For 2021: Only Connect

 
Those who know me from my newspaper column in the Chester Village News will recall that I have little patience with New Year's resolutions.  I've long believed that, as evolved primates, we remain largely governed by nature's rhythms - which would suggest that the shortest days of the year are a poor time to undertake changes requiring a lot of energy and physical effort. 

Thus, the predictable failure of January gym memberships, which run flat contrary to our caveman bodies' inclination to store fat and get more sleep during the winter.  (Recent scientific evidence that some of our forebears actually hibernated would only have bolstered my past arguments.)  Thus, in my column, I argued for making health-related resolutions at the beginning of the pagan "new year" - at the vernal equinox.

But today, in the waning days of the presidency of Florida Man #1*, I'm going to break a personal rule - to suggest a New Year's resolution to friends who care about the future of this country as a democratic republic in a world which seems, once again, to be tilting toward autocracy.  Here it is:

This year, I will learn (or re-learn) a modern language to the point of reasonable fluency.

Now, you can take this suggestion literally, or metaphorically.  You can learn a literal language - or learn how people who don't think as you do express themselves about contemporary issues.  Either will do.  Both would be outstanding.

What I'm suggesting is that we who care about the future of this country - as a government of laws, based on popular consent - need to get out of our bubbles, or silos, or whatever, and learn to communicate with people who don't share our worldview.  Those people could be fellow citizens whom we tend to regard as the unenlighted foe - or citizens of other democracies we should regard as potential allies in a global struggle for democracy.  Either is fine.

Remaining quietly in one's privileged, middle-class American bubble is not fine.

And the good thing is - adopting this resolution will not be nearly as challenging as losing twenty pounds, or getting in three days a week of cardio.  For one thing, it won't be involve a lot of physical effort at a season when we'd prefer to be snacking and napping.  Mental effort, yes.  But winter's not a bad time for mental effort.

For another thing, it won't be - like health-related resolutions - a form of maintenance work.  Americans tend to hate maintenance work, because we are culturally habituated to acquiring new things.  That's a feature of late-stage corporate consumer capitalism.  (More on that in future posts.)  But it's a fact that most of us vaguely resent doing repairs, mowing the lawn, weeding the flowerbeds, or doing the laundry.  We're wired for new.  We're wired to buy.  Maintenance is frustrating.  You do it today, you'll have to do it again in a week, or a month, or next year.

I suspect that's another reason health-related New Year's resolutions are so difficult.  We dislike maintenance - especially when what we're maintaining is starting to run down - which, for anyone out of their teens or early twenties, includes our bodies.  We'd prefer to buy new - which probably explains the growing popularity of evangelical religion in our country.  Go to Heaven, get a new body - and one that doesn't require maintenance.  

Again, a subject for future posts.

The nice thing about a learning-oriented resolution is that it is - in a very real sense - acquisitive.  Learning a new language feels like progress, not maintenance.  So maybe - just maybe - learning something new would work as a New Year's resolution.  

At any rate, I suggest it's worth a try.  

So why a new language?

Well, in the case of an actual language, it's really good for the brain.  It's pretty well-established that people who are reasonably fluent in two languages are more imaginative and intellctually flexible than those who are trapped in one.  Every language represents a different way of seeing the world.  I used to have fun - as a substitute teacher - explaining to French students how reflexive verbs express how the French enjoy an entirely more comfortable  relationship with their bodies than our rather detached, vaguely hostile one.  That was one of those lessons that really seemed to reach students - and it wasn't even in my field.

But I digress.  (Yes, I do that.)

Back at the beginning of this piece, I suggested that learning a language could be a patriotic duty - and I'd like to wrap this up by circling back to that idea.

In 2019, when I was campaigning for Liz Warren, I gradually realized how few of her supporters - mostly privileged, white liberals - had the language skills to communicate with Oregon's substantial Hispanic communities.  A year later, after the too-close election just passed, I shared the dismay of many at Joe Biden's loss of support in Hispanic communities - particularly, and perilously, in Florida's Cuban community.

And it occurred to me:  If I were a Democrat, at the birth of 2021, I would be starting a Spanish-language project among activists in my local party.  Before we know it, 2022 will be here - and the Hispanic vote will be critical to Democrats in holding the House and trying to gain an actual majority in the Senate. 

Since it's useless to start learning a new language a few months before the campaign season begins, now is the time - and in most of the US, Spanish is the language - for political activists who want to forestall the Return of Florida Man #1 - or someone like him - in four years.

Now, for those more interested in policy than in ground-game politics, other languages than Spanish could be equally useful.  Over the past year, the United States has demonstrated just how far behind the rest of the developed democracies we have fallen.  Take a look at the global statistics on Covid-19 (worldometer.com is a useful site), and you'll see just how miserably we have done, by almost every measure.

And yes, a lot of that has to do with Florida Man #1 being in the White House.  But it also has much to do with our national allergy to learning from other countries - especially a non-English-speaking countries.

