is behind the plot to assassinate two prior American presidents he will spend the rest of his life behind bars. In spirit his cell mate just might be Eugene Victor Debs or “Big Bill Haywood.” A more likely scenario is that Donald Trump will die in prison then spend eternity being guided by Virgil through Dante’s 9 circles of hell for Trump’s deadly sins of Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Anger, Heresy, Violence, Fraud, and Treachery.

Coming back to today’s reality Donald Trump is simply a racist, weak, feckless, and immoral human being. He is also the worst politician in American History.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Why Donald Trump has a Snowball’s Chance in Hell of being Re-elected to the Presidency in 2020

 

Introduction

The above is certainly a catchy title for a Blog, wouldn’t you say? You may think I’m making a rhetorical pronouncement or that I’m expressing myself tongue-in- cheek. Actually no, I’m dead serious!

Donald Trump’s election was, in the first place, a social disgrace that lowered the stature of this country’s presidency by a thousand fold. This was perhaps the greatest mistake ever made by a voting public in the history of the United States. It was tantamount to committing an act of Treason against our country in all its foreign hidden influences as well as the subsequent overt attempts by the president to undermine our Constitution and the social, political, and economic institutions the American people value.

However, all voters have immunity in a democratic society from prosecution because no one can predict the unintended consequences of any act including the simple act of voting. Yet, although not in legal jeopardy, voters should nonetheless take personal responsibility for the outcome of their vote. Interesting enough some original Trump voters have already begun to see the light and to take responsibility for their failure and lack of good judgment in the 2016 election.

Within the first few months of his presidency Donald Trump lost a substantial amount of support among his original base. Among the people who voted him into office, a large percentage of independent voters and women have since abandoned him. This is why he is the least popular president in United States history. Some initial supporters saw early on the true nature of the man they had just elected to office: a con man, charlatan, bombastic egotistical pretentious pantywaist, a belligerent isolationist, a dogmatic racist that showed his true beliefs by housing discrimination against blacks in the 1970s, and who is also a degenerate chauvinist pig with a mafia-boss mentality.”

Four Factors of Importance

There are four factors in understanding how Donald Trump got elected and in understanding how Donald Trump will be removed from office..

Why Donald Trump Got Elected

At least two factors played a crucial role in getting Donald Trump elected: (1) some voters liked him because he appeared to be overly candid and a plain-speaking person, and (2) Rust Belt voters, particularly blue-collar white voters, in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia and rural parts of New York voted for him because of personal and economic reasons like unemployment.

  Factor 1—Plain-Talking Man    

Because one speaks his mind candidly doesn’t make one necessarily right. It could mean some people don’t engage their mind before they speak. Candid talk and talking with feelings doesn’t mean the talker is especially bright or insightful. Donald Trump isn’t especially bright or insightful. There are exceptions. President Harry S. Truman was a plain-speaking man who was bright and, at times, rather insightful (The Buck Stops Here!).

Harry S. Truman was a real President. Donald Trump is not. Choose your presidents carefully folks. Can you for one moment imagine Donald Trump saying “The Buck Stops Here!!!) He’s much more likely to tweet or say, “The Blame Goes Everywhere Else But Here!!!).

 Factor 2—Rust Belt Voters

Ironically, the unemployment rate in the country was already outstanding at the time of the election due in part to the economic policies of President Barrack Obama. The overall unemployment rate in the United States hovered around 5% in 2016 and  in many of the Rust Belt states that elected him.

However, within the Rust Belt states, he won primarily among blue-collar white voters because these voters, as a sub-group of each state’s population, had high unemployment rates throughout various industries,

Many economic and social reasons, going back to the 1950s, were responsible for the decline among Rust Belt blue-collar workers. One very important factor was population changes. Most notably population declines in the Rust Belt states went from 38% of the U.S. population in 1950 to just 28% by the year 2000.

By any standard economic prosperity requires at least an optimal level of growth in population. Rust Belt states have been in decline not just last year, or the year before, but closing in on more than 68 years since these population changes began to occur.

There are many other social and economic factors have been responsible for their decline. In effect, Blue-collar workers failed to adapt to a changing set of factors besides population changes. In an opinion piece January 6, 2017 in Forbes Magazine titled, “The Rust Belt Didn’t Adapt And It Paid The Price,” Talking about some of these other factors Adam Millsap reported, “the invention of air conditioning and people’s preference for milder winters and more sun, cheaper housing in the South and more market-friendly economic policies in other states are the most common.”

To paraphrase Adam Millsap, many other factors were involved in Rust Belt state declines including lack of innovation in various industries and ultimately overwhelming control  among unions, followed by loss of control (impacting wages) in such unions as the (USW) United Steel Workers and the United Auto Workers (UAW). These two unions were able to use threat of widespread strikes to obtain higher wages, which increased production costs for Rust-Belt firms. When you combine lack of innovation, union control and then emasculation and the lack of ability to change with the times, you’ve just created a recipe for disaster. The problems confronting the Rust Belt States didn’t start in 2016. The problems have been around for nearly seven decades. Donald Trump won’t really solve their problems but he saw an opportunity to exploit Rust Belt voters with his rhetoric and campaign promises. On March 26, 2018 Eugene Robinson published an opinion piece for the Washington Post. This is what he said,” Washington • President Donald Trump’s most urgent political problem doesn’t involve Robert Mueller, Stormy Daniels, Vladimir Putin or the hundreds of thousands of voters who marched for gun control. Rather, it’s that his diehard supporters might be starting to realize how thoroughly he has played them for suckers.”

Why Donald Trump will be removed from Office

Factor 3—The Criminal Indictments

Factors three and four relate to why Donald Trump will not be re-elected to a second term as President. This is aside from him quitting in the interim, or being overthrown at a 2020 Republican Convention by another candidate, or removed because of increasing dementia.

One would have to be totally naïve or engage in wishful-thinking not to see the writing on the wall.

Donald Trump is going to be impeached after the 2018 mid-term elections. It won’t be done by Republicans as they are doomed anyway whether they impeach Trump or not. It is the classic Catch-22 for Republicans in Congress.

 

In addition, hard core Freedom Caucus members have their own set of problems to worry about.  These ultra-conservative types are running scared when it comes to the Mid-term election in 2018.

In addition, it is not outside the realm of possibility that Freedom Caucus legislators (they only vote against people and programs never for them) who do nothing to earn their pay except engage in malicious behavior might soon be a target for criminal investigation in Mueller’s investigation.

Behind the scenes this wayward group of malcontents is guilty of Obstruction of Justice when they overtly as well as surreptitiously attempt to derail Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian involvement and influence in the 2016 election. Only time will tell whether this group is deserving of not only not being re-elected to public office, but also whether they deserve to be indicted and sent to prison.

Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller certainly has his work cut out for him. Like all good prosecutors there can be no doubt he is doing a diligent job putting a case together in his search for the truth. Wherever this case takes him, his process will continue to be the relentless pursuit of all facts and any evidence of wrong-doing.

Until Mueller reveals what he knows and how he is going to proceed after indictments, all of us can only speculate beyond the indictments already handed down.

Intuitively, my suspicion is that the President of the United States is going to be indicted criminally for: Money Laundering, Obstruction of Justice, and violation of the Emolument Clause under the 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in addition to his violating any other campaign finance laws.

Factor 4—Public Rejection of Donald Trump

The last factor is about the rejection of Donald Trump at the upcoming 2018 Mid-term elections across the country. This will be measured by whether the democrats retake the House of Representatives and the United Senate. Newsweek recently reported on the Trump presidency in 2020.

“Most voters are not thrilled by the prospect of eight years of President Donald Trump, with a new poll showing the majority of Americans would like to see a different candidate in 2020.

A November 2017 survey conducted for the University of Delaware’s Center for Political Communication by RABA Research found that 54 percent of respondents do not feel Trump should run again in 2020, with almost a quarter of Republicans (23 percent) believing their party should pick another presidential hopeful.

Unsurprisingly, a vast majority of Democrats do not want to see a Trump 2020 bid, Some 84 percent of Democrats oppose any Trump attempt to run in 2020. with just 16 percent backing a run for a second term for the incumbent president.

“Not many polls have historically asked about re-election so early in a President’s term, as favorability tends to drop over time,” said University of Delaware’s Lindsay Hoffman, director of the National Agenda Series in a statement on Tuesday.”

Conclusion

Since the scandal news on Donald Trump is such a daily event these days across the country, I think it is incumbent on every voter to explore other options. Everyone has their own ideas about this, but I’d like to have people consider two or three excellent scenarios.

The first is a Joe Biden/Corey Booker ticket and secondly, a Joe Biden/Kamala Harris ticket. In the event Joe Biden does not wish to run for President, I think a Corey Booker/Kamala Harris ticket would work very well for the country.

Change is always difficult for many people including when they go to the poles every two to four years. But the political changes presented above represent something that would not only be good for the country; it would be great for the country. Likewise removal of the Republican Freedom caucus and most other Republicans would not only be good for the country; it too would be great for the country.

Read Full Post »

Once you have money and fame, the next thing you should expect is scandal and shame

Michael Bassey Johnson

     Recent news articles have brought more attention to one of the most likely criminal activities of Donald Trump—Money Laundering. Money laundering is the concealment of the origins of illegally obtained money, typically by means of transfers involving foreign banks or legitimate businesses.

