BY HIS DEEDS, PART THREE

First, two key points drive my observations here. First, Donald Trump lies. That point has been exhaustively demonstrated, and it needs no further comment here. Second, a group of good, honest, hard-working people voted for Donald Trump because they believed those lies.

Donald Trump has now demonstrated to those people that he was lying about the very things that caused those good people to vote for him. There are many things that he lied about that have been exhaustively catalogued elsewhere. “Putin is our friend” and “China is a currency manipulator” are on that list.

The two lies that most betray the working people who voted for him have now come starkly clear, not by mere words but by his deeds. Trump promised those people that he would replace Obamacare with an insurance program that 1) insured everyone, 2) cost less, and 3) covered more procedures. The program presented by Paul Ryan, and endorsed by Donald Trump, does exactly the opposite of all three points. It insures fewer people, costs more, and covers less. Don’t take my word for this. Listen to how Ryan presents it, and listen to how Trump lies about it. For instance, Trump said recently that Ryan’s plan preserves the ban on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. The most recent version of the proposal allows states to increase rates for people with pre-existing conditions, which will make it impossible for those people to afford the plan. Trump and Ryan make it sound like the program covers everyone by saying that the plan provides “access” for all to insurance. That is the same as saying that we all have access to purchasing jet planes.

Trump’s second lie may be even worse than the first. He promised those hard-working people that he would reform the tax laws and, by doing so, give a huge boost to jobs and to the economy. “You’re going to win so much you’re going to get sick of winning,” he said. Now the “tax plan” has arrived. It provides enormous tax breaks. The problem is that you have to have an income in excess of a million dollars a year to see any of it. Worse, the gigantic tax breaks he gives himself and others of his income level will cause the national debt to skyrocket, and that will lead to the biggest economic collapse this country has ever seen.

Neither one of these plans will succeed, because a number of reasonable conservatives have, so far, rejected Trump’s efforts to put these things in place. Whether they can continue to do so remains to be seen. What should be clear to those who were swindled into voting for Trump is that he lied to them about the things that most mattered to them — income and health care for their families.

We will likely have Trump for three and a half more years. He will continue to damage both the substance and the image of America throughout that time. On these two issues, however, if he and Ryan and their cronies succeed, America will not be the place into which you were born.

y of it.

BY HIS DEEDS, PART TWO

A very large majority of the people who voted for Trump did so because they felt, and justifiably so, that our political system was not working for them, that the politicians in power were in fact ignoring them. They are the hard-working people, the factory workers and the construction workers and mine workers, who have had to struggle more and more to feed, clothe, shelter and educate their families while the country worries about everyone else except them. They are the ones who really support this country with their taxes, and they felt they were getting far too little in return. They wanted change, and the only one who was offering that change was Trump.

Trump did promise change. He just didn’t say what those changes would be, or, when he did, he apparently didn’t mean it. So, since we clearly cannot believe anything he says, we are left to judge him by what he does. I list here some of the actions that will deeply affect the rights of those hard-working Americans who looked for Trump to improve their situation.

First, Trump has appointed nominees to his cabinet, people who will be in charge of the large departments of his government. For secretary of defense, he appointed a man who is universally acclaimed for his ability and his experience. For secretary of state, he has appointed a man who spent his career as an executive of Exxon oil, his last job being CEO of that company. He has business experience around the globe, but he has no government experience at all. The jury is still out on him.

Several appointments look like they are going to hurt the working class Trump voters. A secretary of labor who is anti-worker and who feels that the minimum wage should be lowered or eliminated. A secretary of Environmental Protection who opposes protecting the environment. Worst of all, a secretary of education who has little or no understanding of the job, but who has spent most of her life trying to take money out of public schools and put into religious or for-profit schools.

