To Bee or Not to Bee: December 2016

Where to begin. I'm honestly not sure. Writing helps me work through things. This may be scatter-shot in nature. Bear with me.

What did a vote for Trump mean? What did any vote mean? What did not voting mean?

I suppose the first way to approach this topic is in simple electoral terms. A vote for Trump was a vote for Trump. A vote for Clinton was a vote for Clinton. Simple. It can be said, however, that a vote for Johnson or Stein (or a write-in for Sanders or anyone else) was a vote for Trump. Backers of those individuals can (rightly) parse their motivation until the cows come home, but... math. This truth doesn't change the argument that viable third-parties would be good for the country. That is an argument that I'm prepared to make myself. The time to press for that change, however, is now... literally today. You want to reform the system, be my guest. Work your heart out. Convince your fellow citizens. If you succeed and a third (fourth, fifth) party becomes viable, then I will cheer your vote whether or not I champion your candidate. But until that party becomes viable, you are not simply wasting your vote -- no, your vote is having an effect on the election between the Republicans and the Democrats. And it is an effect that you cannot control, over which you have no say. (The exact opposite outcome of what a vote should be.) That effect may be meaningful as the math would indicate here in 2016 or meaningless as it would have been in -- say -- 1984. The reality of America today is that the only game that matters is Republican versus Democrat. By all means, change the game. It needs changing. But once the game starts, play by the rules and swing at the pitches offered. Don't take your ball and go home.

What if you didn't play the game at all? Over 43% of those eligible to vote didn't. Can it be said that not voting was a vote for Trump or if not a vote -- of course -- an increase in the likelihood of his victory? Perhaps. Of course it could be said that while the ideal of democracy dictates that the thing that is democracy is only made perfect when everyone makes their wishes known. In a perfect world, I'd agree with this. Sadly, we do not live in that world. We do not even live on the same planet as that world. And we never will. So maybe it is better that these folks didn't vote? Following that logic, the so-called elitist in me would argue that most of the almost 100 million people who didn't vote shouldn't have. Of course, following that logic, only those who truly, fundamentally took it upon themselves to understand the issues in play and to evaluate all arguments from many different sides... only those who could themselves argue for or against any topic raised during the campaign... it is only they who should have actually cast a ballot. There were almost 232 million people eligible to vote. Almost 132 million of them voted. I would argue that under the calculus of this argument maybe a million of them at most should have voted. That is .00431 percent of the voting population. In the short run, that would very likely bring a better result. It is not democratic in the way most of us (hopefully) understand democracy. And it is not representative of a world -- imperfect though it may be -- in which I want to live. So to those 43% who didn't vote, I say "step up next time." And to us all I say "educate yourself beyond what you have, beyond what you now believe necessary. When you think that you understand a topic, that you know a truth, question that. Be open to being wrong. And be able to effectively argue the other side of any topic if you truly want to get to the bottom of anything."

Are you a racist? A misogynist? An antisemite? An Islamophobe? A homophobe? A whatever-ist?

Donald Trump is a racist, a misogynist, an Islomophobe, and an antisemite. (He may or not be a homophobe himself, but he's given great power to those who clearly are.) In word, deed, and policy he has proven this time and time again. No reasonable person can argue anything else. Whatever Donald Trump may be, he is not shy about what and who he is. People rightly want "authentic" and Trump is that. And while I would argue that he also has no core beliefs -- indeed I will argue this later -- a lack of core beliefs doesn't change the fact that regarding racism, misogyny, antisemitism, and Islamophobia we knew what we were getting.

So, does voting for a man who is all of these horrible things stain you with these vile beliefs? To approach only one topic and to let it act as a stand-in for misogyny, homophobia, and others, are you a racist if you vote for one?

Surely, the anger that I'm now feeling prods me to say "yes." And certainly a good argument can be made for this. Trump not only was endorsed and fully-supported by the KKK and the new-in-name-only alt-right, but surrounded himself with its "thinkers." His (final) campaign manager [and now just announced as his chief strategist in the White House] and sadly his most effective political strategist mainstreamed the media championing its orthodoxy. We are not talking dog-whistle support. We are talking a full-throated white power "fuck you" shouted to the heavens. And knowing this, you still voted for him? (Or if you voted for Johnson or Stein, you didn't see this overt racism as worth countering with any means at your disposal?) You knew that your vote would help empower a racist and his racist advisers and embolden and perhaps mainstream his overtly racist followers. And yet you voted for him anyway.

