A CONTINUATION OF THE RIGHT STUFF

Eight years ago Barrack Obama was the right candidate at the right time to lead the country.  This year, Hillary Clinton will be that candidate.

It is difficult for a President to be transformational from both a policy and an identity prospective. Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and perhaps Ronald Reagan were major policy transformers.  John Kennedy (Catholic), Obama (African American) and hopefully Clinton (Female) will be primarily remembered as identity transformers.  In recent memory, only British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was both.

So, what is the basis for my thesis that Obama has demonstrated and Clinton will produce “the right stuff?”   I will begin with President Obama. I believe that history will come to view him as the “black Kennedy.”  (or maybe Kennedy should become identified as the white Obama) Like Kennedy, his strongest attributes are charisma, oratory, a noble presence on the world stage and a beautiful family with fairy tale charm.

 Like Kennedy, Obama has never been an ideologue.  He is practical, careful, and more moderate than people give him credit for.  The fact that the firebrand activist Cornel West has labeled Obama: “a Rockefeller Republican in blackface” helps prove my point.  Many progressives fault him for not moving enthusiastically to the left, which was never in the President’s political DNA.

Had John Kennedy lived to serve a second term, he could have only hoped for the scandal free four years, improving economy and rising approval rating (56%) that Obama now enjoys.  More likely, Vietnam and Kennedy’s misadventures both political and private would have brought Camelot crashing down around him.  Few have stopped to consider how rare it is to serve eight years in a White House, where the new media makes every molehill into a mountain, and to emerge as unscathed and popular as President Obama.

But the Obama presidency has been about more than simply surviving.  By being the nation’s first African American president, a beaten down minority, forged out of slavery, came into its own with dignity. The pride and encouragement Obama engenders among African Americans is beyond expectations.  Consider that black students in middle school have only known a black President.

Moreover Obama did exactly the right thing with the economy, in shambles when his first term began.  He provided stimulus and then let the economy take the time needed to heal.  He knew the wealthy would spring back faster than the average American; they always do. Now that the healing is complete, rational social engineering to address the growing inequality can take place, just not on his watch. 

In foreign policy, Obama has been careful not to commit to new initiatives best left for his successor.  Over the last eight years, the world has become more complex than Game of Thrones and even without dragons, twice as dangerous.  We have discovered that the bipolar cold war was easier to manage than a multi polar landscape stoked by rampant tribalism in the third world and populism in the west. Obama has moved forward in this new environment with caution. His replacement will contend with numerous hot spots but no out of control fires.

Turning to Hillary Clinton, she has the right stuff to replace Obama and serve as President for a number of reasons. First, Clinton is the most accomplished woman candidate in our nation’s history and it is well past time to elect a woman to our highest office.  In this election year, once the politics are removed and the facts examined; she was far and away the most qualified of any of the announced candidates.

Second, I believe history will come to label her presidency as the “Female Bill Clinton.” I am not inferring that her Husband will have undue influence over her time in office.  To the contrary, she has always been fully committed to her Husband’s sound beliefs which brought moderate politics, liberal social views and constrained fiscal policy to the White House.  If elected, Hillary Clinton will no more move the country sharply left than Her Husband or Obama.  She will work around the edges to encourage increased equality, mostly by providing more opportunities to earn it.  Hand outs and free programs will not be part of her agenda.  It is not the Clinton way.

Third, Clinton’s many years of public service have provided her with the knowledge and background to serve. While her long career has provided her detractors with political baggage to gleefully attack her, in fact, rational voters who weigh the evidence will discover a stellar record.  She was the hardest working and most traveled Secretary of State in our history. The highly politicized Benghazi episode does not dampen the positive results of her steady hand in advancing Obama’s foreign policy. 