This American affliction of We're-Number-One-ism severely hampers our ability to solve problems.  Americans seem to think we have to re-invent every imaginable wheel, when in fact, there is much to be borrowed from the successes of friendly nations.  Finland's approach to elementary education.  The French approach to health care.  The emerging Spanish approach to taming urban automotive traffic.  The Dutch approach to including bicycles in the urban transportation mix.  The German approach to a whole lot of things (including electing their national legislature).

I should include some ideas from Asia here, but I'm woefully ignorant about Asia's democracies.  We could all learn more.  Asia is on my list for 2021.

Now, at the top of this post, I referred to the possibility of learning another "language" in a metaphorical sense - i.e., learning to communicate with fellow Americans who see things differently, but who aren't downright hostile to our own points-of-view.  They're out there.  I'd be willing to bet that half the people who voted for the Florida Man #1 can't stand him.  

They just dislike the Democratic Party even more.  It would be useful to understand why.

But this piece is getting long - and I've been away from this blog too long to demand an endless read from those I'm trying to win back.  So I'll get back to learning metaphorical languages in a week or so.

Meanwhile, please, consider learning a literal second-language.  Or, if you can stand the maintenance work, getting back a language you used to know.  It's easier than it used to be.  The online apps are amazing - and many are free.  (If you need suggestions, leave a comment. I'll be happy to recommend some possibilities.)  

Think about it.  Happy New Year!  Bonne Année!

__________

* Florida Man #1:  One New Year's resolution I intend to work on is not speaking or writing the name of our out-going President, except when absolutely necessary.  He seems to thrive on attention - positive or negative.  It feels like using his name is a way of keeping him alive.  So I'm starting to refer to him as Florida Man #1.  It seems to fit.

If Schools Must Open, Let’s Try This

The following was originally posted on July 12, 2020.

I’ll preface this by saying that I’m not in favor of opening public schools until the US has implemented an effective, nationwide strategy for dealing with Covid-19 – which, unfortunately, doesn’t seem likely to happen before January 20, 2021.  

There are any number of strategies that might achieve this.  Some advanced nations – most prominently, New Zealand – seem to have figured things out.  Here at home, upper New England seems well on the way to stabilizing things.  

But America's southern tier is on fire, and the rest of us might not be far behind.  The US is still not stockpiling PPE against renewed eruptions of The Virus.  Between a third and a half of Americans don’t have the basic decency to wear a mask in public, even when the law requires it.  And we aren’t testing nearly enough.  (Despite the President’s assertions, the US currently ranks 23^rd in per capita testing.) *

All in all, it seems likely that businesses – and schools – will be closing and opening, again and again, from now until a new President is inaugurated. 

But that isn’t our topic today.

Today, I’m assuming the powers-that-be will, in most states, try to open schools at the usual time, or a bit later.  From the experience of other countries, we might be able to open normally – with a few adjustments – for elementary school kids. 

But for secondary students, while there is a plethora of plans, none looks very good.  The plans that seem relatively safe rely, in great part, on a good deal of remote learning.  The plans that essentially involve having most students back in the classroom don’t look remotely safe.

It would seem that we must either sacrifice learning, or safety.  No third alternative has been suggested.

What I propose might be that third alternative.  It offers something close to normal instruction – possibly with better outcomes for some students – together with greater safety than any in-school plan I’ve seen.  It has the added advantage of having been used successfully in non-emergency situations. **

It’s called ­­one-subject scheduling, and it works like this.  Instead of the present secondary-school schedule, by which each student takes five, six or seven courses at a time – with each course meeting once a day, or once every other day – under a one-subject schedule, each student would take one course at a time, all day long, for 5 ½ or 6 weeks.

The same teacher, and the same group of students, would meet in the same classroom for that six-week term, at the end of which, successful students would have earned one credit.  After a short break, during which all classrooms would be thoroughly cleaned, school would resume, with students moving on to their next courses.  At the end of a year – if no health emergencies supervened – students would be exactly where they would have been had they taken all their courses under a traditional schedule. 

The advantage of this one-subject system is that students and teachers would be exposed to only a small group of individuals for the entire six-week term.  By working out staggered times for breaks and meals, school administrators could minimize the number of students using bathrooms, cafeterias, and other common areas at the same time.  At meals, safety could be maximized by having students from the same class sit and eat together.

It wouldn’t be perfect, but with careful procedures and a little luck, it should greatly reduce the chance of viral spreading.  At worst, if a student or teacher came down with Covid-19, only the people in one class would have to self-isolate.  The rest of the school could, with precautions, continue to operate, avoiding a shutdown affecting the entire student body.

Indeed, using this system, a school could further reduce risks by holding classes in shifts – with some classes starting in the afternoon and running into the evening. 

