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.