The often reviled Clinton Foundation is hardly a villain in this presidential election. It is an apolitical and well respected nonprofit that has raised and distributed almost 2 billion dollars in humanitarian resources around the world.  Ms. Clinton has admitted making a mistake in following her predecessors in the State Department by opening and supporting a private email account.  In truth, she no doubt considered email delivery as a non issue when becoming Secretary of State.   However republicans have demanded their pound of flesh, years of unprecedented investigation have taken place and the results have revealed “no harm, no foul.”

Hillary Clinton as President will continue to build on the Obama legacy of inclusive, fair and open government.  She will forge her own identity that women worldwide will come to admire.  Under her leadership more Americans will begin to participate in the new economy.  Calls for protectionism from the left and the right will fade.  There will be no misplaced effort to return workers to the old rust belt industries and coal mines which are no longer viable.  Voters will quickly learn they elected the candidate with the right stuff.

RESPECTFUL CONFLICT NEEDS TO BE ENCOURAGED

Why don’t we all get along and cooperate; find common ground; seek peace among ourselves and in the world?  The short answer is because humankind is made up of multiple cultures with multiple world views within each culture.  China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran (among others) have taught us that modernization does not equal westernization.  The European Union has taught us that westernization does not equal one federal polity. One federal polity, the United States, is based on the principle that pluralism, not one majority consensus, is the foundation of democracy.

Conflict is defined as: “an incompatibility between two or more opinions, principles or interests”.  It exists in all human endeavors.  It can be ignored, as we often do, or accepted and managed in a respectful manner so as to avoid resentment and potentially violence.  It is time to give conflict its due and to develop responsible methods to address it.  Several examples may help illustrate my point.

Example one:  The American Mideast and South Asian Muslim communities believe that our military presence and use of drones is killing innocent civilians in their homelands and needs to stop.  These otherwise loyal Americans are not encouraged to develop public forums to discuss these beliefs which are in fundamental conflict with ongoing foreign policy.  Frustration is internalized within families and places of worship. Outside radical influences fan the flames among young Muslims.

Example two:  Western ranchers believe that federal regulations over land and water use are too restrictive and make it difficult for them to make a living.  Rather than form a vocal interest group, they keep a low profile until federal laws are enforced, when the conflict turns violent.

Example three:  Tea party republicans and progressive democrats decide that the established two party system is incapable of addressing issues that must be resolved in order to move the country forward.  The traditional party conflict resolution apparatus is ignored on both sides and extreme political positions are supported as a protest to the status quo.

In my first two examples, the absence of respectful conflict resolution has resulted in the radicalization of a few Americans who view terrorism and/or armed conflict as the only alternative. The question to American Muslims and ranchers should not be: “what actions are you taking to avoid violence?” The question to all Americans should be: “what actions are we collectively taking as a democratic country to understand and vet the issues in conflict and to resolve them?”

In my third example, the inability of the long standing establishment to employ respectful conflict resolution has resulted in a major attack on the two party system that forms the basis of our democratic constitutional republic.  Non action and failure to even discuss differences by the competing establishment elites has lead to its rejection by a majority of Americans.  Again, the need to be “right” needs to be replaced by the need to “understand” and to respectfully address the party in conflict.

I believe that respectful conflict is not only possible, but has been proven to work in America.  Recently, the Black Lives Matter and United We Dream initiatives have been very effective in the African American and Latino communities. Because of these forums to raise grievances and present rational opinions, violent acts are avoided.  While Muslims and ranchers are much smaller minorities, organizing, lobbying and debate can still be effective in framing issues for a larger audience.  The alternative is unaddressed anger, which is no alternative at all. 

In examining the American political conflict that has now gravitated to the fringes, there is plenty of organization, but not enough compromise.  Respectful conflict always has the goal of developing ultimate solutions that carefully consider conflicting positions and that discourage rigid ideologies.  Once it is discovered that extreme politics muck up the machinery of government worse than moderate politics, respectful conflict may return to the halls of Congress.  However, there is no reason to wait and moderate influences should be passing compromise legislation, even in this election year.