Next are the executive orders:

A ban on entry to America by people from seven Muslim countries and a suspension on entry for refugees, but with priority given to Christians.
An order allowing tax-free organizations like churches to use their facilities to endorse politicians and political issues.
An order striking a law requiring investors to work in the best interests of their clients.
An order to ignore the environmental impact of building oil pipelines through the states.
An order banning all funding to any agency that gives aid to groups that allow or promote abortions.
A hiring freeze on all governmental workers, including health workers for veteran.
An order to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, with no indication as to what will replace it.

The hard question for those who supported Trump is whether these are the kinds of change they were looking for. It seems that such orders will weaken public education, lower wages, isolate America thus making products more expensive, and make medical treatment and medical insurance harder to get and more expensive. We don’t know this for sure. All we can do is wait and see. The point is that, whatever we do, it must be done in the interests of all, most of all the interests of these hard-working people who are the ones who pay the bills and the ones who will feel the impact of Trump’s actions most strongly. They asked for change, and they deserve change. It looks like Trump will give them change that they, and those they care for, neither asked for nor deserve.

ENOUGH IS WAY MORE THAN ENOUGH

A long time ago, someone gave me what I think was the best advice I have ever received regarding teaching. It was as follows. If one student doesn’t understand you, it is that student’s fault, but if several students don’t understand you, it is your fault. Looking at that bit of wisdom always makes me hark back to my first day of teaching, when, after lecturing for fifteen minutes with my back to the class, I turned around to see pretty much every student in the class staring at me with his or her mouth open. Thanks to this principle, I was able to send the class home and promise to do much, much better next time.
Over the years, I have come to realize that there is a far wider application for this brilliant observation than just teaching. In particular, it has a very specific application to governance. If you are truly a citizen of the United States, then you operate on the principle that government is meant to serve the people by maintaining equality and protecting the inalienable rights of every human being. By “government”, we in the United States mean “we the people”, served by representatives. Thus the term “representative democracy.” So a government fails, and, by implication, we all fail, because, as members of this nation, we are each responsible for maintaining that equality and those rights.
We cannot, of course, eradicate inequality and the violation of rights. There will always be those who will game the system or ignore or trample on the rights of others. What we can do, however, is be vigilant to see where major and continuing violations of those rights occur and address the issues that are creating or allowing those violations. To put that in terms of the above aphorism, if one, or a very few, people, suffer a violation of their rights, it is the fault of the offenders. If, on the other hand, there is a widespread injustice, we as citizens of the United States are failing and need to do whatever we can to reduce or eliminate that injustice.
So, let us apply the principle. There is always crime in America, as in any population. There is always drug and alcohol abuse. There are always murders. If, however, drug abuse and murder escalates, then we need to look to ourselves to see if we are somehow failing as a community. Likewise, if there is some fringe group of non-Americans who do not like us, that is their problem. If, however, large segments of the world population express profound hatred of our governmental or business activities, then we need to see if we are in fact violating the rights of those populations.
Unfortunately, a great deal of this is true today. Crime in general, and murder in particular, is rising drastically across the nation. Drug abuse has skyrocketed, particularly with heroin. And in large populations in the world, America is looked upon as a country that routinely violates people’s rights and uses devious business practices purely for profit.
What do we do about it? Well, I can certainly hear the voice of those who say that we should do nothing, that whatever America does is okay, that it is in fact disloyal or even treasonous to suggest that we are to blame or that we have done anything illegal or immoral as a nation. Such talk is at best naive and at worst disingenuous. We are draining the American population of its wealth and opportunity and handing it over to superwealthy few. We are in desperate need of funds to adequately — and justifiably — run this country. Our roads are a mess, our schools are being drained of money, our health system is sucking us dry. People are despairing, and, when they despair, they do things that add to the damage.
We have, for far too many years now, reduced our tax income and then paid for the deficit by eliminating the basic benefits that our government was created to supply. The myth that reducing taxes would somehow be of benefit to us all has been exploded in a sea of violence and misery. We have, in sum, substituted private gain for public rights, and either we will end that failed policy or it will end by itself, violently.