Or, said another way—It is concealment or transformation of profits from illegal activities and corruption into ostensibly “legitimate” assets.

After the money is “cleaned” it can be used in the mainstream economy for accumulation of wealth, such as acquisition of properties, or otherwise spent on things like golf courses, resorts, or a lavish lifestyle or on anything else the money launderer wishes to acquire.

 

 

The following is a recent article, titled:

Deutsche Bank: Where the Dots of Russiagate Connect

“In this week’s WhoWhatWhy podcast, Martin Sheil, a retired branch chief of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, shows how the modern history of Deutsche Bank follows a trajectory that brought the bank to the center of worldwide money laundering operations.

In its efforts to grow rapidly, Deutsche Bank threw away traditional ideas of risk management. In their pursuit of fees and earnings, bank executives got into business with some of the world’s most shady and financially needy characters: Russian oligarchs, President Donald Trump, the Kushner’s, the Mercers, Paul Manafort, Vladimir Putin and many other key Russiagate figures are among their customers.

Time and again, Deutsche Bank brought Trump and the Russians closer together. In fact, even when the relationship with Trump almost fell apart over a lawsuit, the financial institution just moved the real estate mogul to another part of the bank that put him in even closer proximity to Russians.

According to Sheil, the Russians were and are still the world champions of money laundering, and Deutsche Bank was the major vehicle for their manipulations. Given the financial needs of Trump and his cronies, it is hardly surprising that they became part of this worldwide dark web.

If you haven’t had the chance to read Parts 1 and 2 of Sheil’s comprehensive and arresting look at Deutsche Bank and its connection to Trump and a global array of shady characters, this is an opportunity to get a full overview of the story before Part 3 appears next week.”

Deutsche Bank’s checkered Past

One of the least known aspects of the Deutsche Bank’s past was their relationship to Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich before and during World War II. In a 2015 book, Lurking in the Shadows: German Sabotage in America during WWI and its Impact on Future Legislation, author Roy V. Lewis pointed out, “It’s important to know today that Deutsche Bank had a checkered past during part of the 20th Century. After Adolf Hitler came to power, instituting The Third Reich, Deutsche Bank dismissed its three Jewish Board members in 1933.

In subsequent years, Deutsche Bank took part in the ‘aryanization’ of Jewish-owned businesses. According to its own historians, the bank was involved in 363 such confiscations by November, 1938. During the war, Deutsche Bank incorporated other banks that fell into German hands during the occupation of Eastern Europe. Deutsche Bank provided banking facilities for the Gestapo and loaned funds used to build the Auschwitz camp and the nearby IG Farben facilities.

Deutsche Bank revealed its involvement in Auschwitz in February, 1999. In December 1999 Deutsche Bank, along with other major German companies, contributed to a United States $5.2 billion compensation fund following lawsuits brought by Holocaust survivors. The history of the Deutsche Bank during the Second World War has been documented by independent historians commissioned by the Bank.”

Muller’s Investigation

In another article by Cortney O’Brien that was posted on January 30th, is of great importance. It was titled:

Former Clinton Senior Counsel Speculates the Real Reason Trump Is Nervous About Mueller Investigation

“President Trump’s blatant interruptions into the Robert Mueller investigation suggest he truly believes he’s innocent in the Russian collusion claims, according to Paul Rosenzweig, former Senior Counsel to President Bill Clinton. Were he guilty, Trump would be ‘more cautious’ than to so publicly condemn the investigation, Rosenzweig wrote in a new piece for The Atlantic. You can’t get much louder than dismissing the investigation as a ‘witch hunt.’

 

Still, something clearly has Trump unnerved, and Rosenzweig thinks it has something to do with his business dealings.

Wisps of information in the wind suggest a far different, deeper concern. The president’s finances have always been suspect. Some have thought them resting on shaky foundations. Ongoing investigations have looked to his banking and investments as well as those of his closest family. Several of the special counsel’s prosecutorial hires specialize in money-laundering cases—an odd specialty for an election fraud/computer-hacking case (which, basically, is what the Russia investigation amounts to). Perhaps, just perhaps, it is that investigation that has motivated the president’s response. (The Atlantic)

But, he even need not fear money laundering charges, because those too are not likely to get him indicted, however, Rosenzweig predicts. He sees little reason to believe anything is going to result in an indictment for Trump. At most, Mueller will create a report of his findings for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (since Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself.)

On Monday night, the House of Representatives voted to release a memo detailing abuses at the FBI. House Speaker Paul Ryan said the memo may provide some compelling evidence for bias at the agency, but it should be considered separate from the Mueller investigation.

‘This is a completely separate matter from Bob Mueller’s investigation, and his investigation should be allowed to take his course,’ Ryan said.”

Review of Politics and Motivations of the Republican Party

Normal people may be very puzzled by the genuflecting behavior of the Republican Party in Congress toward Donald Trump. Such unwarranted servility begs the question: What in the hell is their motivation to subjugate their own honor and integrity by supporting the worst president in history?  They back a man whose behavior gives new meaning to the word degenerate.

It turns out Republicans want to shield Donald Trump because they have something to hide. And because of this they have collectively dishonored themselves and the institutions of democracy. So, what is it they are trying to hide? They are trying to cover up their intense fear that they will be destroyed in future elections because of changing population demographics and their lack of support from younger generations of voters, independents and college-educated women.

Progressive culture changes in younger citizens and other voters threaten Republicans’ very existence. Because Republicans figured this out by themselves, it reminds me of the famous quote by John Stewart Mill. That quote was “Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.” Evidently, Republicans can make use of data on occasion when it personally suits and affects them.

In general however facts are normally the enemy for Republican survival. This applies especially to the political world of Washington, D.C. and elsewhere in Republican-held State legislatures throughout the country.

In all likelihood hope for Republicans winning any seats in the 2018 mid-term elections are slim to none. They believe this, and that is why many high level Republicans in Congress have chosen not to seek re-election in 2018 or 2020. They are bailing out like rats during a flood. The flood this time is majority opinion in the country. Why has this happened?

The reasons are simple. Republicans, for too long, have been acting as only a self-serving political party. They believe beyond all else—Party First, and let the Public be damned.

The Republicans have been in control of Congress since 2010 for just one major reason—to successfully disenfranchise  the American voter. Supporting strategies for their success have been to engage in  promoting public voter apathy through lies, voter suppression through State Legislatures, and the most colossal miscarriage of justice ever enacted—Gerrymandering. The deleterious effect of Gerrymandering (carried out at different times by both political parties in America) is a dishonest and disloyal perversion of the American democratic process. This political process is the ultimate tool in voter disenfranchisement.

For Republicans, the underlying sociological basis of their deceit is based on the social issue of race. The lily white Freedom Caucus, for example, has a psychologically terrifying fear known as White Fright/ White Flight. Such fear, of course, is totally irrational.

And the irrationality they feel exists on many levels. Rather than embrace diversity as a badge of social justice to be worn proudly; they simply fear they will become a white minority that will lose control.

The great irony is that Republicans have a tendency to misread their social environment completely. The greatest diversity of all is not groups. It is the individual where everyone is different yet similar in so many ways. The most important similarity among all of us is that (1) looking at our true origins we are all Afrikaners whose ancestors moved out of Africa some 160,000-200,000 years ago. We all share the same origin making us all truly brothers and sisters under the same sun, and (2) we are all human beings deserving of love, respect and a chance to grow.

Republicans today need to stop thinking like a mindless neophyte from the 19th Century, and start living like an intelligent and more socially relevant human being in the 21st Century. In other words, they need to see the “big picture,” not the minutia of everyday prejudice and bigotry.

Read Full Post »

Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

Sociological Context of Values
Social values form an important part of culture in society. The broadest conduit through which values are formed includes folk ways, mores, and codified rules known as laws.
It is a sociological observation that values influence every aspect of human behavior and belief in every society. It is “a person’s principles or standards of behavior, one’s judgment of what is important in life.”
Some values are relatively unimportant while the principled “inner-core values” of an individual are ingrained from childhood and are considered of great importance. Why are ingrained values so important? It is because principled core values form the basis of one’s own identity.
So what are Values?
Values are defined as, “the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.” Besides beliefs about the value of something, at a higher level of abstraction, values are tied, not just to objects or minor preferences, but to human conduct with a moral assessment (or belief) about what is considered “right” and “wrong.”
Donald Trump’s Values
Much of human behavior in this and every other society is the result of values people hold. In America today, under the Trump administration, there are hidden values that belie and confute as a smokescreen for white nationalism. White nationalism is itself the antithesis of long-standing American values that are embodied in both the people of this country and documented through the United States Constitution.
What motivates most White nationalists is a fear of losing power and privilege in what sociologists so accurately describe as “white fright/white flight.” The nexus of this social phenomenon of “white fright/white flight” is its unadulterated circumlocution to racism.
Live and let live is a concept that is absolutely foreign to the White nationalist in America. And, it is important to point out to my reader that any world view is also influenced by one’s core and collective values. Never are these values more socially destructive as when prejudice translates into behavior known as discrimination.
Donald Trump’s World View
Donald Trump’s world view of white nationalism is reflected in his disguised view of his own racially motivated behavior. This includes: (1) his racial discrimination in preventing African Americans from renting Trump properties in the 1970s (2) his ruthless morally critical and cruel castigation of the Central Park Five (five African American young men that were falsely incarcerated in the Central Park jogger case). This case concerned the assault, rape, and sodomy of Trisha Meili, a female jogger. That crime occurred on April 19, 1989), (3) his repudiation of a Hispanic judge over a legal case involving Trump himself, (4) his total disrespect of the Muslim Kahn family, a gold star military family, that had lost their son in Iraq, and (5) more recently, his incompetent offensive mishandling of a condolence call to the widow of La David Johnson, an African Staff Sergeant who was killed in Niger. These racially biased views of Donald Trump and his White nationalism protecting whites and their historical position of dominance and privilege, reflect his values.
Values can either bring people together or split people apart. Values are just values until one gets to the notion of “value judgments” made collectively or by individuals. Donald Trump’s base reflects the values of racism and White nationalism as a collectivity, In Washington D.C. today the mouthpiece for these White nationalist values falls primarily on just one individual—Donald Trump.