Of course, there would be problems calling for innovative solutions.  Some subjects – math, foreign language, lab science – might actually work better if taught as an intensive course.  Others, such as literature – with its heavier reading assignments – would be more difficult.  

But resourceful and inventive teachers and administrators would find ways of making a one-subject schedule work to everyone’s advantage.  They might even find that it helps many students focus better, and learn more.

Let me end as I began.  I do not think that, in most parts of the US, we are anywhere near ready to re-open schools – at least, secondary schools.  Our national and state governments have a lot of work to do before that should be even thinkable.

But if schools must re-open, states and localities should seriously consider one-subject scheduling at the secondary level.  It’s safer.  And it would be at least as educationally sound as what we were doing before The Virus.

* https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

** Fork Union Military Academy, in Fluvanna County, Virginia, is one example.  FUMA has used this approach successfully for many years.

Serving Suggestion: A Meatless May

The Current Occupant has, by a strange contortion of his powers under the Defense Production Act, ordered that meat and poultry production facilities remain open during the present pandemic.

This curious order comes at a time when Federal leadership continues to be inadequate in meeting truly critical needs such as Covid-19 test kits and test-reading capabilities - to say nothing of a continuing supply of personal protective equipment for medical staff, first responders, elder-care workers, etc.

But, given the proclivities of the Current Occupant and his staff - some of whom are far cleverer and more devious than he seems to be - this order has a certain, bizarre logic.

First, its declared purpose - to assure a continuous supply of meat and poultry to the nation's grocery stores - comports with the Current Occupant's preference for a diet rich in animal protein.

Second, its assertion of a Federal power to re-open facilities closed by state health authorities consists with the present Administration's insistence that the powers of the national government - and particularly, the Executive branch - are supreme and unquestionable.

Third, considering the outbreaks of viral infections among workers in these facilities - a large number of whom are immigrants (documented and undocumented) - keeping these facilities open has a definite genocidal potential.

It is difficult to write these words, but for the past three years, our government has shown a surprising willingness to tolerate - and even sponsor - policies which have a tendency to kill brown and black people.  Whether it is by arresting Good Samaritans who leave water and food for undocumented aliens crossing Southwestern deserts; failing to provide sanitary and medical care for refugees along our southern border; pardoning a rogue soldier accused of murdering Afghan civilians; or failing to build on the previous administration's efforts to combat blue-on-black killings - the simple fact is that this Administration - our government - seems blithely unconcerned when its actions, or failures to act, result in the deaths of people who are not white.

The President's order that meat and poultry processors remain open - even at enormous risk to their workers - is of a piece with this tendency.   It will kill people, and many of those people will be brown or black.

We should do something to combat this policy.  But what can private citizens do to counter a Presidential order under the Defense Production Act?

Simple:  We could unite to take a vacation from meat and poultry. 

What if we began - starting today - to develop momentum for a nationwide Meatless May?  By the end of next month, we could have undermined the essential logic of the Executive order.

The Current Occupant's order rests on the assertion that the national defense relies on supply chains which provide meat and poultry to our grocery stores.   It's hard to justify that assertion under any set of circumstances, but if millions of us simply stopped buying and eating meat and poultry, it would make nonsense of the whole business.

For the truth is, most of us eat far too much animal protein.  A reduction in the demand for these products would be good for our health - and good for our planet.

In recent weeks, a number of thoughtful writers have commented on the possibility that the present economic shutdown might have the effect of accelerating a shift to the use of renewable energy sources, while hastening the death of the fossil fuel industry.

Perhaps it is time we considered a parallel step with regard another industry which contributes to global heating - the industrial processors of meat and poultry.  If we took this occasion to eat less meat - or no meat - it could help us realize that a diet low in animal protein is a viable lifestyle choice.

This is a small blog, and will not reach that many readers.  But think about it - and if you like the idea, please share the idea with your friends.

What would you say to defying the Current Occupant's new order by joining forces for a Meatless May?

It could do some good.

Update, May 2:  Since this piece was posted two days ago, the League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC) has called for national Meatless May Mondays in support of workers in meat and poultry production facilities.  Other groups have urged a more modest MeatLess May - less meat, but not none.  Still others have reminded Americans of the World War I era "Meatless May", a national movement to save meat supplies for the troops in Europe.

It is extremely unlikely that this modest blog had anything to do with these developments.  Good ideas often occur to several people simultaneously.  

You Think The Electoral College Is Undemocratic?

Democrats are curious folk.  Most Democrats, given an opening, will endlessly bewail the undemocratic nature of the Electoral College - an admittedly imperfect institution - because it sometimes allows a candidate receiving a minority of votes to become President, instead of the  candidate receiving the most votes. 

The most recent example, of course, is Donald Trump's Electoral College victory over Hillary Clinton, though for my money, the minority presidency which history will judge most decisive - in terms of furthering the 50-year downward spiral of American greatness - will be George W. Bush's judicially-decreed victory over Al Gore in 2000.