So again, does voting for a racist make you an overt racist yourself? Maybe. At the very least, I think it can be credibly argued that the act of voting for Trump -- the act which best expresses fundamental power in our society -- was itself a racist act. (I specifically use the term "overt" because we are all racist to some degree implicitly; the research is clear that our society enforces this almost from birth.)

And yet most of us choose a candidate and cast a vote for a multitude of reasons. This inserts complexity and uncertainty into the equation. Life is messy. Life is grey, not black and white. So maybe a racist vote doesn't make you an overt racist. I hope that it doesn't. For if we really do have 59+ million voting Americans who are overtly racist, we truly are down a rabbit hole.

To anyone reading this who voted for Trump -- or who chose to vote and not vote for Clinton -- I do urge you to ponder this question. If you voted for Clinton, ponder it, too. And it is not a quick yes-or-no for any of us. If it is, you've failed to understand the underlying complexity of the issue and underestimated the profound influence the answer will have on your own life individually and on the health of our nation collectively. I'm struggling with it. It is worth the struggle.

And I will also say this it also worth pondering. Trump and much of the Right have been painting Muslims with one broad brush. They indicate that either all of them are terrorists or are potentially terrorists. Either all of them are bad or there is no way of knowing so we have to act on the basis that all are bad. If this is correct, then a vote for Trump absolutely makes you a racist. If the actions and beliefs of some in a group indict the entire group (Muslims) , then logically it holds for all groups (whites). Worth considering the next time you want to paint with that brush.

Addition 4 December 2016: A fantastic look at the election and the reaction to it by both media pundits and the political class is Everything Mattered: Lessons from 2016 Bizarre Presidential Election by David Roberts on Vox. It is a great, comprehensive, interesting read.

Our accountant is gay?

The discussion directly above talks about both -ism's and -phobe's generally. Now, I want to discuss it more personally. Here I'm going to use gay rights as the backdrop for this discussion.

Gay rights have jumped forward in past ten years in way not even the greatest champions of the cause foresaw. Sizable majorities view gay rights as human rights. And while there are both geographic and age-related differences in the data, it is increasingly become the norm across America. It didn't happen fast enough -- even with the recent past taken into account -- but the movement has made real progress.

There are a lot of reasons for this. One of them surely is that gay men and women across the country had the courage to come out of the closet in greater and greater numbers. Each of us thus had a greater and greater likelihood of knowing someone who was openly gay. Gay became less abstract and more known. Gay was our sister. Gay was my boss's son. Gay was the helpful person tutoring my child in math. Hate, fear, and the unknown are three peas in a pod. It is much harder to hate, much harder to fear the known.

A quick side track -- and not entirely off point -- is a bit by the stand-up comedian Elvira Kurt. In her 1998 stand-up special "Big Girl Now" -- which I adore -- she casually mentions that she's gay about 2/3 of the way through her set. And then she says to the audience (paraphrased): I tell my jokes. You laugh. You say to yourselves, I love this Elvira Kurt. She's wonderful. And then you find out I'm gay. I was gay when you laughed. I'm gay if you don't. The only thing different... is you.

If you liked and trusted your accountant before you learned he is gay... maybe it is easier to say "what difference does it make if he's gay? Still a great guy. Still a great accountant." It has the benefit of being both logical and friendly. A moral win-win. It shouldn't have to take personal connections to make us empathize with others. Empathy should be the norm. The moral arc of the universe is held up by empathy. So, I'll take it where I can get it.

I have many gay friends. Four of my best friends in the world are gay. They are family to me in every way except blood. Their successes are my successes. Their joy is my joy. And I feel their fear and pain, too. I feel it now. They fear that their marriages may be invalidated under law. They fear that children could be pulled from gay families. They fear that the very concept of legal family, of legal rights may be stripped away. It cuts me to my very soul. And they have a right to be afraid.

Back to the election. I love these people. I want them to thrive and I will work to protect them. I won't vote against their interests -- against their marriages, their families, their love -- not even when some positions championed by a candidate or party may benefit me personally. What is taxation policy against that? What is banking regulation against that? How on earth could I look at myself in mirror? How could I face my wife?

Yet I know people -- know family -- who will set aside the rights and well-being of those they profess to love for 2% on their taxes. It won't even be a question for them. I can't fathom it. It is the definition of selfish and immoral. How could they? How could we? Yet we do. Yet we have.