Nationalism as a World View
Nationalism is the belief that your country is superior, without question or doubt. In some cases, nationalism can inspire people to break free of a foreign oppressor, as in the American Revolution, but nationalism can also lead a country to cut itself off from the rest of the world. American isolationism prior to the onset of World War II was a self-protection world view.
“From a political or sociological outlook, there are three main paradigms for understanding the origins and basis of nationalism. The first, known as primordialism or perennialism, sees nationalism as a natural phenomenon. It holds that, although the concept of nationhood may be recent, nations have always existed.
The second paradigm is ethno symbolism, which is a complex perspective seeking to explain nationalism by contextualizing it throughout history as a dynamic, evolutionary phenomenon and by further examining the strength of nationalism as a result of the nation’s subjective ties to national symbols imbued with historical meaning.
The third and most dominant paradigm is modernism, which sees nationalism as a recent phenomenon that needs the structural conditions of modern society to exist.” Also, “National symbols and flags, national anthems, national languages, national myths and other symbols of national identity are highly important in nationalism.” Does this ring a bell anyone?
Trump’s appreciation and fondness of world dictators is a very troubling insight into his character. Trump’s general manifestation of paranoia is tied to his psychological suspicions of the American values of inclusiveness, an open society, and a country stepped in the values of the Bill of Rights. Donald Trump, the wannabe dictator bears an uncanny similarity to a very vicious nationalist of the 1930s—Germany’s Adolf Hitler, who kept his secret agenda away from the German people until he had seized total control and power.
In order to better clarify this often perplexing phenomena of differing values one must glean at least some semblance of insight from the field of sociology. The emotional life of the individual is best understood by studying psychology. But our emotional life is definitely intertwined with our identity, reflected in the many beliefs and values one holds.
To understand any group is to look at their professed and sometimes hidden values. To understand the individual is to focus on the mental or emotional state of the individual and its interplay with the values one holds. This type of scientific study or analysis is a very complex undertaking when it seeks to test hypotheses across academic disciplines. One very influential book written tying individual needs or characteristics to sociological constructs of beliefs and values was the seminal work of Eric Hoffer’s 1951 book, The True Believer.” I recommend this book to everyone. Despite the fact this book was published more than 66 years ago, it is of great relevance today. It will provide great insight into the bizarre, confusing and strange government we have now led by Republicans.
Final Comments
Collectively, values can either pull people together in a common cause and direction (e.g., during a hurricane or during a terrorist attack like September 11th), or split people apart along the lines of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion (or no religion), education, age, or social class.
The values of Donald Trump, his supporters and white nationalists, favor the politics of division. They are the dividers in our society with hidden motives related to the sociological concept of “white fright//white flight.”
Currently political values are playing a major role in dividing people like never before. My sense is that hatred between the political right and political left is at an all-time high. Ideologues and intransigent demagogues on both the far right and the far left care little about democracy. And there unfortunately has been a decline in those of the political center. These are people and voters I would characterize as rational centrists.
Rational centrists tend to see the world through the prism of data and logic, not exclusively by dogma or bias. They value the principles this country was founded on—equality, justice and freedom for all.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that there is an inescapable “truth. And that “truth” is that bias and prejudice exist in all of us, yet, it is also true that we possess a living document more sacred than the Bible, Torah, or the Koran put together. And for Americans that document is the Constitution of the United States and its most honored principles—The first 10 amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights.
Right now our country has a colossal failure in the White House. He is a miserable, insecure, mentally unbalanced buffoon. Nevertheless, the predominantly Republican Congress can’t seem to differentiate between real moral conviction in protecting democracy, and their own self-serving, self-aggrandizing motives.
As French sociologist and political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) said in the 18th Century, “everybody feels the evil, but no one has courage or energy enough to seek the cure.” What is the cure to all this widespread American misery? It’s called impeachment.

Breaking News
And, as I write this Blog putting the finishing touches to it, there is great news. On Friday October 27th Special Counsel and Investigator Robert Mueller announced that a grand jury he had convened has brought the very first charges into the Russian probe of the 2016 election.
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, “At least one person was charged Friday in connection with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s criminal investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, according to people familiar with the matter. That person could be taken into custody as soon as Monday, these people said. The number and identity of the defendants, and the charges, couldn’t be determined.
A spokesman for Mr. Mueller, Peter Carr, declined to comment. The news of the charges, marking the first in Mr. Mueller’s investigation, was reported by CNN on Friday.”

Read Full Post »

The Upcoming 2016 Presidential Election:

Implications from the Primary Season Just Finished

The United States has just gone through the primary season for both Republicans and Democrats. One can think of the approximately 29,408,240 votes cast for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as an extremely large sample of voters who have already made their choice between the two candidates. More votes were cast of course in the primaries and  caucuses but favored other non-successful candidates from both parties. But Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are now the presumptive candidates for the Democratic and Republican parties.

While the turnout in the general election will hopefully be larger (in excess of 130 million votes), the primaries and caucuses data are showing a definite trend or pattern as to who might be elected in 2016.

Underlying this pattern is the knowledge that favorability ratings of the candidates have already been accounted for or factored in among those who voted during the primary season. Unless something unusual happens between now and November, choices already made during primary season may mimic what is ahead in the general election. While many independents may or may not have voted during the primaries, historically independents in general elections tend to split the vote, some leaning left and some leaning right.

One must remember that the Electoral College determines who wins. It takes 270 Electoral College votes to win a presidential election.

Reality Check

The number of Electoral College votes is tied to the size of the population in each respective state based on the last census. But the awarding of Electoral College votes are themselves based on who wins the most votes by registered voters in a particular state. The candidate who will win this election in 2016 will win in the larger states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, and Florida. Why? Because these states have larger populations and thus a larger number of Electoral College votes.

The candidate who will win in 2016 will probably win a fair number of mid-range sized states in the South. Less populated more rural states will have little effect on the presidential outcome in 2016.

Obviously, the candidate who pulls more popular votes than his rival in each state will likely win that state in the general election. Some shifting of the vote may occur (changing party loyalties, changing candidate loyalties, higher or lower favorability ratings between now and November) but, by and large, voters are not likely to change their vote once their initial gut-level reaction takes place be it early or late in the election cycle. But since people seldom change their core values after the age of 25, it is unlikely that voter assessment of individual candidate favorability will likely change either.

Voter Composition

In the United States in 2016 there are 201.5 million people who are 18 years of age or older. I will tell you up front that there will be 169 million registered voters in the upcoming election. Of these approximately 55 million are Republicans likely to vote in the general election; however, there are 72 million Democrats likely to cast a vote in the general election. There are also approximately 42 million independents. However, not all registered voters in fact vote, i.e., some stay home on election day.

The shortfall of the Republican Party to the Democratic Party is 17,000,000 voters. What this means on average is that each state will have approximately 340,000 more Democrats than Republicans in the voting tally on Election Day.

However, candidate votes will vary by state giving rise to the previous political discussion about “red states” versus “dark blue states.” The pink, light blue states lean more toward one party than another. However, such leaning states are basically irrelevant as a predictor since primary voters in all leaning states already casted their votes for who they wanted.

What this means is that a republican candidate will succeed in some states while a democratic candidate will win in other states. This is why Electoral College votes are so important to analyze on a state-by-state basis. Taking into consideration the above information I will analyze the data as presented below.

The Approach to Analysis

I have compiled all of the raw votes in the primary/caucus states and compared the votes given to two candidates: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I will then tally the votes and determine who had the most during the primary season overall, and by state.

I will then tally the number of Electoral College votes by state, and by a particular candidate, to determine who will win the 2016 election. Despite how close the popular vote is, the Electoral College votes may be quite different from the popular vote based on differing populations from state to state.

For example, during the 2012 presidential election President Obama garnered 51.1percent (65,915,796) of the vote compared to Romney’s 47.2 percent (60,933,500).

However, based on which state each candidate won, President Obama ended up with 332 Electoral College votes compared to Romney’s 206. President Obama received 61.1 percent more Electoral College votes than Romney but received just a 3.9 percent greater number of popular votes. Why? President Obama captured the bigger populated states. This pattern just described is the most likely scenario for the 2016 election (candidate who takes the larger states wins). You have to know that, in general, conservatives tend to capture small rural states while liberals/progressives tend to capture large liberal/progressive states. The real influence in an election is demographic; meaning population size by state really matters.