But in 2000 and 2016, the Electoral College winner was - at least - the choice of tens of millions of Americans.  In 2016, for example, Mr. Trump garnered around 63 million votes to Ms. Clinton's 65.9 million.

Compare that to the fact that - sometime in the next few months - Joe Biden will, all by himself,  select his running-mate for Vice-President.  A very consequential choice - made not by a majority, nor even a large minority, but by one old, white man.

As things look now, the object of this one-vote landslide will very likely become Vice-President of the United States on January 20, 2021 - from which point she would become Biden's constitutional successor.  Should Biden survive four very challenging years in office, - and choose not to seek a second term at the age of 82 - his hand-picked Vice-President would be ideally positioned to claim the Democratic nomination against all comers. 

Quite a bit of power to be wielded by a single citizen!  Yet thus far, no significant voice has been raised in protest against the radically undemocratic tradition by which our vice-presidents - often, our future presidents - are elevated.

Now, some will argue that the privilege of a major-party presidential nominee to choose his running-mate is a time-honored tradition, and that is true.  But it is a tradition less than a century old.  By comparison, the Electoral College - a tradition rooted in words of the Constitution - is well over 200 years old, and few still regard it as sacrosanct.

Moreover, unlike the Electoral College, the tradition of allowing a party nominee to name his running-mate doesn't even approximate something like a popular vote.  It is one man's decision.  By comparison, the election of a pope - in the secrecy of the College of Cardinals - is a New England town meeting.

And this year, that decision will be enormously consequential.  November's election will be - almost certainly - a referendum on President Donald Trump.  If Joe Biden wins, it will not be because Americans see him as the dynamic leader we need in a time of cascading crises.

Biden, a likable, unremarkable, old buffer, had run for President twice before, when he was younger and more dynamic.  His presidential prospects were resurrected when he was chosen - by the single vote of Barack Obama - to join the ticket in 2008. 

And this year, the resurrection of his fading nomination prospects were the product of manufactured fears - the so-called electabiity issue; the non-stop advocacy of certain media outlets - not least MSNBC's Morning Joe; and Biden's adoption by the black Democratic political machine of one red state, South Carolina - a state which will certainly not give him its Electoral votes in the fall.

Biden is hardly the candidate to infuse Americans with hope in these uncertain times.  He ran as the candidate least likely to frighten anyone undecided about voting against the President.  He was sold as a candidate for the race everyone envisioned six months ago - where Trump would run on a booming economy, and the Democratic nominee would run on Trump's incompetence at everything else.

What's needed now is not a bland, safe candidate, but a visionary reformer on the lines of the two Roosevelts.  But the least Democrats - and other Americans horrified at the prospect of four more years of Trump - should demand is that Biden's running-mate and prospective successor be the smartest, most dynamic, most competent, and most visionary person available.

If Biden chooses such a partner, he will greatly strengthen his case for being a welcome transitional figure as America moves beyond The Virus and into a new, more just, equal, and progressive era.

But shame on the Democratic Party - and all of us, really - for allowing one man to make such a monumental choice all on his own.

Let's Do This Today

Okay, Friends, here's the situation:

1.  We're in a national crisis, which Donald Trump is turning into a 24/7 campaign infomercial for his re-election campaign, while the Democrats - aside from performing well as legislators - are getting no media attention at all.

2.  The Democratic contest for President is over.  We might wish it were otherwise, but Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee in 2020.  The time for hand-wringing is past.

     2a.  Because of his age, if he is elected, Joe Biden will be a one-term
            President, and his Vice-President will be the odds-on favorite to
            succeed him in 2024.  And the choice of that person is entirely up
            to Joe Biden.

3.  The coronavirus pandemic will likely peak before a new Administration can take office.   For the moment, we have the least effective imaginable national leadership, but we'll just have to do the best we can through citizen and community efforts, and the leadership of state and local officials, to survive this thing.

4.  The economic impact of the pandemic will be devastating, and will require the wisest possible leadership to restore prosperity here, and around the world.

5.   The pandemic, and its economic consequences, have created two possible courses of action for America - either a corporate-led effort to "rebuild" the economy, so that the 1% and the .1% are even better off, and more dominant, in future OR a progressive-led effort to restructure our society so that we come out of this crisis with an economy which is much fairer, provides greater opportunity to more Americans, and is far more environmentally sustainable.

Given these apparent realities, there seems to me no question that Joe Biden must choose Elizabeth Warren as his running-mate.  Senator Warren is, because of her deep understanding of health-care issues, the most competent person in national politics to assist Biden in managing whatever continuing health crisis exists when he takes office.

Warren is also, by any measure, the smartest, most dynamic, most creative, and most far-sighted advocate of the sort of big structural change our society will need as the coronavirus crisis recedes.  If Biden is to be President, Warren must be his designated successor.

And the time to act is now.