What if dawn doesn't come?

I fundamentally believe that 60 million Americans voted against the American ideal. Most of them also voted against their own self interest. This doesn't end well for those of us who supported Clinton. But here's the thing. It's not going to end well for the vast majority of Trump supporters either. I made the same argument about the election of George W. Bush. Twice. I made the same argument about McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. This is different. Those three men, wrong though I believe they all were -- and are -- on policy were all reasonable, mentally-normal human beings. They understood our system -- our collective contract if you will -- and understood that the contract itself was worth preserving regardless of the tactics chosen to pursue outcomes. I worked hard against the candidacies of those three men in treasure and sweat. I was saddened by my losses to Bush and heartened by my victories over McCain and Romney. Yet in those losses to Bush, I never felt despair, never wondered if the America I'd get back on the other side of his presidency would be fundamentally different systemically from that going in. Changed, sure. Lessened, yes. But still America.

Trump is different. The threat is different. The stakes are different.

Trump is an authoritarian. He has never made any bones about this on the campaign trail or in this near 40-year public life. He sees the world as black and white. Never grey. And for him, one side of that equation is Trump (the man, not the family). He cares only about himself. It is a pathology and I do not say that lightly. George W. Bush caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the maiming of tens of thousands more. That is despicable. Yet I don't believe that those deaths and disfigurements don't weigh on him. He is human and the consequences of his actions impact him, sadden him. Trump's don't.

It is ultimately about dominance with this man. That it probably comes from a core of fear doesn't change this truth or absolve him of its outcome. Deals are only good if only he wins. The mutually-positive outcome isn't sought and won't be tolerated. This is why no American banks will do business with him any longer. It is also why he has no close friends. No slight no matter how small can go unanswered and the response must far outstrip the original slight. You can see it in his dealings both personal and professional throughout his life. He lives via escalation, always pushing until the stakes become so high that the other party backs down. This is a crazy way to live. It is fundamentally immoral. In a leader such as is an American president, it is dangerous beyond belief.

This world view makes one easy to manipulate in small ways. Not a good characteristic for a leader. And it gives every perceived slight the chance to become something dangerous. The rhetoric of the campaign about temperament relative to military might, much less the nuclear codes wasn't just political posturing. I wish that it was. We may have blood on our hands again. And it may include our own.

But much more than that is the danger to our way of life -- our collective contract. Democracy is incredibly powerful. It is also incredibly fragile. It works because we agree that it will work, that it is in our collective interest that it does. The logic is circular.

Trump has shown no sign that he values checks and balances in any area of his life. I challenge anyone to find an instance when he acted in any way other than selfishly. I challenge you to find an instance where he took an action that caused him injury to help another. There have been a few instances of a positive outcome for others, but again I challenge you to find evidence that this was the desired goal of Trump or why he took the actions that he did.

This is not a man of principle. This is not a man of conviction. He has no core beliefs. Pick any topic and he's held opposing viewpoints on it. Sure, at times this can be seen as growth. But not for Trump. He blows with the wind. He changes this tune and his mind with the audience and its cheers. He will walk over anyone, do anything to get what he wants. There are no norms that apply to him. This is a pathology. In governing, it is also the road to tyranny.

And if my worst fears manifest themselves, it is unlikely that Democrats can effectively challenge him. Will Republicans? I fear not. In what way have Republicans not already rolled over for him? And elected Republicans have already broken with the norms of our government over and over again prior to Trump's rise. Putting the full faith and credit of the country in jeopardy and blocking any appointment to the supreme court are two examples and both are fundamental to the fabric of our political culture. It was Republicans who championed the investigation and ouster of President Nixon every bit as much as Democrats. And in taking that stance, the fabric of the social contract, ripped though it was, began to mend. Can you honestly with a straight face tell me that Mitch McConnell would check President Trump if it brought more power to him? Can you tell me that our other elected Republicans would? Perhaps a very few. Perhaps. But Republicans in general have been embracing authoritarianism generally for some time. It was part of a break with Reaganism that came about with the Gingerich revolution in 1994 and made fully-alive via Cheney in the aftermath of 9/11. This world view doesn't have to devolve into bad policy -- although I would argue that it has. But what it cannot do is act as a check on the greater grab for power... the very thing that will collapse our system of government and our way of life. And I very much fear that Trump will make that grab. And he won't even recognize that he is doing anything wrong when he does.