THE ILL LOGIC OF TAX REDUCTION

In the state of Wisconsin, Scott Walker came into office with the state having a surplus. He used that surplus to give a very large tax break to the wealthy and to corporations. The surplus was not sufficient to make up for the reduction in state income, so Walker cut benefits to the poor and the middle class. For instance, he made various municipal and state employees pay more for their fringe benefits. Thus a school teacher making $50,000 a year was required to pay $600 a month more for health benefits. In effect, he reduced a middle class worker’s income by $7200 annually and gave a several thousand dollar tax reduction to someone making $500,000 or more. Now, we discover that, because of these tax reductions, Wisconsin has a two billion (2,000,000,000) dollar deficit. Walker’s solution? Cut middle class income more and give the wealthy another tax break. And, when that tax reduction causes yet another deficit, … Well, the rest follows logically.

It is, however, not the logic that is in question here. It is the principle that gives birth to that logic, a principle that those who pursue such logic are loathe to discuss. One would assume that this principle is the time-honored shibboleth of conservatism, namely, that smaller government is better government. To put it another way, if we have a choice of doing something through government or through private industry, then we should choose private industry because it is more efficient and effective. That principle has been proven true far too many times to be doubted. Private effort, whether driven by profit or by charitable dedication, has time and again provided results that no governmental bureaucracy could possibly have accomplished.

You will notice, however, that the conservative principle is only effective if we have a choice. It is universally admitted and goes without question that there are areas where we do not have a choice. The most obvious of these is the area of military defense. It is simply incovceivable that we could provide anything approaching an adequate defense of this country by use of private armies. Even in defense, however, we use private industry to equip our armed forces, because private industry can do that more effectively than any kind of state-run manufacturing system.

So now we can come to the real issue for discussion between rational conservatives and rational liberals: in what areas do we not have a choice? The answer depends, ultimately, on what the ideals are that constitute your form of government. If, for instance, your form of government is based upon the ideal of an all-powerful state, then you likely will never have a choice. Government must do everything, must nationalize industry and control communications and eliminate the profit motive altogether. Such was the disaster of the Soviet Union.

What, then, is the American ideal? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each is endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” To put that another way, to be an American is to be unconditionally dedicated to seeing that all human beings are provided with those rights fundamental to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Herein, I propose, lies the difference between true liberal and true conservative. Both camps must, on pain of losing their right to be called American, believe that every human being deserves these fundamental rights. I think it obvious from the fact that they are the constant topic of conversation, that these rights include the right to basic medical care, the right to a living wage, and the right to an education befitting their abilities. A rational discussion between liberal and conservative would be about the best means to provide these rights to all Americans. There are those rational liberals who make a good case that, for instance, on medical care, it is only the government that can implement a program of adequate medical care for all Americans. There are rational conservatives who make an eloquent case for the argument that private industry could do a better job of providing that care.

The logic of each of these positions is both formally and substantively sound, because both positions honor the fundamental ideals that constitute what it is to be an American. There is, however, rampant in the public fora, a far less sound logic, a logic that, while specious, is diseased by its founding principles. How else can one explain a policy of cutting education, cutting health care, cutting wages and benefits? The principle driving such policies can only be: that is good which profits me. This diseased logic, this ill logic, is fatally flawed at its core. It is flawed because it is an abandonment of the American ideal for the ideals of self-interest. It not only serves itself; it promotes itself by encouraging others to serve themselves. It promises its advocates to reduce their taxes, eliminate their need to be safe and to protect the environment and honor the rights of others.

This appeal to self-interest is, I put it to you, is a core problem in American politics. It may not be new, but I doubt that it has ever been more pervasive or more loudly and openly promoted. Taken to its logical end, oligarchy, it would end with the abandonment of the American ideal that stands in such stark contrast to it. I know that every human being deserves basic medical care, basic education and a basic living wage. I am convinced that every rational conservative in American agrees. I fear that liberals and conservatives alike are being ignored and their ideals rejected in the name of self-interest.