Today, I went to the official Biden campaign website and signed up as a supporter.  Clicking through the website, the second page asks the question, "Looking ahead to the 2020 election, what are you most concerned about?"   I skipped past all the options provided, clicked on "Other", and wrote "Electing Elizabeth Warren Vice-President". 

Then I clicked through to the end and contributed $12 dollars - or, if your budget is tight (as most are) $1.20 or even $0.12- as a signal that, in your opinion, the Number One thing for Biden to do is to name Elizabeth Warren as his Number Two.

And that's what I'm suggesting that every other progressively-minded American do.  Today.  Send a signal to Joe Biden that he needs Elizabeth Warren at his side.  And do that at a time when the Democrats desperately need a headline-grabbing story to compete with the President for attention.

I'm guessing, if 100,000 of us do the same thing - sign up with Joe, indicate that Warren for VP is our number one priority, and contribute exactly $12 - that gesture will have the desired impact.

But there's only one way to find out.

At Home with Kids? Learn a Language Together!

With schools closing around the country, millions of parents are suddenly confronted by the problem of what to do about their children's educations.  The prospect of having the kids at home for weeks - perhaps, months - presents a daunting challenge.

It could also present a rare opportunity.

As an old history teacher who has delved pretty deeply into educational policy, here's my suggestion:  Learn a language together.

The advantages of language learning are enormous.  Most Americans - including college graduates and professionals - are effectively monolingual.  We might know enough to order food or wine in a French or Mexican restaurant.  Or find a restroom or get back to our hotel when travelling abroad.   If our jobs require it, we might be able to speak enough of one or two languages to communicate with co-workers on work-related issues.

But few of us are truly fluent, and - in a once and future global society - that's a handicap.  It's also a national embarrassment.

When I was teaching high school, in my early 30s, I used to take groups of students on three-week tours of Europe in the summer.  One summer, I let the kids fly home with a colleague so I could stay for a few weeks on my own, bumming around on a Eurailpass.  One day, I found myself on a train, in conversation with a pretty woman sitting across from me.  She was Swiss, a secretary, no more than 20.  I complimented her on her English - which was, in fact, very good.

She smilingly demurred.  Her English was not that good, she said.  Her German, French, and Italian were much better.

This young woman was obviously intelligent, but she wasn't a college graduate.  But she spoke at least four languages fluently.  I was at least twelve years older, and had a BA and a law degree from one of America's best public universities - and I spoke my native English and slightly rusty German.

I've never forgotten that moment.  It was humbling.  We are citizens of a super-power, at a time when the world has become one community - and most of us can't speak to anyone who hasn't taken the trouble to learn English.

And neither can our kids.

Now, I could go on and on about why this must change.  But we all know this.  The problem is, our educational system is not set up to make that change.

Our schools operate on the basis of short classroom sessions - 50 minutes daily, or 90 minutes on alternate days - with 20 to 30 students in a class.  Language learning works best when it's immersive.  You can't learn a language very well when it's just a box on a schedule.  You have to live with it.

For language learning, the class period or block is basically a waste of time.  Likewise the large, standard class of 20 or more students.

And, of course, one learns languages most easily as a young child - not a teenager.  The older you get, the harder it gets.

Which is what makes the present moment so ideal for language learning.

If you're at home with a child, or several children, learning a new language is something you can all do together.  Unlike other subjects, the younger children won't struggle to keep up with their elders - they'll probably excel.  If anything, you'll be the slow learner.

The other great thing about language learning is that there are so many ways to go about it - most of which don't feel much like work.  There are lots of on-line programs for basic instruction.  I personally enjoy Duolingo, a free app with short lessons and lots of little incentives, like a video game.  My favorite thing about Duolingo is that it doesn't let you finish a lesson until you get everything right.  There's no shame.  You just try again until you get it - and then you're congratulated.

There are a lot of low-tech ways to learn a language, too.  When I learned my German, it was in an eight-week immersive summer course.  I was 32, and I achieved decent fluency, with a very good accent, in eight weeks.  One of our first-day exercises was to label everything in our residence house - doors, windows, tables, refrigerators, floors, etc. - with hand-lettered index cards.  Within days, these nouns were ours.

We also did a lot of non-work-like things.  We watched movies in German.  We sang songs.  We talked to each other - clumsily, at first, looking up words in our dictionaries as we went.  (Our program's rule was, no English, from Day One - so we started with baby talk, but we quickly got better.)

During this enforced time out-of-school, a lot of parents will try to keep their kids on track with the curriculum of the school they were attending.  There's a case to be made for that, and if your kids' school is offering meaningful distance learning, you might try it.

The problem is, not every family will do that - or do it in the same way.  When the kids eventually get back together, there will be marked discrepancies - and a lot of the curriculum will have to be re-taught, to get everyone back on the same page.  Those kids who've worked hardest to "keep up" will likely have to suffer through it all a second time.