And Americans will cheer him for it.

Addition 4 December 2016: The idea that I had regarding the trend toward authoritarianism in the GOP was correct, but not the timeline. It has been growing since the 1960s and has now basically co-opted the party. For an absolutely amazing look at the research in this area and its affect not only on the GOP, but on American life generally, see The Rise of American Authoritarianism by Amanda Taub published last March on Vox. The tipping point for our final decent into authoritarian rule -- as opposed to authoritarian leanings -- may be the trigger of a future massive terror attack. This is scary, but makes sense even with a basic understanding of the social science. What is less self-evident is the affect that this movement might have on social changes such as the increasing acceptance of gay marriage in the US. The research demonstrates that something as seemingly personal and nonthreatening as same-sex marriage matters a great deal -- and frightens -- to those with an authoritarian bent and doesn't bode well for long-term civil liberties in the country.

Wait, did he just check his watch?

Remember when George H.W. Bush checked his watch during a debate and the world went crazy? The public didn't find it "presidential." And Bush paid the price in November. So, too, did Al Gore when he sighed while George W. Bush was speaking in one of their debates. Not even two years ago, this still seemed the norm. Today, it is laughable. Today, it is Leave It To Beaver versus Natural Born Killers.

What it means to be "presidential" has been altered. I want to quote a piece of an article at Vox by Ezra Klein.

But here’s the truth: The hard question isn’t Clinton and her candidacy. It’s Trump and his. As often happens after a campaign wins, we’re now taking his appeal for granted. We shouldn’t. Something scary and surprising happened here.
I don’t have a model of the American people that accounts for electing someone like Trump. He’s done too many things, said too many things, tweeted too many things that would typically be disqualifying in American politics. Remember when Mitt Romney was mocked for his car elevator? Trump has a house covered in gold. Remember when John Kerry was assailed for supposedly insulting the military by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Trump slandered war heroes and Gold Star parents despite getting repeated deferments from Vietnam. Remember when John McCain was dismissed for seeming ill-informed and out of touch amid the financial crisis? Trump doesn’t know how NATO works or what the nuclear triad is.
Sitting here and listing to all the normal political pivots that could have changed this election feels faintly ridiculous. For all the criticisms I just listed of Hillary Clinton, a majority of Americans thought Trump unqualified to serve as president, even on the day of the election. Most Americans heard Trump brag about sexual assault on tape. Voters knew Trump wouldn’t release his tax returns and probably hadn’t paid income taxes for decades. Voters saw Trump lose his ability to form coherent, factual sentences after the first 20 minutes of all three debates. Plenty of people knew Trump was buoyed by Russia’s direct intervention in the election. People had read his tweets, seen his bullying, watched replays of his cruelty.

This is just a small sampling of Trump's actions versus those who came before him in presidential politics. There is nothing that Trump did from the moment he announced that wouldn't have precluded him from obtaining the nomination in previous elections, with one possible exception. Maybe he could have gotten away with it in 2012. Maybe. There is no longer a bar set for the American president. Why?

Klein concludes his piece at Vox by starting to answer this question:

It’s easy to come up with stories where Clinton could have gained 2 points, or to theorize that another candidate could have gained 4. But on the merits, this should have been 60-40, or 50-40-10. Trump’s victory is unnerving in a way nothing else in politics ever has been to me — it suggests there’s no bar, no floor, no you-must-be-this-decent to serve. I thought more of my country.
So I have my theories. I can argue hypotheticals about Clinton versus Sanders, or Clinton versus Warren, or whether more visits to Wisconsin would have changed everything. The argument I can’t make is why so many of my countrymen looked at Trump and deemed him acceptable. Polls show that in narrow ways, the voters saw what I saw — people did believe Trump unqualified, unkind, dishonest, indecent. It just didn’t matter.
To explain Trump’s competitiveness, if not his win, you have to search for truly primal appeals that overwhelmed all that — the power of partisan identity, the fear of Others, a dominant racial majority that rose in fury against the idea that it was becoming a political minority.

I would answer it with two points. Partisanship. Racism.