Conflict needs to be recognized and respectful conflict needs to be encouraged.  Ignoring conflict until there is a crisis and then calling for peace and good will in the aftermath of violence accomplishes nothing. Permitting political frustration to boil over until it leads to the support of extreme positions is not an answer.

Once American Muslims and western ranchers (among other minorities in conflict) receive a full and respectful airing of their concerns, as pluralism is intended to work, reason replaces emotion and anger as the motivating factor.  Once moderate legislators recapture the law making process we move forward with something for everyone rather than nothing for no one.

The featured quote in the June 21 Observer Reporter captures my point exactly:  “He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.” William Drummond, Scottish writer (1585-1649).  Conflict is inevitable.  Bigotry and ignorance are not.

 Let us agree to disagree and make conflicts transparent for all to view. Citizens can then openly participate and form opinions on a level and respectful playing field.  The alternatives have not worked and never will.

COMMON SENSE SOLUTIONS

What will be the political response to the worst mass shooting in the history of America? There are many possibilities in the middle of a contentious presidential campaign.  Trump will inevitably call for a clamp down on Muslim communities, notwithstanding that the shooter was an American citizen who hated gays.  Clinton will point to Trump’s anti Muslim rhetoric as a contributing factor. Gun rights advocates will point to the ready access to assault type weapons.  The NRA will call for arming nightclub personnel.  The Gay community will call for more protection in places where they socialize.

In this election year many Americans do not feel safe or secure in their homes, in sending their children to school, in the malls and movie theaters or at work.  Whether a shooting is triggered by mental illness, hate, or radicalization, the result is the same.  The fear is the same.  The access to automatic weapons is the same.

Here is hoping that the debate that will follow this horrendous act will be all inclusive of all the above issues and will seek a rational debate, not more finger pointing and divisiveness. Certainly there are common sense solutions on which all Americans can agree.  Responsible elected officials and candidates will seek responsible answers.

IN DEFENSE OF MODERATION

In this election year the label of “moderate” has been the kiss of death.  If a candidate was not willing to profess allegiance to left leaning progressive ideals as a democrat or to populist ones as a republican, there was little chance to gain the attention of voters.  Indeed, running for office and calling for incremental policy changes and keeping the ship of state on a steady course has been the most discredited of all positions.  Hillary Clinton tried this moderate approach early in the primaries but has moved significantly to the left in recent months as her support eroded.

What caused political moderation to lose its purchase, to be replaced by calls for revolution on the left and for anti establishment and controversial proposals on the right?

First, this trend toward the extreme is not limited to the American electorate.  As a direct result of immigration and state security issues, Europe’s far right is no longer on the fringe of the political process. In Austria the Austrian Freedom Party, founded by ex-Nazis, came within .6% of winning the recent national election.  In France, the far right candidate Marine La Pen is predicted to come in first in the initial round of next year’s presidential election. Right wing pluralities in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Switzerland are firmly in place. Sweden is not far behind.  Also in Europe the far left parties have gained in stature and undermined the moderate social democrats who have traditionally governed these countries

Second, angry calls for wall building, banning Muslims and identifying and deporting illegal immigrants seem like reasonable proposals to older Americans who fear for their personal and job security. On the other end of the political spectrum young Americans have bought into the theme of a social revolution that will provide free education, free medical care and a revived Social Security system for their retirement.

Lastly, the status quo of the last eight years is viewed by many voters as a time of stagnation rather than a period of growth.  The art of governing has ground to a halt.  Witness the recent energy bill (the first in nearly a decade) that easily passed the Senate but is now bogged down in the House over petty partisan politics. 

Voters are embracing the political extremes in the hope that anything is better than a do nothing, crisis driven legislative process.  It apparently never occurs to those seeking change that other extreme lawmakers have caused the impasse in the first place and that their candidates will actually make matters worse if elected to higher office.