Rather than subject your children to sitting through a repeat of what they've labored to learn while school was out, why not take the opportunity to learn something together - in a way the schools can't possibly match?  It's a lot more fun - and it would bring the family together in a new and exciting way.

A little exploration will do for finding the necessary resources.  They are almost infinite.

Looked at optimistically, this time is yours.  Why not seize it?

Burr Should Resign, Now.

Throughout the endless years of the Trump Presidency, I've had a grudging respect for Senator Richard Burr (R-NC).  While Republican Congressmen such as Devin Nunes and Mark Meadows were, shall we say, obfuscating candidate Trump's involvement with Russia, Chairman Burr worked hand-in-hand with the Ranking Member, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), to lead the Senate Intelligence Committee through what looked like an honest, bipartisan investigation of the same subject.

Here, I thought, is an okay guy.  A Republican, admittedly, but a North Carolinian.  As a native and long-time Virginian, I've always tended to give residents of the Tar Heel state the benefit of the doubt.  (Unless, of course, they played basketball for Duke.)

To be sure, my estimation of Senator Burr was clouded by his voting record.  Mitch McConnell had a reliable Yea or Nay in the senior Senator from North Carolina.  But still, he seemed willing to investigate the President's Russia ties - and if you start investigating anything to do with Donald Trump, ain't no way it's going to come up smelling like roses.

So I was staggered to learn, from this morning's NPR newscast, that Mr. Burr had given a very realistic appraisal of the risks of a coronavirus pandemic to a handful of well-heeled contributors - mainly corporate types - who shared lunch with him on February 27.  A date when the Senator was saying absolutely nothing similar to the millions of ordinary North Carolinians who weren't members of the "North Carolina State Society" - but who were his constituents.

My immediate thought was, "He should resign."

Then I looked to see who happened to be the Governor of North Carolina - the person who would appoint someone to replace Mr. Burr, if he resigned.   Turns out it's Roy Cooper, a Democrat.  I quickly amended my thought to, "He must resign."

Now, to be sure, under North Carolina law, Governor Cooper is obligated to appoint someone who is of the same party as the vacating Senator.  So he couldn't appoint a Democrat.

But surely, there is, somewhere in the vastness of North Carolina - a state noted for independent-minded men and women - a Republican who holds as low an opinion of Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell as do other right-thinking Americans.

A Republican who would be willing to fill out the span between now November 3 denying Mitch McConnell - and the Stable Genius in the White House - a reliable vote for things like:  giveaways to corporations under the guise of doing something about the pandemic; wall-building as a way of keeping out viruses that are already here; and, most of all, nominees to the Federal judiciary.

All of which led me to this inevitable conclusion:  The Democratic presidential primary is over.  It's gonna be Joe Biden, and whomever he chooses for Vice-President - unless the Democratic Party insists he include someone else in the decision-making process.

But the Senate is going to spend the next seven-and-a-half months dealing with one of the biggest natural disasters in American history - and we need to be sure it does so in the interests of the citizens, not just the big donor class.

So, to me, the answer was obvious.  We should take our frustrated political energies and start demanding that Senator Burr resign.

Except, I knew that wouldn't happen.  Leaking information to your rich buddies, while concealing it from the rest of your constituents, is contemptible, dishonorable, and just plain wrong.  But in the Age of Trump, it also seems pretty routine - and it's not technically illegal

So I wasn't sure about writing this piece, until this evening, when I went on that Search Engine We All Hate to check my facts about Mr. Burr of North Carolina, and read that he and his wife had also dumped between a half-million and one-and-a-half-million dollars worth of stock two weeks before he told his rich buddies the frightening truth about the coronavirus.

Which certainly stinks.  And might just be illegal.

This new revelation made up my mind for me.  Burr must go.  We must all demand it.  We'll leave it to Governor Cooper to play Diogenes, looking for an honest Republican in North Carolina to fill Burr's seat until a special election can be held.

No harm if he takes a while making his choice.  No harm at all.

But Burr must resign.  Now.

So write a letter, and lick a stamp.  On second though, use a sponge.

You don't know where that stamp has been.

Who Chooses the Veep?

The unexamined life is not worth living.  
                                              - Socrates

Sometimes, the most consequential things in life go unexamined.  In the last century of American political history, one matter of high consequence is the unchallenged assumption that the newly-minted presidential nominee of a major party has the unfettered privilege of choosing his - so far, it has always been his - running-mate.

When you think about it, this makes no sense.  While some modern Presidents have chosen to make use of their Vice-Presidents, the truth is that - while the President has a pulse - a Vice-President's main function is ceremonial.  A Vice-President presides over the Senate, unless he is elsewhere, in which case some member of the Senate - nominally, the President Pro Tem, but any member of the majority party will do - fills in. 

Otherwise, the Vice-President is available to meet dignitaries, donors, and Girl Scout troops the President can't fit into his schedule; make speeches to groups the President doesn't need to address; cut ribbons; dedicate things; and attend funerals.