So-called Red and Blue America live in two alternate universes. And they can do so, if necessary, while living on the same street. There is increasingly little need to seek out information that doesn't reinforce a preconceived notion. We have become a nation that forms a belief and then creates a narrative to fit that belief. I could write another ten pages on this topic alone. Today, here, there really isn't any need. Most on the right and the left voted Republican or Democrat because of that label. Trump was correct when he said he could have shot someone dead on Fifth Avenue and not lost votes. His campaign proved that. There is no longer a bar. There is only "other."

Partisanship may explain the disappearance of the bar, but it doesn't stand alone. It is simple fact that Trump spoke to and for the racist white power underbelly of this country. He brought it out into the light. And when he did so, America barely blinked an eye. Part of this was over eight years of slights large and small, epithets, marginalization, and outright hate thrown at President Obama helped normalize this thinking. From there it was a small step to fully embracing it as acceptable within our body politic. I shouldn't be surprised.

There has been much written over the past few years about multicultural America, how this changing landscape would alter our politics and how these new political communities would buoy this change. I see this as a good thing. Others of course do not. Yet, it never occurred to me that such a vast majority of white citizens -- men and women -- would choose to view their whiteness as a liability, as something to fear. Any objective look at this idea correctly labels it as "insane." Whiteness is still the norm, still the "ideal" in our society. It will be for a long time to come. But mix in an unalloyed partisanship and a complete disassociation with facts and racism will take hold. It will grow. There is only "other."

What would Jesus do?

One of the silver linings of this election cycle was the absolute proof that the religious right in this country is hollow, craven, and corrupt to its bones. It is as venal itself as the politicians that seek power via hugging the religious right tightly.

It would be hard to create a human more different from Jesus Christ than Donald Trump. Similarities? Both male? Both had mothers? I'm tapped beyond that. I'm hard-pressed to think of a single teaching of Jesus that Trump embraces. Can you think of one? To put this in the language of the religious right, Trump is not a godly man. He is just the opposite. And yet the religious right was all in for Trump. They painted Clinton not simply as wrong on policy, but as evil. Often terms like "demon" and "devil" were used. Churches preached that a vote for Clinton would guarantee a trip to hell. Sure, these are crazy fucking people to begin with, but this is off the charts nuts.

Full disclosure: I am not religious. I was for a long time, but am no longer. Generally, I see religion as the enemy of faith. And I am a person of faith. I do have a fairly strong literacy of Christianity -- its underlying philosophy and structures -- and some-but-much-less knowledge of other mainline religions. A student at heart, I still read books from time to time on religious philosophy and dogma.

With all of this in mind, I've been grappling with the question "can you be a Christian and vote for Trump?" If Trump is the opposite of Christ in motivation, word, and deed, the answer certainly seems "no." I hope that there are some scholarly articles and/or books written on this topic in the years ahead. There may be angles I'm missing. I'm honestly curious to see how this thinking evolves.

I was encouraged to hear of some evangelicals -- mostly female, mostly young -- who broke ranks with the heads of their churches and other religious organizations... many for good. I often heard that Jesus said an awful lot about greed and embracing those who are different -- indeed who are despised -- and nothing about abortion or transgender bathrooms. They have the right of it.

I pretty much roll my eyes when I hear the question "what would Jesus do?" not because it isn't a good, valid question -- it absolutely is! -- but because circumstances almost always prove that the person asking is simply trying to pat themselves on the back. They are not asking in good faith if you will. Now is a good time to change that. To honestly ask the question. I have a feeling the answer will not be welcome.

The Fourth Estate

The media, to put it mildly, failed in this election. News rooms around the country failed to take Trump seriously until much too late. Of course, so did I. But I lack the reach of a small-town newspaper much less CNN. And most failed to take him seriously even at the end. I can't think of an outlet that didn't promote Trump from the get-go. CNN covered his rallies in real time with no editing. CNN hired his surrogates while they were still being paid by the Trump campaign. The New York Times ran more stories and featured more front-page headlines about the Clinton emails than about the Trump sex scandals... by almost two to one. By and large, media hasn't been about the Truth for some time. It has been about allowing all sides of a story to tell their story... often without filters or context and almost never with fact checking. We are living in a time of false equivalency.

The best example of this is on climate change. As close to 100% as you can get of scientists around the globe believe it exists and is largely human-driven. And yet it is rare you will ever see a talking head panel that doesn't just include a climate change denier, but that gives full credence to the denier's point of view. Giving equal voice to something so repudiated by experts is bad enough, not calling it out as fabrication is even worse. And it is unlikely to change.