So how can political moderates recapture the political playing field?  Congress is already well represented with moderates in both political parties.  Unfortunately, in this election year they operate under the radar and are afraid of an angry electorate who view them as the failed establishment and could vote them out of office.  They are patiently waiting for rationality to return after the extremists flame out.  This is not the right approach.

Moderates must realize that remaining silent about their ideals will not defeat extremism. The mantra should not be: “this too will pass” but rather “fight for moderation in government.”  Voters are eager to support politicians with clear values and sound ideas.  Moderates have both without the baggage of do or die ideologies.  Moreover, only moderates on both sides of the aisle and in the White House can reach the degree of cooperation necessary to pass long overdue legislation. 

Populists and left wing progressives seek to blow up our established two party system.  This is not the path to sensible governing.  Moderates must speak up to preserve and nurture our traditional political process.

If the moderate position is firmly and clearly presented to the voting public two facts will become obvious.  First, that the emotional positions espoused by the extremists are nothing but pipe dreams and will never be adopted once the elections are over.  On close analysis it will also become clear that the only certain result from electing extreme public officials will be divisiveness and partisan politics that will make the past eight years appear as tame as a church social. 

The second fact is that the strength of moderation lies not in the sound bites of campaigning but in the give and take of governing. Centralist positions open to compromise and not unbending fringe ideology make for a healthy legislative process.

 Moderates from both parties, those slightly left and right of center, tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  Given the issues that must be addressed, there is no better political formula for moving our country forward.

THE YEAR OF THE POLITICAL SCIENTIST

You parents who had doubts that a liberal arts education would pay off for your children; here is hoping you raised them to be political scientists and not lawyers or doctors.  

   

Over the past decade, economics has dominated the best seller list, speaker forums and overall American culture.  This has been necessary and predictable given the collapse of Western economies following the 2008 recession. Those experts who professed to be economists needed to explain what they got wrong, what happened and to set out their plan for the future.  Even Cinema took this normally undramatic “dismal science” and made a series of feature films highlighting ordinary citizens getting screwed by economic forces not easily explained.

The academic world must now prepare for a major attention shift from an enthralled public.  2016 and beyond will see a time that political scientists lead the academic discussions that matter in America.  We are not talking about the television pundits who jabber on endlessly about the election, but rather real academic heavy weights who are trained to analysis data before and after elections take place.

Political Science by its nature is observational. It seeks to reveal the relationships underlying political events and conditions and from these revelations it attempts to construct principals about the way the world of politics works.  Donald Trump has given these specialist something to observe, unlike anything in their collective lifetimes.  No political theory or hypothesis in our pluralistic democracy predicted his rise to capture the Republican Nomination.  Now the experts must figure it out.

One can almost predict the topics of the best selling tomes that will hit the book shelves by early 2017, after the data is complied and theories developed: “America’s move to an illiberal political order thriving on anti-immigrant sentiment and Islamophobia”; “Trump’s success and the new media”; “The demise of America’s traditional two party system”; “Celebrity and politics in America.”;.  No one would have predicted these trends a short time ago.

In many respects this election season, which is now remarkably longer than the NFL season, is similar from an analytical perspective.  In football the goal is to deconstruct the winning team in order to mimic or defeat it.  In 2016 it appears that copying or defending against the Obama formula from 2012 will not be enough.  Trump has jumped the shark, not unlike a good NFL Patriots team, sending all participants back to the drawing board.  This is what makes 2016 such an exciting time to be a political scientist.

For all the attention it gets, American politics is normally a case study in incremental change. Not only Trump but also the Sanders phenomenon has guaranteed that 2016 is different. Dwight Eisenhower who once said: “I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center,” would be appalled. The center is under attack from angry isolationists on the one side and progressives on the other.  The only thing that is certain is that political scientists will figure it out after the dust has cleared.

BABY BOOMERS…….START CLIMBING

Last week I came across the quote: “I am so far over the hill that I am half way up the next one.” This could be interpreted as a call to action for all baby boomers in their sixties and seventies to rethink their golden years.  In short, we need to begin climbing the next hill by understanding and helping millennials, aka our children.  With a blink of the eye they are coming into their own and dominating the political, social and economic culture. If we pull up the rocking chairs rather than put on the walking shoes boomers will exercise little positive influence over the future of our country.

Most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to around 2000 in defining millennials.  The signs of the changing of the guard are everywhere.  Our new family vehicle is basically a mind numbing computer on wheels, designed with millennials in mind.  It should come with a 30 year old in the back seat to explain the radar, cameras, bluetooth, wifi, navigation, i phone and voice recognition interfaces.  When I sarcastically told my age challenged friend that the car was equipped with an Amazon app that dropped packages through the moon roof via drone, he believed me. Ironically, while many millennials turn down a new vehicle  purchase in favor of Uber, mass transit and short term rentals, boomers will never fully understand the technology packaged to attract their children.

Statistics disclose that for the first time, more millennials than baby boomers are eligible to vote in the presidential election. Many are educated minorities and white Americans with increasingly liberal attitudes.  They are more likely to support economic policies based on equality, same sex marriage and legalization of drugs. As the Bernie Sanders campaign has revealed, millennials want their own issues addressed by elected officials.  These concerns include the prohibitive cost and debt service of higher education, the ability of the wealthy to buy elections and real progress on fixing the national debt, Social Security and Medicare.

The economic habits of our chidren are changing America. Purchasing a home or a car (see above) are no longer top priorities.  Frequently changing employment is common in search of a job that actually makes them happy. Malls and department stores are passé and all of brick and mortar retail is in a funk because there is nothing that they cannot  purchase on the internet.  Important news events are picked up on twitter and few read print newspapers or magazines. Chain restaurants that cater to their eating habits, gourmet coffee and tattoos have become prevalent.  They are among the few luxuries many millennials can actually afford.  Cable television, land line telephones and desk top computers are as unnecessary to millennials as typewriters were to baby boomers.

Socially, studies show that millennials tend to be less religious, better educated and slower to get married and/or start families than their boomer parents.  What effect this will have going forward is unknown.  Either there will be a rush to produce children as biological clocks wind down, turning boomers into grandparents in their 70s, or the country will begin aging.  Because we  boomers will live longer and many have already depleted savings for a number of ill advised reasons, a sizeable number of millennials will not inherit wealth when their parents finally expire.  But they will, no doubt, be saddled with taking care of us, as many boomers hang around past the century mark.

We over the hill boomers have a choice.  We can start climbing the next hill with vigor and moral clarity along with our children and be part of the solution by understanding their world and cooperating on solutions.  The alternative is to keep our title as the “me” generation and double down along with AARP to defend our entitlements to the last dollar.

There are simply not enough resources for boomers and our children to both move ahead unhindered.  Better for older Americans to sacrifice a little and seed the future with higher taxes and entitlement benefits that vest later and in lower amounts.  Better to volunteer and help our children with the multitude of economic and social issues they will face.  Better to take a deep breath and start climbing the next hill.  Along the way we may even learn what Bluetooth is and how it works.

A PROPOSAL TO HELP MOVE FROM “BEING RIGHT” TO “UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER” IN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONFLICT

It has often struck me in this election year how political and social labels shape our dialogue with each other.  Indeed it has become difficult to determine where a person stands on important issues based on broad labels (e.g. conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian, angry white male). When we associate one of these labels with another, we often jump to invalid conclusions about that person’s political and/or social views.  This tendency makes civil and constructive discourse on important issues more difficult and at times more antagonistic than it needs to be.  Political and social conflict are inevitable in a pluralistic democratic society, misunderstanding each other is not.

For those who wish to share ideas, either orally or in print, we need a better system for determining both political and social orientation in America.  The old labels are either too open to multiple interpretations or too ugly to withstand face to face discussion. An example of the former is labeling oneself a democrat or republican which in today’s political environment tells us little about a person’s views. Examples of the latter are to label someone a racist, sexist or immoral individual.

My suggestion regarding “political” orientation would be for actors to identify their standing by specifying a well know individual who shares their views or time period that represents their political orientation. Thus when we speak to or read an article by a “Theodore Roosevelt Republican”, or “William F. Buckley Conservative”, or “Lyndon Johnson Democrat” or “Senator Angus King Independent”, we would know much more of the positions held by the speaker or author. For example, describing oneself as a social liberal and fiscal conservative akin to Bill Clinton says much more than simply being called a democrat.

Such an adjustment to foster clarity would have several positive effects.  First, it would require those of us interested in political discourse to do our homework and learn more about political history, philosophy and thought.  Second, it would remove many of the unwarranted assumptions we make about another’s political views based on an over broad label.  Third, it would compel us to rethink our positions and make sure our overall orientation is consistent. Fourth, it would recognize that personality is often as important as positions in choosing a political orientation.

My suggestion regarding “social” labeling is a bit more complex than the political variety.  I would replace many of the negative social terms now popular in speech and print with three new classifications:  intolerance, permissive tolerance and respectful tolerance.  These terms are not my own and were developed by the contemporary German political philosopher Forst Rainer in his work on the culture of toleration.

Intolerance is rather self explanatory.  It would cover opinions most of us share including those involving pedophiles, terrorists or other individuals who are responsible for conduct outside accepted norms. Intolerant would also be an appropriate label for an avowed racist, homophobic, or sexist.

The second classification, “permissive tolerance”, gives qualified permission to the members of a minority to live according to their believes or to be accepted on the condition that the minority follows certain rules, laws or conditions. For example Donald Trump has advocated permissive tolerance toward immigrants by excluding families who entered the country illegally.  Ted Cruz has advocated permissive tolerance toward Muslims by subjecting their communities and places of worship to surveillance.  North Carolina has passed permissive tolerance legislation that specifically targets transgender individuals in their use of public restrooms.  Many conservative evangelicals demonstrate permissive tolerance toward homosexuals by having no objection to civil unions but being against gay marriage.

When the above examples are viewed through the lens of permissive tolerance, the debate changes in a way that I believe is more manageable.  The majority granting permissive tolerance often feels the minority should thank them for being more accepting than in the past.  The minority does not feel it is enough to not be exiled or persecuted.  They want to be respected as fellow human beings.  They want to be considered as neighbors, friends and colleagues who are diverse but treated equal.  In many respects a permissive tolerance analysis makes it easier for both sides of a conflict to understand the position of the other.

The last category is “respectful tolerance” where citizens may have fundamental differences between them but morally regard each other as having equal social, legal and political status.  Different ethnic backgrounds, different religions, different views on social issues, all tempered by respect.  Here there is no attempt to assimilate the minority into the majority and diversity is encouraged to make the whole stronger than its parts. Respectful tolerance is the sweet spot of political and social conflict resolution.

With respectful tolerance, conflict between competing interests remains.  However, a civilized debate takes place on a level playing field.  All actors recognize the healthy conflict as the basis for our pluralistic democracy.  Understanding the other is as important as being right. Compromise rather than all or nothing positions is more prevalent.

Where do I see these dynamic categories shifting before our eyes?  The  vestiges of passive racism as embodied in the “black lives matter” movement and minority incarceration, drug policy and urban education in America are examples of positions shifting from permissive to respected tolerance.  In international affairs, our changing foreign policy toward Cuba and Iran are examples.  The understanding and treatment of mental illness is also making this shift.

No classification system can account for all our differences or overcome our human nature to be right rather than to take the time to understand each other.  I am sure that others could propose classifications with more clarity. My goal is simply to start the conversation in developing systems to consider political and social conflict in a more positive and constructive way.