The Vice-President is also available for assignment to major Federal undertakings from which the President would rather distance himself - most often, undertakings with a substantial risk of failure.  As of this writing, for example, Vice-President Mike Pence has been tasked with heading up - in some vague way - the Federal effort to address the novel corona-virus pandemic.

In naming Pence, President Trump has signalled that he, at least vaguely, understands that his administration has badly fumbled its early response.  By losing about two months, the administration has virtually assured that more Americans will be infected, that critical public and private institutions will be more badly disrupted, and that - simply stated - more of us will die than would have happened had our "leader" done his job properly.

But with Pence on the job, Mr. Trump will, to an extent, be able to deflect the blame onto his understudy.  Should things go very badly, Mr. Trump will have a perfect excuse for dumping Mr. Pence in favor of a running-mate - perhaps Nikki Haley - who gives him a better chance of re-election.  Should things go well, Pence will be pushed into the shadows while Trump claims credit.

All of which is to say that Vice-Presidents do have some uses while a President is alive.

But the main function of every Vice-President is to be available to take over if the President dies - which, when you think about it - leads to this curious conclusion:

Of all the people who might have a say in the choice of a presidential candidate's running-mate, the one person certain to be least impacted - if that choice turns out to be consequential - is the person making it.

Because that person will no longer be among the living.

The year 2020 raises the question of the choice of running-mates to an altogether new level of immediacy.  Of the two remaining, viable candidates for the Democratic nomination, the younger - Joe Biden - is 77 years old.  Without going into the question of Biden's mental fitness for the Presidency, the basic fact is that - should he be elected - Biden would take office at the age of 78.  This raises three possible scenarios for a Biden presidency.

It's hardly unimaginable that a man of Biden's age would die in office - or become manifestly unfit to perform his duties - in which case, his Vice-President would become our President.

An equally likely scenario is that Biden would serve out his first term - even if his physical or mental health had rendered him unfit - shielded by the massive protective machinery which surrounds every President.  In such a case, he would almost certainly not run for re-election, but his Vice-President would have an enormous - probably insurmountable - head start in the race to succeed him.

Even should Biden weather his first term intact and decide to seek a second term at the age of 81, he would almost certainly be challenged for renomination and forced to retire.  Again, his Vice-President would be the presumptive nominee of the party.  Any challenger would face an uphill battle against an entrenched party establishment.

Should Bernie Sanders engineer a surprise comeback and seize the 2020 nomination from Biden, he would start his Presidency at 78, facing the same three scenarios in a somewhat modified order of probability.

But in either case, this July, if not before, one old, white man will get to choose - without recourse - a person who is very likely to become his successor as our President.

Upon examination, this makes absolutely no sense.  The trouble is, we don't examine it.  Americans will get into a quadrennial stew about the undemocratic character of the Electoral College, but few question that fact that several modern presidents have been chosen by one man, sitting in a hotel room with a few key advisers.

After today's primaries, it seems highly likely that the Democratic contest for the presidency will be ending its final phase.  An elderly man - chosen largely because of his bland inoffensiveness - will be on the way to an election which seems every day more probable because of the manifest incompetence of the incumbent in an hour of crisis.

That elderly man - whose very prominence was the result of another man's solitary choice twelve years ago - will, in four month's time, have the freedom to nominate someone who will very likely become President as his designated or elected successor.

Americans have just gone through the year-long, extraordinarily expensive, and intermittently entertaining process of choosing a Democratic nominee for president.  Millions of us have contributed to our chosen candidate, attended rallies, or worked as volunteers in this effort.  Millions more have watched some of the endless series of debates, or otherwise researched the candidates on-line, or through other media.

That none of us should have any say in choosing another probable president - that one old man should soon make that choice for us - seems too absurd for words.

The Democratic National Committee has the power to change this, by providing a mechanism which gives its convention some say in the choice of vice-president.  Democrats - regardless of which candidate they have supported or now support - should insist that the DNC take this long overdue step.

We should demand that they do this.

The Highest Priority (It's Not Beating Trump)

As the Democratic caucuses and primaries approach, Americans concerned with ending the current, reactionary regime in Washington must engage in some serious strategic thinking.  And one thing they must come to terms with is this:  Defeating Donald Trump is not the most important thing that can happen in 2020.

Yes, Donald Trump is a loathsome human being.  He is also - which is a different thing - a terrible president.  He manifestly deserves to be defeated in 2020 - ideally by someone whom he cannot stomach losing to.  Ideally by such an overwhelming popular and electoral margin that he refuses even to show up to witness his successor being sworn in.

Or the size of the crowd assembled for that glad day.

But there are two things more important than ending the Trump presidency.  First, we must elect a clear majority of Democrats and/or progressive independents to the US Senate, thus ending the reign of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  Second, we must elect a new President who will not be vulnerable to defeat in 2024 by a Republican even worse than Donald Trump.