CNN made a billion dollars -- with a "b" -- on the back of Donald Trump this past year. Reality TV pays and its cheap to produce. 99% of it is garbage, but it makes money. So, too, is it with Reality TV news. And not just on TV, of course.

The idea that the media is liberal is a given on the right. By and large, this has never been true in the US. It is demonstrably false right now. Our media is almost universally owned by large multi-national corporations. And unlike news efforts even two decades ago. the news divisions are not seen as halo loss-leaders; they are expected to make money. And they will be run in such a fashion in terms of size, scope, and content. Individual reporters may be liberal in their own outlooks. Reporting today is not. Multi-national corporations always seek to minimize risk and to shift risk outward. They operate in no other fashion. They always have issues before governments with the government of the US chief among them. News can make enemies. Corporations don't like enemies. They want safe. And so the news divisions are, by their very nature as arms of these giant corporations, conservative (small "c"). Denial of this reason is not simply made easier, but almost ensured given the balkanization of our news consumption. Those on the Right can say "your nuts" because what is featured on CNN isn't as full-throated as what they see on Fox News. True, although in that particular instance I'd argue we are simply talking about c's... small "c" for the former and capital "C" for the latter.

It's hard to call out the truth when your financial well-being depends on greasing government oversight. It is hard to call out truth when you don't want to piss off advertisers in even the smallest fashion. We have never needed a solid, functioning, healthy press more than now. It benefits everyone except those with something to hide, except those using and abusing the system. And by and large, Americans just don't care. This is not a recipe for reform.

And it wasn't just our news media that failed. SNL featured candidate Trump as its host. Jimmy Fallon tustled his hair. Comedians are not generally called upon to speak truth to power in their work as necessity. In a world with a functioning press, there would be little need. We do not live in this world and Lorne Michaels and Jimmy Fallon helped to mainstream, to normalize Trump. They shouldn't feel shame as comedians. They should feel shame as citizens and as men.

There is one more point to raise here, one big problem we are again seeing with Trump. During the campaign, Trump didn't travel with press as part of his movements. The press traveled to events, sure, but not with Trump. Historically, candidates traveled with a press pool on their plane/bus/train. The press went where the candidate did. Not with Trump. There were times his campaign overtly left the press behind, didn't even tell them of their movements. This is mindboggling. And it isn't healthy for democracy... quite the opposite. And it is scary. And it hasn't stopped since Trump becoming president-elect. There is only one reason to limit the press. You fear the people knowing the truth. And even given everything I've said about "truth" and "journalism" not being especially close friends at present, this is still revolutionary. And it blows my mind that people are fine with it, even and perhaps especially given that the people that "don't trust government." And the scary thing is that as I've said before, changes become normalized. This matters people.

I'm not a doctor, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I'd like to start this by saying that Americans are too stupid to live, but that just isn't the case. They are simply too stupid to live well. Their hearts will go on beating regardless.

Somehow, over the past thirty years, both education and the expression of education have become anathema to a huge part of our population. Experts and expertise have become suspect.

No doubt this is part of the distrust of -- and war upon -- the media. I think it likely goes deeper than that. I'm not certain of its full roots. Its manifestation, however, has profound effects on our society. Hell, it just got Trump elected president.

And while that is certainly true and the fact that this malformity is more a creature of the right than the left is also certainly true, it also affects the left. One only needs to listen to the baying of the anti-vaccine crowd to see this. Still, fostering this outlook has become part of the playbook of the right, both in the US and abroad. Trump is already institutionalizing it.

Expertise matters. Expertise is necessary. The more complex the society, the more necessary it is.

Our world... our lives... are more complex than ever before. You do the math. (Well, do the math if you believe in numbers.)

Out of the Gate (aka: It Comes Down to Medicare)

The incoming Trump administration and the GOP in Congress have signaled their intention to overturn and/or end the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, SNAP, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Department of Labor Fiduciary Rule, overtime pay protections, DAPA (DREAMers protection), and others. Any and all of these will harm everyday Americans significantly. The biggest of them all is Medicare.

Josh Marshall at TPM makes the point that it is the fight to save Medicare that should be the singular focus to which the progressive left should give its all. This is something that quite literally would be taken from all Americans. And as a result of that universality, it is a fight through which progressives can reach out for support on other issues and to save other programs. The loss of Medicare would be a huge blow to the safety of all Americans. Not having to worry about health care in later years allows the fortunate to travel or pass on wealth to future generations. For those less fortunate, it allows them to spend money on shelter and food. There are very, very, very few people who can say that the loss of Medicare wouldn't affect them personally. I think Marshall has the right of it.