The Results

                                          Hillary Clinton                                 Donald Trump

                   Raw Votes/Elec Coll Votes   

Alabama

 309,928  0 371,735

 9

Alaska

 2,146  0  7,346

 3

Arizona

 235,697  0  249,916

 11

Arkansas

 144,580  6  133,144  0
California  1,940,580  55  1,174,829

 0

Colorado

 2,784 9  1,542  0
Connecticut  170,085 7  123,367

 0

Delaware

 55,956 3  42,472

 0

Florida

1,097,400  29  1,077,221  0

Georgia

 543,008  16  501,707  0

Hawaii

 10, 125  4  5,677

 0

Idaho  5,065  0  62,425

 4

Illinois  1,017,066  20  556,916

0

Indiana

 303,202 0 590,460

 11

Iowa  *

 *

   

Kansas

 12,593  0  17,062

6

Kentucky 212, 550  8  82,493

0

Louisiana

221,615  8  124,518 0
Maine  1,232  0  6,070

4

Maryland

533,247  11 236,623 0
Massachusetts  603,784  11  311,313

0

Michigan

 576,795  16  483,751 0
Minnesota 118,135  10  24,684

0

Mississippi

 182,447  0 192,755  6
Missouri  310,602  0 382,093

10

Montana

55,194  0 114,056 3
Nebraska 14,340  0  121,287

 5

Nevada

 6,309  0  34,531  6
New Hampshire  95,252  0  100,406

 4

New Jersey

 554,237  14  356,697  0
New Mexico  110,451    5 73,530

 0

New York

 1,054,083  29  524, 932  0
North Carolina 616,383  15 458,151

 0

North Dakota

 **  **    
Ohio 679,266  0  727,585

 18

Oklahoma

 174,054  7  130,141  0
Oregon  251,739  7  240, 804

 0

Pennsylvania

 918, 689  20  892, 702 0
Rhode Island  54,887 4 40, 020

0

South Carolina

271, 514 9 239, 851 0
South Dakota 27,046  0  44,866

 3

Tennessee

245,304  0  332,702  11
Texas  935, 080  38 757,618

 0

Utah

 15,666  0  24,864  6
Vermont 18,335  0  19,968

3

Virginia

 503,358  13 355,960  0
Washington 380,760 0 403,603

 12

West Virginia

85,351  0 156,245 5
Wisconsin  432, 767 10 386,370

 0

Wyoming

 124  3  70  0
District of Columbia***  *** ***  

 

Grand Totals  

387

 

140

*Not a valid comparison—Iowa Caucus process different for Republicans and Democrats

** Not a valid comparison—North Dakota Republicans don’t hold a presidential primary vote. All 28 delegates remain unpledged.

***Not a valid comparison. Republicans had a convention within one precinct voting (like a caucus) while the democrats had 143 precincts voting, (more like a primary).

 

Results of the Analysis

Based on the popular vote Hillary Clinton received 16,110,811 votes; by comparison, Donald Trump received 13,297,429 primary and caucus votes. Among these two presumptive nominees some 29.4 million votes were cast. It must be remembered that her actual votes were less than they might have been expected because she was running against a very strong competitor—Bernie Sanders. He took a very high percentage of the popular vote beating her, in fact, in 23 states (she won 27 states). He was very close in the vote count even in states she won.

Donald Trump, by comparison, ran much stronger all the time than his competitors, sometimes with percentages of the vote that were more than all of the others combined. Yet, despite this difference in who her competitor was, Hillary Clinton still managed to receive nearly 3 million more popular votes than Donald Trump in the primaries and caucuses. People who voted during the primary season of 2016 already factored in the favorability/un-favorability of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Many different factors go into an individual’s choice for president, but common sense should indicate likeability is crucial.

Importance of Electoral College

This election is shaping up to be what one might consider to be an Electoral College slaughter. I evaluated how each presumptive nominee did in the primaries and caucuses against one another as to whom will likely win in each of the 50 states. What will be important more than anything else are the Electoral College votes for each candidate who wins a particular state. I added up all the Electoral College votes in states where Hillary won in the primary over Donald Trump, and vice-versa. As we know it takes 270 Electoral College votes to win a presidential election.

People might suspect that what happens in a general election is fundamentally different from what takes place in the primaries. However, the primaries do more than simply help one candidate over another to win their party’s nomination. The voters in each party, in whatever state they reside, are expressing their personal opinion and assessment of who they like. Such mindsets and preferences seldom change from primary to the general election. What does change following the primaries are the number of voters who didn’t vote earlier. One cannot know for sure but only estimate the number of people, who will show up at the polls in November, 2016. Anecdotal evidence from the media suggests that the voter turnout this presidential year will be “huge.”

Two things remain in this Blog to answer: (1) who will win the election and (2) why.

Who Will Win the Election and Why

Based on my analysis of the 2016 primary and caucus voting just concluded I predict and estimate that Hillary Clinton will become President of the United States on Election Day November 8, 2016. The Electoral College shoot-out will result in 387 Electoral College votes for Hillary Clinton and 140 for Donald Trump.

If Hillary Clinton takes a lot of Bernie Sanders voters, I suspect she will, contrary to the primary data, take Ohio’s 18 Electoral College votes making her total on November 8 some 405 Electoral College votes. Correspondingly, Donald Trump will end the night downtrodden with only 122 Electoral College votes. Hillary Clinton will emerge on Election night as an exhilarated winner (not a loser with low energy). And, indeed, her win will be, as you guessed it—“Huge.”

There is irony here. Remember, Donald Trump engaged in Ad Hominin arguments criticizing Mitt Romney as a loser because he lost the 2012 election to Barack Obama. But if Donald Trump only garners 122 Electoral College votes on Election Day 2016, Donald Trump will be an even bigger loser. Why?  Because Mitt Romney, although losing the 2012 election, will still surpass Donald Trump by having 69% more Electoral College votes than Donald Trump is likely to have in 2016.

Final Comments

Let’s not forget the Trump voter. Their anger is real and partially justified. The Republican Party has had a facelift since the 2010 mid-term elections. That election ushered in the era of ultra-conservative Tea Party members.

In the 2014 mid-term election the Congress acquired republican majorities in both houses. The Republicans at that point became the “Do Nothing” party leaving all their own voters out in the cold to fend for own interests. Such republican voters took note of this and chose in 2016 to support an outsider like Donald Trump.  The republican politicians both before and after the 2014 mid-term elections engaged in a never-ending uncompromising, recalcitrant posture of congressional gridlock. By voting for Tea Party members back then, Trump supporters had basically shot themselves in the foot by creating the political environment in the first place which caused them to be “screwed” in the end. They created their own misfortunes in the first place by voting Tea Party members back into Congress in 2014. This was, of course, incredibly naïve.

If Trump supporters want to have their economic needs looked after in the future, they need to vote for non-Tea Party congressional and senatorial candidates during election, 2016.

Given a recent poll showing Donald Trump is beginning to lose support from white-male voters, it is not outside the realm of possibility that political history will be made in 2016. That is, zero states will go republican this fall.

 

Read Full Post »

The Growing Conflict in America

Muslim Americans Living in a Secular Democracy and a Predominately Christian Country

 [A five-part series]

Part II

In Part II, I will answer the questions of what it means to be an American, and how well do Muslim Americans identify with being an American? The majority of Muslim Americans are moderates—as the Pew research data will show. However, it is also true from their survey data that a small minority of particularly younger Muslims and native-born African Muslims may put the country at risk by adopting an extremist jihadist viewpoint.

These latter groups may need to be under local, state and national surveillance in order to prevent another Paris or San Bernardino violent attack. Under normal circumstances, such surveillance might be characterized as racial, ethnic, or religious profiling.

However, we are no longer living under normal circumstances. The threats that have been perpetrated on the home front are too many. The nation cannot and will not ignore these threats. There will always be a need to balance civil or legal rights on the one hand, with the need to protect our citizens from harm on the other.

Now we move on to answering the first question above. A good starting point in answering the first question is to discuss what it means to be an American. One standard that’s been around for 109 years comes from our 26th President, Theodore Roosevelt.

What it means to be an American

In 1907, one of our greatest presidents laid out what it means for immigrants of any origin to come to America and be an American. Nothing less than that will suffice. The standard set by Teddy Roosevelt was indeed high, as it should be.

Whether most groups of immigrants coming to America today are meeting this standard has yet to be determined. So what is this high standard set by President Theodore Roosevelt? In my estimation it is all about value judgments and that translates to where one’s sincere loyalty lies.