Keeping these two objectives in mind will likely be too much for some institutional Democrats.  Since its founding, by Andrew Jackson - just years after the final exile of Napoleon Bonaparte - the Democratic Party has always had a profound institutional bias toward heroic presidential leadership, the politics of the "man on a horse".  As a result, Democrats tend to ignore "down-ticket" elections - a fact which has often allowed Republicans to gain more national and state legislative seats than they should, with often dire results.

Moreover, institutional Democrats - being institutionalists - tend to worry only about the next election, rather than the long arc of historical change.  Most of the time, this is understandable.  Parties are, after all, organizations designed to win elections.  But parties are not as evolved as, say, professional sports teams.  Parties have a hard time thinking about "building years".  They should learn.

At times, there are actually things worse than losing a particular presidential election - even the one that happens this year.

Now, I assume I won't have to belabor my first point.  Anyone familiar with recent history will understand - if not absolutely agree with - the argument that Mitch McConnell is actually more dangerous than Donald Trump.  McConnell's management of judicial appointments, by itself, has drastically altered the constitutional scheme the Founders had in mind - denying a sitting President the right to name a Supreme Court justice, and later ramming through the confirmation of a Justice almost absurdly lacking in judicial demeanor, to say nothing of basic integrity.

McConnell's control over budgets, legislation - even the trial phase of the impeachment process - has been equally malign.

Imagine any Democrat moving into the Oval Office next January - with Mitch McConnell still commanding a majority of the Senate.  You will find it difficult to imagine how that new President would be able to accomplish much - legislatively, or even in terms of naming judges.  Mitch McConnell - once a man of some principle - has become the living embodiment of the truth that great power corrupts.  Donald Trump can have, at most, one more term in office.  Mitch McConnell could go on running the Senate for another ten or twelve years.

Ending McConnell's tyranny - by reducing the Republicans to minority status in the Senate - is, for me, Job One.

My second argument may require more consideration.  Donald Trump is so bad - so historically dreadful as President - that it is difficult to imagine that anyone worse could be elected.

But consider the state of today's Republican Party.

Under the terror inspired by Trump, the Republican Party has become, essentially, a cult of personality.  We'd all like to think that defeating Trump would be the equivalent of Dorothy's throwing the bucket of water over the Wicked Witch of the West - that all of the Senators, Congressmen, governors, state legislators, opinion writers, talking heads, and others Trump holds in thrall - would be suddenly and gratefully liberated by his demise.

I suspect the opposite would be true.  One effect of the Trump era has been his purge of what few moderates and principled conservatives the Republican Party still had in office.  Over the past three years, dozens of Senators and Congressmen have decided not to seek re-election.  Those who have hung on have had their spirits broken, their honor stolen. 

What remains of the once presidential Mitt Romney?  What haunting - if easily-imagined - secret has converted Lindsey Graham from the principled legal thinker and shield-bearer to John McCain, to the fawning lick-spittle he has become?

In imagining future Republican candidates - at least for the next few election cycles - we must imagine that they will be creatures of Trump's malign influence.  In the long run, this will likely spell the doom of the Republican Party, but so long as Trump's influence lasts, it also means that future Republican candidates will be cast in his mold.

What if, in 2024, one of these Trump acolytes should win?

The danger is that the next Republican candidate - perhaps one of Trump's own children - will be far more competent than this President.  Trump is, after all, seriously deficient in the qualities that make for an effective dictator.  Aside from his ruthless efficiency in purging the Party of those who defy him, he has proved appallingly ignorant of domestic and foreign affairs; thin-skinned, cowardly and vacillating when criticized; easily-distracted and lazy in carrying out the duties of his office.  He is an aging child, more willful than intelligent, and likely in the early stages of senescence, if not some form of dementia.

It is not hard to imagine a future right-wing populist President who is younger; smarter; better informed; more energetic; more capable of assembling and working with a team; braver; and more resolute than the overgrown child now in the Oval Office. 

And, as that is true, we must understand that defeating Donald Trump will mean little if we do so by electing a President who will be vulnerable to defeat in 2024 - by a new, horribly improved Trump 2.0.

Thus, if ousting Mitch McConnell is Job One, beating Trump by electing a President capable of initiating several consecutive terms of progressive leadership is Job Two.

****

The time to start thinking strategically is now upon us.  The Democratic field is rapidly narrowing.  There appear to be four - at most five - viable options left.  Americans who want to bring the present horror-show to an end must consider, with great care, which candidate will be most likely to help elect a Democratic Senate majority; and most able to create an administrative and legislative record worthy of re-election in 2024; and most successful in passing the torch to another progressive President to succeed her/him.

Defeating Donald Trump will be a daunting task.  But, t'would be great pity, so it would, to do all the work necessary to bring this tyrant down - while leaving undone that which would assure that the entire, distorted movement which he represents falls with him.