I strongly suggest you read his editorial here. If you want to understand both the currnt GOP plan and how it differs from earlier versions of a voucher system, I cannot recommend reading this white paper from The Brookings Institution highly enough. And then rally to the cause of medicare. Both your retirement and your healthcare are absolutely at stake. #SaveMedicare

And if you don't believe that Social Security is next on the list for destruction you are kidding yourself. Your retirement security as a whole is at stake. You and your children are at risk. Act like it.

Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires

I'll be closing with a "call to arms." Part of that is providing financial support to organizations that will (1) use the money to affect real, positive outcomes on a whole range of progressive issues; and (2) spend their money as effectively and efficiently as possible. My wife and I have decided to really up our game when it comes to giving. While we have always made financial assistance a priority come tax time each year, we'll be expanding both the scope of our giving and our total financial commitment. We'll be giving to more organizations across a broader field of causes. Organizations that seek to influence policy and influence citizens' thinking, as well those that are simply doing the leg work to make human and animal lives better will be on our list. Where we are able, we will offer sustaining gifts of automated monthly donations. Such gifts help not only with dollars, but allow organizations to better plan for the long-term.

In martial terms, this is a long-term war and there will be many battles won and lost along the way. We must take the fight to the enemy on many fronts and we must pursue positive outcomes in any way that we can. If we lack effective voice in government, we much affect change through private means... while never forgetting that accountable representation within our government is the ultimate goal. The enemy effectively fights across many avenues. We must do the same. Believing that change will come any other way is a pipe dream.

With the above in mind, here is the list of organizations we'll be supporting this year. And yes, it may very well grow over time. If anyone has suggestions for other worthwhile organizations, please do post them in a comment. Thanks.

American Civil Liberties Union (if you live in a red state, consider a gift to your state chapter)
Free Press
Human Rights Campaign
The Trevor Project
Southern Poverty Law Center
Americares
Doctors Without Borders
Planned Parenthood
Center for Reproductive Rights
International Rescue Committee
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America
Conservation International
National Resources Defense Council
WildCRU (Wildlife Conservation Research Unit)
Project Chimps
National Public Radio (give to your local station; consider giving in a red state as well)
Public Broadcasting System (give to your local station; consider giving in a red state as well)
Democratic National Committee
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
Emily's List

My wife and I will be giving to our colleges and graduate schools as we do every year. However, we will also be looking for community colleges in our area and throughout the country for gifts as well. We will also be giving to the animal adoption and shelter centers in our area a suggest that you do the same where ever you live. So, too, will we be giving to the food bank in our area as well as to food banks in the areas of those whom we love and suggest that you do the same.

In our extended family, we have decided not to give each other gifts this year and beyond. We don't need more stuff. Instead, we will all be providing additional gifts to organizations that are doing work that is meaningful to the people in our lives. It is the gift that will keep on giving.

Where to now?

How the hell should I know? We are down the rabbit hole here. I've been adding to and editing this since just after the election. The concept of Trump as president is starting to become "normal." I no longer do a mental double-take. The reality of the situation, however, has gone from bad to worse.

The man continues to be erratic with only a tangential relationship to reality. He's surrounded himself with the refuse of the right and given the state of the right in America today, that is saying something. Not only has he surrounded himself with racists, antisemites, and homophobes, they pretty much all have no experience for their jobs. There is an old saying: When you want something to fail, put someone with no experience in charge. Whether by design or stupidity, this is the sad reality we face. Of course, GOP policy for four decades has been to kill government by overtly working against it being effective.

I can't change that today.

So what can I do? What do I recommend doing?

First, don't hide. Yes, obtaining news right now can be disheartening. The what-might-have-been's are still strong in our brains, which only weighs down our hearts. What I can assure you, however, is that Trump et al would like nothing more than for progressives to give up and go away. Don't give them the satisfaction. Your way of life -- our collective way of life -- depends on that not happening. Truly.

As I said, our media sucks. By and large, what isn't in the tank is simply poor. The economic incentives to get better are not there, so don't hold out a huge amount of hope. So support independent journalism. Pay for it. Consume it. Education yourself. It will be money well-spent on yourself and a gift to society.