The Standard for Being an American

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American … There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”                                                                                    Theodore Roosevelt, 1907

In one of the previous Republican debates Senator Rick Santorum made the statement that “not all Muslims are jihadist, but all jihadists are Muslim.” Because of the open-ended suspicion generated by that statement, fear of Muslims overseas and Muslims here at home is causing increased tension between the Muslim world and those of non-Muslim populations worldwide. At the same time on the Home front, Islamophobia is running rampant here in the United States. This is very similar to the reaction against Japanese Americans following the attack on Pearl Harbor. That, of course, led to the round-up and incarceration of Japanese American citizens in internment camps based on nothing more than race. Individuality, loyalty, or proven disloyal conduct were never part of the equation to incarcerate American citizens who were presumably as protected by the U.S. Constitution as any other citizen. History has showed that such hypocrisy subsequently brought shame and dishonor to the country that presumably ignored what Theodore had said about immigrants coming to this country. But these were not immigrants—they were American citizens.

Muslims in America

What is needed is a fresh factual look at the Muslim community, particularly a comprehensive review of their demographic characteristics, religious beliefs and practices, education and income levels, identity, assimilation and community, political and social values, attitudes toward foreign policy, terrorism and concerns about extremism.

First up is a summary from Pew Research’s 2007 study. Here are their findings: In a 2007 survey titled Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream, the Pew Research Center found Muslim Americans to be “largely integrated, happy with their lives, and moderate with respect to many of the issues that have divided Muslims and Westerners around the world.”

However, forty-seven percent of respondents said they considered themselves Muslims first and Americans second. However, this was compared to 81% of British Muslims and 69% of German Muslims, when asked the equivalent question. A similar disparity exists in income; the percentage of American Muslims living in poverty is 2% higher than the general population, compared to an 18% disparity for French Muslims and 29% difference for Spanish Muslims.

Interestingly, Pew Research in 2007 found that 42% of Christians see themselves as Christians first, and as Americans second. An additional 7% of Christians see themselves as both equally.

Politically, American Muslims were both pro-larger government and socially conservative. For example, 70% of respondents preferred a bigger government providing more services, while 61% stated that homosexuality should be discouraged by society. Despite their social conservatism, 71% of American Muslims expressed a preference for the Democratic Party. The Pew Research survey also showed that nearly three quarters of respondents believed that American society rewards them for hard work regardless of their religious background.

The same poll also reported that 40% of U.S. Muslims believe that Arab Muslims carried out the 9/11 attacks. Another 28% didn’t believe it, and 32% said they had no opinion. Among 28% who doubted that Arab Muslims were behind the conspiracy, one-fourth of that claim the U.S. government or President George W. Bush was responsible. Only 26% of American Muslims believe the U.S.-led war on terror is a sincere effort to root out international terrorism. Only 5% of those surveyed had a “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” view of the terrorist group al-Qaeda. Only 35% of American Muslims stated that the decision for military action in Afghanistan was the right one and just 12% supported the use of military force in Iraq.

In 2011, a Gallop poll found that 93% of Muslim Americans considered themselves loyal to the United States.

The 2011 Pew Research Survey

Like Christians and non-Christians alike, religious and secular populations are very diverse. Between groups and within groups people are quite different. The Pew research below demonstrates such diversity among American Muslims. The following (It was written by Michael Lipka) is a precise and detailed summary of the Pew Research from 2011. Below are its major findings:

Muslims and Islam: Key findings in the U.S. and around the World

By Michael Lipka

“Muslims are the fastest-growing religious group in the world. The growth and regional migration of Muslims combined with the ongoing impact of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other extremist groups that commit acts of violence in the name of Islam, have brought Muslims and the Islamic faith to the forefront of the political debate in many countries.

Yet many facts about Muslims are not well known in some of these places, and most Americans – who live in a country with a relatively small Muslim population – say they know little or nothing about Islam.

Here are answers to some key questions about Muslims, compiled from several Pew Research Center reports published in recent years:

How many Muslims are there? Where do they live?

There were 1.6 billion Muslims in the world as of 2010 – roughly 23% of the global population – according to a Pew Research Center estimate. But while Islam is currently the world’s second-largest religion (after Christianity), it is the fastest-growing major religion. Indeed, if current demographic trends continue, the number of Muslims is expected to exceed the number of Christians by the end of this century.

Although many countries in the Middle East-North Africa region where the religion originated in the seventh century are heavily Muslim, the region is home to only about 20% of the world’s Muslims. A majority of the Muslims globally (62%) live in the Asia-Pacific region, including large populations in Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Turkey.

Indonesia is currently the country with the world’s single largest Muslim population. With more than 300 million Muslims, Indonesia is currently the country with the world’s single largest Muslim population, but Pew Research Center projects that India will have that distinction by the year 2050.

The Muslim population in Europe also is growing; it is projected that 10% of all Europeans will be Muslims by 2050.

How many Muslims are there in the United States?

According to estimates, Muslims make up just less than 1% of the U.S. adult population. Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study (conducted in English and Spanish) found that 0.9% of U.S. adults identifies as Muslims. A 2011 survey of Muslim Americans, which was conducted in English as well as Arabic, Farsi and Urdu, estimated that there were 1.8 million Muslim adults (and 2.75 million Muslims of all ages) in the country. That survey also found that a majority of U.S. Muslims (63%) are immigrants.

Pew research estimates that Muslims will make up 2.1% of the U.S. population by the year 2050, surpassing people who identify as Jewish, on the basis of religion as the second-largest faith group in the country (not including people who say they have no religion).

A recent Pew Research Center report estimated that the Muslim share of immigrants granted permanent residency status (green cards) increased from about 5% in 1992 to roughly 10% in 2012, representing about 100,000 immigrants in that year.

Why is the global Muslim population growing?

There are two major factors behind the rapid projected growth of Islam, and both involve simple demographics. For one, Muslims have more children than members of other religious groups. Around the world, each Muslim woman has an average of 3.1 children, compared with 2.3 for all other groups combined.

Muslims are also the youngest (median age of 23 years old in 2010) of all major religious groups, seven years younger than the median age of non-Muslims. As a result, a larger share of Muslims already is, or will soon be, at the point in their lives when they begin having children. This, combined with high fertility rates, will fuel Muslim population growth.

While it does not change the global population, migration is helping to increase the Muslim population in some regions, including North America and Europe.

What do Muslims around the world believe?

Like any religious group, the religious beliefs and practices of Muslims vary depending on many factors, including where in the world they live. But Muslims around the world are almost universally united by a belief in one God and the Prophet Muhammad, and the practice of certain religious rituals such as fasting during Ramadan, is widespread.

In other areas, however, there is less unity. For instance, a Pew Research Center survey of Muslims in 39 countries asked Muslims whether they want sharia law, a legal code based on the Quran and other Islamic scripture, to be the official law of the land in their country. Responses on this question vary widely.

Nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) and most in Iraq (91%) and Pakistan (84%) support Sharia law as official law. But in some other countries, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia – including Turkey (12%), Kazakhstan (10%) and Azerbaijan (8%) – relatively few favor the implementation of Sharia law.

How do Muslims feel about groups like ISIS?

Recent surveys show that most people in several countries with significant Muslim populations have an unfavorable view of ISIS, including virtually all respondents in Lebanon and 94% in Jordan. Relatively small shares say they see ISIS favorably. In some countries, considerable portions of the population do not offer an opinion about ISIS, including a majority (62%) of Pakistanis.

Favorable views of ISIS are somewhat higher in Nigeria (14%) than most other nations. Among Nigerian Muslims, 20% say they see ISIS favorably (compared with 7% of Nigerian Christians). The Nigerian militant group Boko Haram, which has been conducting a terrorist campaign in the country for years, has sworn allegiance to ISIS.

More generally, Muslims mostly say that suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam are rarely or never justified, including 92% in Indonesia and 91% in Iraq.

In the United States, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslims say that such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional 7% says suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% says they are often justified in these circumstances.

In a few countries, a quarter or more of Muslims say that these acts of violence are at least sometimes justified, including 40% in the Palestinian territories, 39% in Afghanistan, 29% in Egypt and 26% in Bangladesh.

In many cases, people in countries with large Muslim populations are as concerned as Western nations about the threat of Islamic extremism, and have become increasingly concerned in recent years. About two-thirds of people in Nigeria (68%) and Lebanon (67%) said earlier this year they are very concerned about Islamic extremism in their country, both up significantly since 2013.

What do American Muslims believe?

Our 2011 survey of Muslim Americans found that roughly half of U.S. Muslims (48%) say their own religious leaders have not done enough to speak out against Islamic extremists.

Living in a religiously pluralistic society, Muslim Americans are more likely than Muslims in many other nations to have many non-Muslim friends. Only about half (48%) of U.S. Muslims say all or most of their close friends are also Muslims, compared with a global median of 95% in the 39 countries we surveyed.

Roughly seven-in-ten U.S. Muslims (69%) say religion is very important in their lives. Virtually all (96%) say they believe in God, nearly two-thirds (65%) report praying at least daily and nearly half (47%) say they attend religious services at least weekly. By all of these traditional measures, Muslims in the U.S. are roughly as religious as U.S. Christians, although they are less religious than Muslims in many other nations.

When it comes to political and social views, Muslims are far more likely to identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party (70%) than the Republican Party (11%) and to say they prefer a bigger government providing more services (68%) over a smaller government providing fewer services (21%).

As of 2011, U.S. Muslims were somewhat split between those who said homosexuality should be accepted by society (39%) and those who said it should be discouraged (45%), although the group had grown considerably more accepting of homosexuality since a similar survey was conducted in 2007.

What is the difference between Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims?