BULLMOOSE LOGIC

Everything has a logic, even illogic. Logic, after all, is only the art of laying out the consequences of any given set of first principles. It might make no sense to you that a person with a wonderful family and a great job would lose that job and family by drinking himself homeless. If, however, you assume the first principle of alcoholism — I want to do whatever it takes to get drunk — then losing your job and family is perfectly logical, i.e., it necessarily follows from that first principle. Likewise, getting up at five every morning and running twenty miles is my idea of utter insanity, but it is perfectly logical for someone who wants to win the Boston Marathon. It follows, then (quite logically, I might add), that, if you wish to understand the arguments or conduct of someone, you need first to identify that person’s first principle, and that will make sense of what follows.

Therein lies a huge problem for Republicans. Why is it, I ask myself, that Republicans rise to power and then almost immediately set to antagonizing the electorate by making life miserable for the average person? And how is it possible to make sense of arguments made by Republicans on behalf of programs that are clearly antithetical to the common interest? How make sense of vigorous arguments against protecting the environment, providing health care to all at a reasonable price, providing a living wage to the lowest earnings levels? How is it possible to argue that the correct policy in good times and bad is to lower taxes on the wealthy? What sense is there to demanding cuts to education for those unable to afford private schooling and increasing subsidies to those who can? How can you logically decry our treatment of disabled veterans and at the same time cut funding for their treatment? And how, in the name of all that is reasonable, can you argue on every imaginable plane that we should deny the factual findings of the sciences?

All of this makes perfect sense only if you identify the first principle of those who control the Republican party. Nobody said it better than Al Capp: what’s good for General Bullmoose is good for the country. What serves the interests of the wealthy serves the interests of the entire country. You may assign whatever motives you wish to the adoption of that particular first principle. Maybe the Republican power brokers genuinely feel that concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few is the best way to govern a nation. They would not be the first to think so. The list of historical oligarchies is far longer than that of genuine democracies. On the other hand, you may feel that the Republican power brokers are simply paying back those who provide them with the funds to stay in office. Whatever the motivation, the principle is quite clear, and, once you set that principle in place, all the rest makes perfect sense. For instance, why would you argue that running an oil pipeline down the middle of the country the provides scant jobs and that does nothing for energy conservation in America is good for the American people? Let’s say it together: BECAUSE IT’S GOOD FOR GENERAL BULLMOOSE, AND WHAT IS GOOD FOR GENERAL BULLMOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY.

That analysis will help you understand all the rest. You challenge science because the findings of science conflict with the interests of the wealthy. You reduce health care, education, veterans’ benefits, increases in the minimum wage because these things conflict with the interests of the wealthy. This, of course, assumes that the interests of the wealthy may comfortably be reduced to wanting more wealth, and those with wealth cannot fairly all be tarred with the same brush. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have both decried the increased concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, and they have both dedicated a massive percentage of their wealth to the improvement of the lot of the less advantaged among us. The Koch brothers, on the other hand, sadly personify a far-too-substantial portion of the wealthy for which the only value lies in increasing their financial holdings.

To answer, then, the question with which I started. The Republican reliance on Bullmoose logic requires them to get creative in convincing the people that Republican politicians will serve the interests of the people. Once in power, however, they must serve those who put them there, and inevitably that must end in damaging the interests of the general public. You cannot promote policies that increase poverty and igorance, decrease a healthy environment and access to medical care, etc., and continue to enjoy the adulation of the masses. Absent restricting the voice of those masses, you will, having revealed your true colors by your actions, be summarily thrown out.

I am not saying here that the Republicans will be routed in 2016. They may succeed in somehow silencing the disadvantaged majority. They may succeed in restricting the vote or starting another war or some other tactic. What I am saying is that a program of action built on advantaging only a few is intrinsically doomed to fail. Eventually the people catch on, and eventually the people overthrow that oligarchy. They did it in Russia. They are doing it in China. Soon or late, they will do it to the Republicans.

General Bullmoose, take heed.