Talking Points Memo (join TPM Prime)
Mother Jones
New York Magazine
The New Yorker
The Atlantic
Jacobin Magazine

If you also consume mainstream media -- and you should -- don't put all your eggs in one basket. You'll know less and your worldview will be more and more narrow. Split your TV and reading time. If you watch Fox News now exclusively, mix in CNN. If you only read the New York Times, read the Wall Street Journal, too. Over time, you'll start to see the playing field as it is; you'll notice where they drop the ball and how they assume you're a fool. Don't let them. We need them to be better than they are. Do you best to hold them accountable. Hold yourself accountable.

Laugh, both with friends and at our sad reality. Rely on Sam Bee, John Oliver, Seth Meyers, and Trevor Noah to pick you up... and maybe even guide you to the truth. (I only thought I was going to miss Larry Wilmore before. Now I know how much we need his voice.)

When it comes to the actual practice of politics, get involved and stay involved. The right is where it is today because they took a long-term view and implemented their strategy over decades. They don't give up and they don't stop. The NRA has influence that far surpasses its actual dollars and numbers. Why? Because those who hold its policies dear act and act and act again. They make calls on every issue important to them. Not once. Not only when votes are coming up. Not only when elections are around the corner. Every damn day. They have kids and they do it. They are tired from work and they do it. If you don't expect them and those like them to kick the shit out of you over and over again, you will do the same.

You need to learn who to contact and how to contact them. And then you need to do it and do it and do it some more. You need to do it whether you live in a red or blue state. You need to do it for every issue important to you. And you need to give money to political organizations that will wisely champion these causes. BUT you cannot only give money. If you don't have skin in the game, again don't expect to win. Ask President-elect Hillary Clinton.

Consider making yourself a plan for your engagement. For example, I plan to make calls about Medicare every Tuesday. I will also make calls every Thursday on other topics (climate change, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, etc.). Sure, I may need to mix more in from time to time, but we're talking maybe 30 minutes a week here. It isn't much. Just make a plan and stick with it. Google reminders exist for a reason.

And progressives need to operate on every level. Democrats have played for the national government to the exclusion of state and local races for too long. The GOP rightly sees that state and local power is the primer for national power and a backstop when national power fades. Again, they took the long view. We are suffering for their decades of effort. We must evolve. Doesn't matter whether you live in a red or blue state, that state matters. Your city matters. Get good folks elected. It will have profound consequences.

I plan to practice what I preach. We on the left better get with it. We better focus on what unites us rather that on what divides us. The perfect cannot become the enemy of the good. That mindset will end in the suffering of real people. That is how we have Trump.

I'll think we have a shot when (for example) the young Bernie Sanders supporters show up for a midterm with as much passion and voice as they did for the Democratic primary. Otherwise, get out of the way and STFU.

There are ways beyond governmental politics to make a difference. Give to and champion progressive causes. Give to organizations working to better the lives of people, animals, and the environment. And again, don't just give money.

And when you see something, say something. Hate, vitriol, and misinformation are about to spread through our country with wild abandon, now sanctioned from the very top. Yet you have more power than you think one-on-one. When you hear something racist, call it out. Don't stand for homophobia. Do the right thing. Pull people back from the edge. It matters. It's a long game.

Remember that progressives and those who lean to the left are a majority in this country. The numbers are on our side even if the system is not. Yes, we have minority rule. We are the opposition party; not the minority party. There is power in that. Let's use it.

Quit Facebook. You'll be happier and you won't be supporting something making a buck on the dissolution of democracy.

Use your money to champion the causes close to you. Money talks in America. Spend it with businesses and organizations that try to do well by doing right.

Take care of those you love. Be decent to those you meet. Don't hate those who don't believe as you do. Don't run away. Stand up for those who have no other options.

Nelson Mandela said after climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb.

Strap on your boots. Let's walk.

Together.

Finally Published 2 December 2016

Additional links added: 5 December 2016

Addition 19 December 2016: On the day the Electoral College votes, Josh Marshall provides his wrap up on the election here from TPM.

To Bee or Not to Bee

Friday, December 16, 2016

FBI: Nefarious or Simply Negligent?

Sunday, December 11, 2016

Donald Trump Is Gaslighting America

Friday, December 2, 2016

President-elect Trump & Where I Go From Here