Sunnis and Shias are two subgroups of Islam, just as Catholics and Protestants are two subgroups within Christianity. The Sunni-Shia divide is nearly 1,400 years old, dating back to a dispute over the succession of leadership in the Muslim community following the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632. While the two groups agree on some core tenets of Islam, there are differences in belief or practices, and in some cases Sunnis do not consider Shias to be Muslims.

With the exception of a few countries, including Iran (which is majority Shia) as well as Iraq and Lebanon (which are split), most nations with a large number of Muslims have more Sunnis than Shias. In the U.S., 65% identify as Sunnis and 11% as Shias (with the rest identifying with neither group, including some who say they are “just a Muslim”).

How do Americans and Europeans perceive Muslims?

A Pew Research Center survey conducted in 2014 asked Americans to rate members of eight religious groups on a “feeling thermometer” from 0 to 100, where 0 reflects the coldest, most negative possible rating and 100 the warmest, most positive rating. Overall, Americans rated Muslims rather coolly – an average of 40, which was comparable to the average rating they gave atheists (41). Americans view the six other religious groups mentioned in the survey (Jews, Catholics, evangelical Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and Mormons) more warmly.

Republicans and those who lean toward the Republican Party gave Muslims an average rating of 33, considerably cooler than Democrats’ rating toward Muslims (47).

Republicans also are more likely than Democrats to say they are very concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism in the world (83% vs. 53%) and in the U.S. (65% vs. 38%), according to a December 2015 survey. That survey also found that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say that Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its believers (68% vs. 30% of Democrats) and that Muslims should be subject to more scrutiny than people of other religions (49% vs. 20%). Overall, most Americans (61%) say Muslims should not be subject to additional scrutiny solely because of their religion, while U.S. adults are closely divided on the question of whether Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence. (Note: This paragraph was updated Dec. 17 to reflect a new survey.)

In spring 2015, we asked residents of some European countries a different question– whether they view Muslims favorably or unfavorably. Perceptions at that time varied across European nations, from a largely favorable view in France (76%) and the United Kingdom (72%) to a less favorable view in Italy (31%) and Poland (30%).

How do Muslims and Westerners perceive each other?

In a 2011 survey, majorities of respondents in a few Western European countries, including 62% in France and 61% in Germany, said that relations between Muslims and Westerners were bad, while about half of Americans (48%) agreed. Similarly, most Muslims in several Muslim-majority nations – including Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan – agreed that relations were bad, although fewer Muslims in Pakistan (45%) and Indonesia (41%) had this view.

The same survey also asked about characteristics the two groups may associate with one another. Across the seven Muslim-majority countries and territories surveyed, a median of 68% of Muslims said they view Westerners as selfish. Considerable shares also called Westerners other negative adjectives, including violent (median of 66%), greedy (64%) and immoral (61%), while fewer attributed positive characteristics like “respectful of women” (44%), honest (33%) and tolerant (31%) to Westerners.

Westerners’ views of Muslims were more mixed. A median of 50% across four Western European countries, the U.S. and Russia called Muslims violent and a median of 58% called them “fanatical,” but fewer used negative words like greedy, immoral or selfish. A median of just 22% of Westerners said Muslims are respectful of women, but far more said Muslims are honest (median of 51%) and generous (41%).

Do American Muslims meet the Standard for American Citizenship?

This actually is a complicated question. If one uses the standard set in 1907 by Theodore Roosevelt, then it’s very clear American Muslims do not meet the American standard for citizenship. Forty-seven percent of Muslims surveyed see themselves as a Muslim first before identifying themselves as an American. However, the Pew Research Center found that in 2011 that 93% of Muslims considered themselves loyal to the United States. It appears from the Pew data that the lion’s shares of American Muslims (approximately 93% if we extrapolate from a sample to the entire population of Muslims) is not a threat to the country, and are supportive of the United States.

The data also showed that Muslim Americans by and large are no friend of either al-Qaeda or ISIS. People who target Muslims in general are engaging in Islamophobia of the worst kind, actual discrimination. The picture that emerges from the Pew data is that, by and large, Muslim Americans are a diverse group within the religion of Islam and identify with being an American reasonably well considering acts of mistreatment by the general public. The most poignant findings of the 2011 Pew research data are as follows.

Muslim Americans appear to be highly assimilated into American society and they are largely content with their lives. More than six-in-ten do not see a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society, and a similar number say that most Muslims coming to the U.S. today want to adopt an American way of life rather than remain distinctive from the larger society.

By overwhelming margins, Muslim Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in their own lives and rate their local communities as good places to live. And Muslim Americans are far more likely than the general public to express satisfaction with national conditions.

Assimilation and Identity

     A majority of Muslim Americans (56%) say that most Muslims coming to the U.S. today want to adopt American customs and ways of life. Far fewer (20%) say that most Muslims coming to the U.S. want to be distinct from the larger American society, with a similar number (16%) volunteering that Muslim immigrants want to do both. Native-born and foreign-born Muslims give similar answers to this question.

The U.S. public as a whole is less convinced that immigrant Muslims seek to assimilate. An April 2011 Pew research survey finds that just a third of American adults (33%) think that most Muslim immigrants want to adopt American ways, while about half (51%) think that Muslim immigrants mostly want to remain distinct from the larger culture.

National Identity

     When asked whether they think of themselves first as an American or first as a Muslim, about half of Muslims (49%) say they think of themselves first as a Muslim, compared with 26% who think of themselves first as American. Nearly one-in-five (18%) volunteer that they think of themselves as both Muslim and American.

A May survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project finds that 46% of Christians in the United States think of themselves first as a Christian, while the same percentage says they consider them first as an American.

Among both Muslims and Christians, people who say religion is very important in their lives are far more likely to view themselves primarily as a member of their religion.

     Among Muslims who say that religion is very important in their lives, 59% say they think of themselves first as Muslims. Among those for whom religion is less important, only 28% identify first as Muslim. Similarly, among Christians who place great personal importance on religion, 62% say they are Christians first, compared with 19% among those who view religion as less important.

Pew Global Attitudes Project surveys conducted this year found substantial differences in views of national identity across Muslim communities. Nearly all Pakistanis (94%) consider themselves first as Muslims rather than as Pakistanis. By contrast, just 28% of Muslims in Lebanon say they consider themselves Muslim first – far fewer than the number of U.S. Muslims expressing this view (49%).

Many Muslims report having friendship networks that extends beyond the Muslim community. About half of U.S. Muslims say that all (7%) or most (41%) of their close friends are Muslim; about as many say that some (36%), hardly any (14%) or none (1%) of their close friends are Muslim.

More women than men have a close circle of friends consisting mostly or entirely of other Muslims. And Muslim Americans who are highly committed to their religion are much more likely than those with medium or low commitment to say that all or most of their close friends are Muslims.

More than six-in-ten American Muslims (63%) see no conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society, twice the number who do see such a conflict (31%).

A 2006 Pew Research survey found a nearly identical pattern among American Christians who were asked about a possible conflict between modernity and their own faith. Nearly two-thirds of Christians (64%) said there is no conflict between being a devout Christian and living in a modern society, compared with 31% who did perceive a conflict.

Muslims of all ages express similar views on this question. Similarly, there are only small differences between native-born Muslims and immigrants, as well as between those who are personally religiously observant and those who are less religious.

There are, however, sizable differences between men and women in views on this question. More than seven-in-ten men (71%) say there is no conflict between Islam and modernity, but fewer women (54%) agree. The view that there is no conflict between Islam and modernity is also much more common among college graduates than among those with less education.

 

Final Comments

The Pew Research organization has provided a valuable service to everyone in terms of good social research. There was lots of interesting data on Muslims living abroad and those living here in the United States.

Nevertheless, I detected many unanswered questions from the data they presented from their 2011 study that should be looked into. Such questions relate to degree of assimilation, legal questions regarding religious belief from religious practice, and finally, prejudice and discrimination among Muslim Americans.

Questions about Assimilation

The first question is what percentage of Muslim Americans wants Sharia Law in the United States rather than following our legal system of a U.S. Constitution as well as state constitutions and all other federal, state and local laws and regulations?

Related to this is the question of whether Muslim Americans prefer sending their children to Muslim schools instead of integrating them into the general educational system in the United States? While those who follow Catholicism have church schools in the U.S., by and large, the children from these schools are nonetheless highly integrated into a secular society. To what extent is this true for the Muslim American child population?

Another unanswered question not asked in the Pew data relates to inter-faith marriages and marriage itself. What proportion of Muslim Americans marries non-Muslims? Are such marriages forbidden by Islamic law, culture, or the scriptures of Islam as well? It has been reported that anywhere between 50,000 and 100,000 of the American Muslim population (2008 estimate) engage in polygamy. Women under Islamic law are forbidden to have multiple husbands, but men are permitted to have two, three or four wives.

Questions about Religious Belief versus Religious Practice    

Another area for questions has to do with general differences between religious belief and religious practice. In the future will a legal brief dealing with Sharia Law be brought before United States Supreme Court as a violation of separation of church from state? Since Sharia Law is an integral part of Islam’s scriptures, will there be a separation of religious belief from its practice?

For example, the Mormon practice of having more than one spouse did separate belief from practice. Today, neither in Utah nor elsewhere in the United States is bigamy or polygamy allowed under the law. Was religious practice separated from religious belief in this case? Another example is where religious cults engage in human sacrifice. There is no doubt that belief is separated from practice in that case. Anyone can believe whatever they want; however, once belief crosses the line into actual behavior, American Law has something to say about that. Human sacrifice is viewed as murder, and is prohibited under all U.S. law.

The acceptability of foreign law (religious or otherwise) in the United States has yet to be decided by the United States Supreme Court. To my knowledge the U.S. Congress has yet to act against Sharia Law. Less clear is why?  Sixteen states have already passed state laws to forbid Sharia Law or foreign law. The legal issue, whether Muslims can be allowed to impose Sharia Law within the United States, a law that violates provisions of the U.S. Constitution that are concerned with the separation of church and State, is one the high court needs to address.

Questions about Prejudice and Discrimination

Islamophobia is real and has caused many Muslim Americans to complain about it. But what isn’t known are the racial, ethnic and religious prejudices held by Muslim Americans.

No group in society is immune from this aspect of life. Sociologists back in the 1950s found that there was as much prejudice and discrimination caused by minorities as there was among majorities in U.S. society. Its character was sometimes different, such as minorities’ prejudice and discrimination against other members of minorities. As then as it is now—nobody wants to confront this type of social phenomena.

Given that Sunni and Shia Muslims in the Middle East have never been fond of the citizens of Israel, would such attitudes be prevalent among Muslim Americans living in the United States? Are there attitudes among the Muslim population that promote anti-Semitism and discriminatory behavior against people of the Jewish faith, or directed against Jews living here or abroad?

What’s needed is a comprehensive sociological study of racial, ethnic and religious attitudes (prejudices and discrimination) by Muslim Americans.

As one can see, many questions remain unanswered.

In Part III, I will discuss Sharia Law in more detail, and discuss if there is a plot underway to replace American Law with Sharia Law.

The most troubling aspect of all is that Sharia Law, as a religious practice, is a 7th Century set of religious rules that are barbaric, discriminatory, homophobic, misogynist, and intolerant of all non-believers, as well as those from other religions.

Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan had the dream of world domination. World domination by any group in the past failed, and will fail in the future. Any group that intends, surreptitiously or otherwise, to dominate the United States and convert it to a non-democratic country will ultimately experience the wrath of the American people. Any real threats from abroad will also experience the wrath of the most awesome military power on the face of the earth. We will be all over such threats “like a fly on you know what.”

Our values here in the United States reject Sharia Law as it is a serious threat to all civil and human rights. It is an extremist set of religious laws that are currently practiced in many (but not all) Muslim countries around the world. Stay tuned for Part III.

Read Full Post »

The 2014 Midterm Elections

The Future of the Republican Party

In America

Introduction

The upcoming 2014 Midterm elections will be one of the most important in American political history. This is because we, as Americans, are coming to a crossroads as far as where we want the country to go in the future. After six years of gridlock, the country as a whole is fed-up with politicians. This anger the public feels might be translated into a larger voter turnout in November or not (people staying home on election day).

At the moment I can’t predict which way that might go. Efforts to get people to vote will be critical in this midterm election. Traditionally, weak voter turnout occurs in midterm elections more than in years where both parties are running candidates for President.

However, the country has placed more blame on the Republican Party and their Tea Party sidekicks for the debilitating government shutdown that occurred in late 2013. Consequently, the probability that many Republicans and Tea Party members will be re-elected to the House or Senate in 2014 is slim to none. I base this prediction on four major factors:

  • Changing Ethnic and Racial Demographics
  • The Tea Party in America: Gridlock and the Legacy of Conservatism
  • Age-Related Generational Perspectives
  • Hypocrisy of Republican Political Values (smaller government and lower taxes)

Changing Ethnic and Racial Demographics

One reason it is difficult to predict elections is something called changing demographics.

Early evidence suggests that, based on changing demographics, The Republican Party is fast on the track to becoming a defunct political party in the United States. It is conceivable that one day soon there may be just two major parties in the United States: The Democratic Party and perhaps an Independent Party. The more ethnically and racially diverse a political party is, the more likely they will receive a greater number of votes during election time.

     The following information was obtained on the Internet by writer Frank Newport. Please notice the lack of diversity in the Republican Party.

PRINCETON, NJ — Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 89% of Republican self-identifiers nationwide in 2012, while accounting for 70% of independents and 60% of Democrats. Over one-fifth of Democrats (22%) were black, while 16% of independents were Hispanic.

These results are based on more than 338,000 interviews conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking in 2012, and clearly underscore the distinct racial profiles of partisan groups in today’s political landscape.

  • Republicans are overwhelmingly non-Hispanic white, at a level that is significantly higher than the self-identified white percentage of the national adult population. Just 2% of Republicans are black, and 6% are Hispanic.
  • Seventy percent of Americans who identify as independents are white, but independents have the highest representation of Hispanics (16%) of the three groups. Eight percent of independents are blacks.
  • Democrats remain a majority white party, but four in 10 Democrats are something other than non-Hispanic white. More than one in five Democrats is black, roughly twice the black representation in the adult population.

Racial and Ethnic Groups Gravitate Toward Different Parties

Looked at differently, these party composition patterns reflect major differences in the way Americans in various racial and ethnic groups identify their political affiliation.

  • Almost two-thirds of blacks identify as Democrats, with most of the rest identifying as independents. Only 5% of blacks nationwide identify as Republicans.
  • Half of Hispanics identify as independents, although the majority of the rest identify as Democrats. This is despite their high level of approval and strong majority voting support for Democratic President Barack Obama. Relatively few Hispanics (6%) identify as Republicans.
  • Whites are the most politically diverse of the three major racial and ethnic segments, with between 26% and 38% identifying with one of the three partisan groups. Whites tilt slightly toward being independents or Republicans rather than Democrats. The large white concentration of Republican identifiers, in short, is caused by a dearth of nonwhites self-identifying with the GOP, rather than a monolithic Republican orientation among whites.

Although Asians and other races make up a small proportion of the U.S. population, the data show that the political pattern they follow is quite similar to that of Hispanics: they are most likely to identify as independents, second-most likely to identify as Democrats, and least likely to identify as Republicans.

Racial Breakdown of Independents and Democrats Has Shifted Most Since 2008

The racial and ethnic composition of the Republican Party today is similar to what it was in 2008, the year when Gallup began its daily tracking. There have been essentially no changes in the percentage of GOP identifiers who are white, black, and Hispanic.

Independents have become more Hispanic since 2008 (and slightly more black), while Democrats have become more black and more Hispanic. Phrased differently, the independent and Democratic segments of the U.S. population are now less white than they were in 2008, reflecting the uptick in the U.S. nonwhite population over these five years.

Implications

One of the more important realities in American politics today is the substantial divergence in the racial and ethnic composition of the major political parties. Almost nine in 10 Republicans are white, in stark contrast to the racial and ethnic composition of the overall adult population. On the other hand, the Democratic Party is disproportionately nonwhite.

The future of the two major political parties depends on two factors. The first is whether these patterns of party identification change in the years ahead. The ability of the Republican Party to make inroads among nonwhites has been much discussed in recent months, particularly the GOP’s efforts to improve on the 13% allegiance that Gallup data show it obtains from Hispanics. Another path to growth for the Republican Party would be an increase in its penetration into the white sector of the population, only 35% of which now identifies as Republican. On the other hand, the Democratic Party will grow if it too can extend its identification among whites, and maintain or strengthen its position among nonwhites.

     A second factor that will affect the future of the political parties in the U.S. is straightforward demographics. Projections show that the nonwhite proportion of the American adult population will grow in the years ahead. This means that if current partisan allegiance patterns prevail, the size of the Democratic base will be in a better position to grow than will the Republican base.

The Tea Party in America: Gridlock and the Legacy of Conservatism

Many organizations in society, including political organizations, engage in what is called sub-optimizing behavior. That’s when stated goals are not the real goals.

The real goals of organizations, political groups, or individuals are often hidden and not stated publicly. Words from politicians often disguise their real motives. The Tea Party is no exception, especially when backed by Big Business and the Billionaire Koch Brothers and Koch Industries.

Based on the behavior of Tea Party members in Congress, my assumption is that the Tea Party in America is a lunatic fringe and, at the same time, is the new face of the Republican Party.

Currently only 8% of Americans identify themselves as Tea Party members. Nevertheless, the Tea Party in Congress has a stranglehold on all other Republicans. It’s okay for people to cling to their values and beliefs. But when such values and beliefs threaten the United States with financial disaster and ruin, then it’s time for other stronger forces to counter such attacks on the integrity of the United States and its people.

As much as I’d like to see it, it’s unlikely these congressional reprobates will ever be tried for treason or brought up on criminal charges by the U.S. Department of Justice. The best thing the people can do is toss the Tea Party members out of Congress in the next mid-term election. Another option is to petition their immediate recall from office.

The Ongoing Problem of Gridlock     

The vast majority of Americans are moderate “Middle-of-the-Road” independents, Democrats and Republicans. When one has different values from their fellow citizens, it naturally creates tension, suspicion, distrust, and polarization. Since 2008 we’ve witnessed the worst of these political differences acting out as irreconcilable gridlock when it comes to carrying out the various duties of the government (passing a budget on time, passing legislation to help our citizens, properly defending the country, etc.). For several years now, gridlock has created and prevented very little from being accomplished.

Politics has always been called, “the Art of Compromise.” This is an old saying that no longer appears applicable in modern day politics.

The primary function of politicians should be to honestly represent their constituency. But at the same time politicians need to make prudent, critical choices in the handling of scarce resources (taxpayer dollars). That latter function is an awesome responsibility that needs careful attention to detail. But the overriding responsibility of those in Congress today should be to help their fellow citizens live better, more prosperous lives. With the exception of President Barack Obama, that does not seem to be the case.

The Legacy of Conservatism

Unfortunately, the legacy of conservatism has never aligned itself with helping people.

During the last 160 years conservatives were opposed to the abolition of slavery, and were responsible for promoting racism and Jim Crow, particularly in the old South. They fought against giving women the right to vote, opposed the New Deal during the Depression of the 1930s, and opposed the Social Security Act in 1935 and later, minimum wage laws. In the 1950s they fought against integration, desegregation and later busing. Conservatives were a major voice against the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s; During the 1970s conservatives opposed affirmative action and the proposed Equal Rights Amendment.

In more recent years, conservatives have opposed amnesty for illegal aliens, and they want to cut entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. Now, with strong Tea Party support and a strident attitude, they oppose the President’s Affordable Care Act that promotes universal healthcare.

One way of characterizing all this political history is that, if legislation was going to help a lot of people and improve their lives, conservatives were “hell-bent” to oppose it. That collectively is their ugly legacy.

At this point in history the Tea Party has been at the center of Washington’s gridlock. The only real option for Americans in the 2014 and 2016 national elections is to totally limit their access to power. This also applies to all Republicans seeking public office in the mid-term elections, and in 2016 as well.

This doesn’t mean that creating jobs, cutting spending or raising or lowering taxes aren’t important issues; they certainly are. But Tea Party members who take a simplistic ideological viewpoint of how the economy works lack insight into the complexities of the economy and its basic business cycles.

 Come the Next Election Just Remember These Statistics

Since Democrat John F. Kennedy took office in January 1961, non-government payrolls in the U.S. swelled by almost 42 million jobs under Democrats, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents, according to Labor Department figures. Though they occupied the oval office for 23 years since Kennedy’s inauguration, Democrats hold the edge, compared to 28 years for Republicans. In addition, over the past 50 years, Republican administrations oversaw the largest decline in wages as measured as a percentage of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Age-Related Generational Issues

It has long been said that “our children are our future.” And, given the fact that political perspectives vary by generation, it is incumbent upon society in general to recognize that voting patterns among the various generations will be very important to the future of politics in America and the 2014 mid-term elections. Nowhere is this truer than with the Millennial Generation. So what can we expect to happen in November 2014? The following is a fine article written by Jonathan Chait. He refers to the Millennials as “those kids with Obama posters on the wall.”

The Millennial Generation: Our Liberal Future

How doomed are conservatives? Pretty doomed, if you look carefully at the Pew Research Survey’s close analysis of the youth vote in the 2012 elections. The Republicans’ long-term dilemma has generally been framed in racial terms, but it’s mainly a generational one.

The youngest generation of voters contains a much smaller proportion of white voters than previous generations, and those whites in that generation vote Republican by a much smaller margin than their elders. What’s more, younger voters supported President Obama during the last two election cycles for reasons that seem to go beyond the usual reasons — social issues like gay marriage and feminism, immigration policy, or Obama’s personal appeal — and suggest a deeper attachment to liberalism. The proclivities of younger voters may actually portend a full-scale sea change in American politics.

More than four decades ago, Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantril identified the core of Americans’ political thinking as a blend of symbolic conservatism and operational liberalism. Most Americans, that is, oppose big government in the abstract but favor it in the particular. They oppose “regulation” and “spending,” but favor, say, enforcement of clean-air laws and Social Security. The push and pull between these contradictory beliefs has defined most of the political conflicts over the last century. Public support for most of the particulars of government has stopped Republicans from rolling back the advances of the New Deal, but suspicion with “big government” has made Democratic attempts to advance the role of the state rare and politically painful.

This tension continues to define the beliefs of American voters. Among the 2012 electorate, more voters identified themselves as conservative (35 percent) than liberal (25 percent), and more said the government is already doing too much that should be left to the private sector (51 percent) than asserted that the government ought to be doing more to solve problems (44 percent). But this is not the case with younger voters. By a 59 percent to 37 percent margin, voters under 30 say the government should do more to solve problems. More remarkably, 33 percent of voters under 30 identified themselves as liberal, as against 26 percent who called themselves conservative.

What all this suggests is that we may soon see a political landscape that will appear from the perspective of today and virtually all of American history as unrecognizably liberal. Democrats today must amass huge majorities of moderate voters in order to overcome conservatives’ numerical advantage over liberals. They must carefully wrap any proposal for activist government within the strictures of limited government, which is why Bill Clinton declared the era of big government to be over, and Obama has promised not to raise taxes for 99 percent of Americans. It’s entirely possible that, by the time today’s twenty something’s have reached middle age, these sorts of limits will cease to apply.

Obviously, such a future hinges on the generational patterns of the last two election cycles persisting. But, as another Pew survey showed, generational patterns do tend to be sticky. It’s not the case that voters start out liberal and move rightward. Americans form a voting pattern early in their life and tend to hold to it. That isn’t to say something couldn’t shake these voters loose from their attachment to the liberal worldview. Republicans fervently (and plausibly) hoped the Great Recession would be that thing; having voted for Obama and borne the brunt of mass unemployment, once-idealistic voters would stare at the faded Obama posters on their wall and accept the Republican analysis that failed Big Government policies have brought about their misery.

But young voters haven’t drawn this conclusion — or not many of them have, at any rate. So either something else is going to have to happen to disrupt the liberalism of the rising youth cohort, or else the Republican Party itself will have to change in ways far more dramatic than any of its leading lights seem prepared to contemplate.

Hypocrisy of Republican Political Values (smaller government and lower taxes)

The following is an interesting article that was posted on AlterNet on September 20, 2014 by Alex Henderson.

 

10 Red States that Mooch off the Federal Government

Republicans claim they’ve had it with American socialism. Maybe they should return the tax dollars subsidizing them

One of the most hilarious talking points coming from far-right Republicans and the Tea Party is that when “red states” like Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana are asked to bail out California or Massachusetts, that’s when they will finally become “fed up with socialism” and secede from the Union once and for all.

The problem with that meme is that it has no basis in reality: the more prosperous and Democrat-leaning areas of the United States are likely to be subsidizing dysfunctional “red states,” many of which are suffering from insufficient tax revenue and an abundance of low-wage workers who don’t have much to tax.

Tea Party Republicans like to point out that poor cities like Detroit, Baltimore and Camden, New Jersey are run by Democrats, but they neglect to mention that some of the most affluent parts of the United States—from Manhattan to the Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area to Cambridge, MA to Seattle to Chicago’s North Shore suburbs—are dominated by the Democratic Party. People in those heavily Democratic areas pay a lot of federal income taxes, and quite often, their tax dollars go to red states.

Earlier this year, the personal finance website WalletHub.com conducted an in-depth study of the amounts individual states are paying in federal taxes compared to the amounts they are receiving. WalletHub analyzed data from the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Commerce Department and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. WalletHub’s research demonstrates that, as a rule, the states that are the most likely to rail against “big government” are the most likely to be benefiting from it.

A few of the states in WalletHub’s study that were receiving the most tax revenue from the federal government are states that President Barack Obama won in 2012 (most notably, New Mexico and Hawaii), but most were hardcore “red states.” And most of the states that, according to WalletHub, are taking less from the federal government than they are paying in are “blue states” that Obama won in both 2008 and 2012, including California, Massachusetts, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Minnesota. WalletHub’s research bears out comparable figures released by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation in the past: analyzing IRS data, Tax Foundation has found, more than once, that red states are likely to be the biggest recipients of federal tax money.

Summary and Conclusions

Back in the late 1960s I used to vote for liberal democrats and sometimes well-meaning moderate republicans, particularly in local elections. Moderate republicans today, unfortunately, are only a thing of the past. In 2000 when Al Gore was cheated out of becoming President of the United States, I knew it was time to close the chapter on ever voting for a republican again. Today, politics seems to be more about ideology than doing what’s right for the country.

The Republican Party, along with its bastardized Tea Party, is a national disgrace to the people of the United States. With changing racial and ethnic demographics they are fast becoming defunct as a political party. Many factors have and will contribute to their demise:

  • gridlock and the shutting down of the government in 2013 caused by a recalcitrant and belligerent Republican Party and their Tea Party affiliates in Congress
  •  a legacy of conservatism that has shamed the people of the United States in the eyes of the world
  • the hypocrisy of their own values regarding the size of government and lowering taxes
  • changing racial and ethnic demographics
  • Generational changes in voting patterns

     Republican and Tea Party members everywhere have no business representing anyone, anywhere, anytime. It’s time to get the country moving forward again. Please remember to vote this November in the Midterm elections. It is critical that you do.    

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »