All posts by Dr. ESP

Three’s a Crowd, For Now

Politics

Perhaps the most significant paradox in the founding of our constitutional democracy is the electoral college.  The rationale for this Rube Goldberg inspired system of choosing the nation’s chief executive violates a bedrock principle etched in the founding documents.  An extension of the phrase “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence is a belief in one person/one vote, reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Baker v. Carr (1962).  Second, a paradox within a paradox, the original allocation of electoral votes allowed states to count slaves in their population totals (albeit as only 3/5 of a free white resident) but denied them the right to vote.  This convoluted algorithm ensured Virginia would have 12 of the original total of 91 electoral votes which partially explains the dominance of candidates from the Old Dominion in eight of the first nine presidential elections. (1788-1816).  For those who deny slavery had and continues to have a lasting impact on the American political and social landscape need look no farther than its role as a justification for the electoral college.

Most opponents of the electoral college point to the overweight of an elector in rural states.  Why, they ask, should Wyoming with 560,000 residents have three electoral votes (1:186,667 residents) when California has 55 for a population of 39.1 million (1:710,909).  I, however, argue that is the least unfair aspect of the system.  Regardless of where you live, a significant plurality of voters in every presidential election are denied having ANY voice in the presidential election.  Take the 2016 election as an example. I was one of the 65,853,625 voters who gave Hillary Clinton a 2.1 percent margin of victory over Donald Trump in the popular vote.  But my vote did not count because I live in Florida which gave its 29 electoral votes to Donald Trump.  This perspective is not based on party or ideology.  A 2016 Trump voter in California should rightfully feel the same way.

I present this brief history of the electoral college in light of the renewed interest in third party candidates as we approach the next presidential election.  Absent the electoral college, I would be all in favor of third party candidates.  If an alternative to the two major parties could build a broad enough coalition to make them competitive, so be it.  But that is not the case.  Under the electoral college system a few thousand voters in one or more key states can override the will of the majority.  There is no better proof than the state of Florida in 2000 where Republican George W. Bush outpolled Democrat Al Gore by 527 votes. (Can you say “hanging chad?”)  Meanwhile, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader tallied 97,488 Sunshine State votes.  If Nader supporters had split by 51-49 percent in favor of Gore, he would have beat Bush by more than a 1,000 ballots and captured the state’s 25 electoral votes, resulting in a 281-263 Gore victory in the electoral college.  For the record, Gore received a plurality of the popular vote, 48.38 percent to Bush’s 47.86 percent.

There is one other solution to the potential chaos created by third party candidates, especially if he or she should win just one state’s electoral votes.  Suppose, for example, Joe Manchin runs as the No Labels standard bearer.  It is not inconceivable he could win a three-way race in West Virginia capturing the states five electoral votes.  And the two major party candidates split the remainder in half 265-265.  Without any candidate receiving the required 270 electoral votes to be declared the winner, the contest would be sent to the House of Representatives where each state delegation has one vote.  If you think the electoral college violates the principle of one person/one vote, this situation would give Wyoming’s 560,000 residents the SAME weight as California’s 39.1 million citizens.  The possibility of the above scenario could be limited by mandating ranked-choice voting for presidential elections.  West Virginia might still go for Manchin, but the outcome would not be skewed by his third place finish in other closely contested states.

I know, MAGA world will argue ranked-choice voting is a Democratic Party scheme to steal elections.  They will point to Sarah Palin’s loss in her bid for a House seat from Alaska.  But in the September 2022 special election and again in the November 2022 general election, her opponent Mary Peltola won a plurality of the first round votes.  Peltola then reached the 50 percent threshold when third place candidate Nick Begich’s total was allocated based on his supporters’ second choice.

Ironically, the one instance where ranked-choice voting would have made a difference in the presidential election is 1992 when neither Bill Clinton or George H. W. Bush received 50 percent of the votes in 46 of the 50 states.  It does not take a rocket science to predict an overwhelming majority of independent Ross Perot’s 18.9 percent of the national vote would have gone to Bush if ranked-choice voting was in place.

Bottom line?  If you do not want third-party candidates who are more likely to cause chaos than real changes in national governance, first you need to address quirks in the current system by which America chooses its commander-in-chief.  And especially, at a time when American democracy and the rule of law are teetering on a precipitous ledge, third party advocates need to be careful what they wish for.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

 

The Dog Ate My Manifest

Politics

Yesterday, Peter Francis Stager was sentenced to 52 months in federal prison for the beating of police officer Blake Miller at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.  In one of the most disturbing videos taken during the insurrection, the 44 year-old Conway, Arkansas man is seen repeatedly beating Miller with a flag pole while, according to prosecutors, he “lay facedown in the mob of rioters with no means of defending himself.”

The crime to which Stager pled guilty carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.  Prosecutors recommended Stager be sentenced to six and a half years and a fine of $31,000 (equivalent to funds Stager’s wife raised through a GoFundMe account).  However, his defense team countered, claiming their client was a victim of circumstances, beginning at birth. In a filing before the Federal District Court, they wrote Stager’s mother abandoned him at age six, he slept under benches and stole food from stores before ending up in foster care.  They did not stop there.  Explaining his presence at the Capitol on January 6, they wrote:

After delivering the load of produce he was transporting nearby, he made the choice not to drive back to Arkansas empty due to the cost of fuel and the fact that he would not be making money on an empty load.  Mr. Stager then decided to make the most of the situation and watch the speech of outgoing President Trump the next day; this decision is one that Mr. Stager will regret for the rest of his life.

The sentencing memorandum summarized this “unlucky” coincidence as “a scheduling conflict with his dispatch.”  Having spent more than 15 years living in the D.C. metropolitan area, I am pretty sure there are numerous ways to kill time in the Nation’s capital other than participating in a violent insurrection.

Someone should remind his legal counsel Stager was not charged with attending the rally.  He was charged with the malicious beating and injury of a member of the Washington, D.C. police department.  His lawyers told Judge Rudolph Contreras that Stager did not know Miller was a police office although the words “METROPOLITAN POLICE” appeared on the back of his uniform as he lay face down.  And, although Stager claimed the assault on the Capitol “seemed like a big family reunion,” prosecutors presented another video, in which he shouts:

Everybody in there is a disgrace. That entire building is filled with treasonous traitors. Death is the only remedy for what’s in that building.  Every single one of those Capitol law enforcement officers, death is the remedy, that is the only remedy they get.

Hardly the words of a man who sent a written apology to officer Miller claiming:

I never had any intent or thought of going into the Capitol or that I was going to be engaged in a angry manner. I don’t have hatred for law enforcement let alone for anyone in my heart.

The judge gave Mr. Stager a break because of the circumstances of his upbringing.  A broken nuclear family.  Homelessness.  As well as the “chance” circumstances which brought him to Washington, D.C. on the day of the insurrection.  There is a phrase for that.  It’s called “affirmative action.”  As of the recent Supreme Court decision, “affirmative action” is no longer a reason to offer a Black American four years at an institution of higher learning.  But it can limit the time a white insurrectionist spends at another kind of institution.

POSTSCRIPT

We do need to recognize the creative genius of the lawyers representing these January 6 defendants.  According to a report in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, “Stager’s attorney said someone was injured or dying on the Capitol steps and Stager was trying to get police to help them.” A new take on the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which Stager is both the villain and hero, beating the victim within an inch of his life before showing him mercy.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

A Majority of One

Culture, Politics

I am considering asking the University of Virginia and Johns Hopkins University for a refund for selling a defective product.  In the course of earning three degrees in political science at these two institutions, I was taught America is a democracy where policies and programs were based on the will of the majority.  In elections, the person with the most votes won.  Legislative actions were determined by a majority of the members in each chamber (except in Nebraska which has a unicameral legislature).  Judicial review of federal laws and executive orders was based on deliberations and the opinion of a majority of a panel in the court of jurisdiction.

The one exception, best articulated by Abraham Lincoln, is the president of the United States.  He (or someday she) is the sole elected member of the executive branch. Lincoln was always open to advice from members of his cabinet.  He would even request votes on topics of the highest importance.  But he was (as W. would say) the “decider,” once demonstrating that authority while considering military options during the Civil War.  Lincoln summarized the vote as follows, “The vote is seven nays (his cabinet) and one aye (his).  The ayes have it.”

The last time I checked Republican Alabama Senator Tommy Tubberville was not president of the United States. Yet, single-handedly he is holding up over 100 military promotions including one for the next commandant of the U.S Marines and the first female nominee for a member of the joint chiefs of staff.  Tubberville is not the brightest bulb in the Senate as evidenced by his recent defense of white extremism.  How depressing is it that someone, who thinks white Americans who claim Caucasians are superior to other races does not make them racists, is a member of the self-proclaimed “world’s greatest deliberative body.”  The fact he has veto power over military promotions is unconscionable.  Why would he ever believe he wields such power, even if it is consistent with the antiquated Senate concept of “unanimous consent?”

Maybe because he watched his GOP colleagues in the House of Representatives change the rules so that any one member of their caucus can move to vacate the chair of the party caucus. When that party holds the majority, the new rule includes the Speaker of the House, a constitutionally created position.  Or maybe he read that a single Trump appointed federal judge in Texas could suspend the sale of the abortion pill mifepristone which had been approved for use for more than two decades.  Or that Governor Ron DeSantis removed the elected district attorney in Hillsborough County and replaced him with a DeSantis loyalist.  Or one parent can decide if a book should be removed from a school library.

In each of the above cases, the rest of us are being ruled by a majority of one.  One senator.  One lower court federal judge.  One governor. One parent.  Despite the majority’s wishes.  And we wonder why any American believes he or she has the right to use a firearm at the first sign of a perceived slight or to resolve a grievance.  All in the name of “individual freedom,” something they claim is implicitly codified in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Except nothing in either document explicitly authorizes any single individual to decide what is good for the rest of us.

Thomas Jefferson admitted his choice of words when it came to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” was influenced by the language in the Virginia Statement of Rights, drafted by George Mason and adopted on June 12, 1776.  That document states citizens are entitled to “the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” So, number one it affirmed that personal assets did not remain under the control of the Crown.  (Should property not include one’s own body?) Number two it simply stated individuals have a right to be happy and safe.  Being who they are and not be gunned down while at school, watching a movie or shopping for groceries.  Notice what is missing?  Nothing about the right to do anything they damn well please.

Heaven forbid Joe Biden stands up for the majority on issues like gun safety, equal protection under the law or women’s health care.  These same individuals are the first to accuse him of overreaching and abusing his authority.  Just one more example of the hypocrisy all-star tour which will be visiting a town near you between now and November 2024.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Quantity v. Quality

Culture

Things that are not important are easy to measure.  Those that are important are hard to measure.

~Michie Slaughter

As long as the Supreme Court is taking up cases based on imaginary plaintiffs and defendants and no longer requires that plaintiffs have standing (i.e., personally suffered some harm), I thought I would jump on the bandwagon.  Therefore, I present the case of Quantity v. Quality in hopes the high court might understand the folly of their ways and put common sense ahead of ideology.

Cases between this imaginary plaintiff and his equally imaginery defendant are adjudicated almost daily in a number of venues.  One, in which I was actually a participant, involved the United Way, for which I served on the local board in Oxford, Ohio. We constantly sought better criteria for making funding decisions.  Applicants had reams of quantitative data about the number of people served (e.g. Meals on Wheels) or membership in their organization (e.g., Boy Scouts).  They took pride in demonstrating their financial efficiency by touting cost per person helped.  The board, however, wanted answers to a different question, “Did it make a difference?” A non-profit could provide mental health care for thousands of clients.  But if they continued to act irrationally or presented a danger to themselves or others, maybe it was time to fund someone else.

There is no better example of quality trumping quantity than “Project Choice,” a program of the Ewing Kauffman Foundation which covered the college expenses (tuition, room and board, and books) of at-risk youth if they graduated high school on time, were drug free and had no record of illegal activities.  The cost per participant could be exorbitant. One graduate’s benefits included a full-ride through medical school.  Another, who pursued a career as as a preacher included bible studies in Israel.  Sadly, new leadership at the foundation determined the per student cost was an inefficient use of foundation resources (an endowment of $2.7 billion at the time of which the total cost for Project Choice covering 1987-96 was $22.4 million).

As a vice-president at the foundation, I often attended the annual banquet for “Project Choice” alumni.  Many shared how the program had not only changed their life trajectories, but those of others in their family or community.  I specifically remember one successful female “Kauffman Kid” (as they were affectionately known) telling the audience she emulated “Project Choice,” providing financial support for a nephew’s college education.  It reminded me of the final scene in Schindler’s List  in which descendants of the 1,000 plus Jews Oskar Schindler saved from extermination placed a stone on his grave site. How many times will the investment in one child result in an exponential impact on others for generation after generation?

Which brings me to the actual Supreme Court decision which might as well have been called Quantity v. Quality. In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard University, a 6-3 Supreme Court majority decided a private university could not use race as a (not the) factor in admissions.  The justices sided with “quantity” even though that issue had already been adjudicated in Regents of University of California v. Bakke.  “Quotas” were ruled unconstitutional but “affirmative action” for some applicants was not.  In other words, as long as preferential treatment was not a numbers game (i.e., established quantity), subjective consideration of the impact that admission of a minority student (i.e. quality), until last Friday, was still allowed. [Note, this is the same majority that minutes earlier said it was okay for a private business to discriminate against protected populations, in this case the LGBTQ community.  Maybe the decision issued in response to 303 Creative’s refusal to design wedding websites for same-sex couples should henceforth be known as “Project Choice for Homophobes.”]

Each year, when Ewing Kauffman, would introduce “Project Choice” to the newly enrolled freshmen at Kansas City’s inner-city Westport High School (from which he graduated), he told them, “When others thought you did not have a chance, we want to give you a choice.”  American universities had a chance to make a multi-generational difference in the lives of at-risk youth and their descendants.  There was no mandate.  Universities were free to decide if and how much they wanted to take race into account when it came to admissions. Unfortunately, six members of the Supreme Court looked at the numbers, not the potential impact, and took away that choice.

POSTSCRIPT

According to a 2017 Gallup poll, 58 percent of Americans supported Affirmative Action program for racial minorities including 51 percent of white Americans.  A similar June 2023 poll, conducted by the Pew Research Center, now shows 33 percent support by all Americans and only 29 percent by whites.  I cannot prove causation but I believe some of this shift in sentiment has been the concurrent re-emergence of white nationalism including public pronouncements of racist memes such as “you will not replace us” as well as MAGA-worlds tacit approval by failing to push back against the rise of white extremism.  One more example of the power of people’s exposure to fearmongering, regardless whether the specific threat is real or merely perceived.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Shoot the Messenger

Politics

I am not a member of an organized political party. I am a Democrat.

~Will Rogers

In 1980, Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan asked a question which many believe turned the tide in the November election.  “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”  To make sure the answer among a majority of Americans was “NO,” he provided a statistic which became known as the “misery index.”  The calculation consisted of the sum of the inflation rate (measured by change in the consumer price index/CPI) and the unemployment rate.  In October, 1980 the misery index totaled 20.37 percent, consisting of inflation of 12.77 percent and unemployment of 7.5 percent.  Four years later, Reagan was overwhelmingly reelected, touting Reaganomics for having reduced the “misery index” by almost half to 11.66.  Though unemployment decreased by only 0.1 percent, inflation was only a third of what it was (4.26 percent) at the end of Jimmy Carter’s administration.

In case you have not noticed, every GOP candidate for the 2024 presidential nominee daily refers to the failed Biden economy.  Yet none asks, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”  And any reference to “misery index” is a faded memory. Why?  Because it no longer serves their purpose.  Today, the “misery index” is 7.7 percent (4.0 percent inflation and 3.7 percent unemployment), 3.96 points BELOW that at the time of Reagan’s landslide re-election.  Pun intended, when it comes to the “misery index,” Bidenomics easily trumps Reagonomics.

Speaking of Trump, maybe you wonder why he is not attacking Biden based on the “misery index.”  After all, Biden’s 2.5 years in the White House have barely moved the needle.  The index was 8.08 when Trump involuntarily left office.  While unemployment stood at 6.9 percent, his misery index number benefitted from an inflation rate 1.18 percent.  Maybe he would prefer not reminding voters why inflation was so low.  The average daily rate of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. exceeded 3,300.  Or there was a net loss of 2.9 million jobs between January 2017 and January 2021 while job growth in the first two years of the Biden Administration increased by 10.7 million. Or that no one was spending money as demonstrated by a consumer spending decline for the first time in 50 years.

Despite this available evidence, an October, 2022 ABC News-Ipsos poll of registered voters showed, by a margin of 14 points, respondents trusted Republicans to do a better job handling the economy than Democrats.  While there is some truth to an assessment the media have not given Biden’s economic accomplishments the positive attention they deserve, it is not their responsibility to do so.  That is the job of the director of White House communications and the director of communications for the re-election campaign.  They are the president’s primary messengers and they are clearly not doing their job.

Let me give you one example.  At a major intersection between two U.S. highways in Northeast Florida there is a billboard with head shots of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.  Superimposed above them are the words “Dumb and Dumber.”  It is viewed every day by workers who take either route between Amelia Island and Jacksonville while they wait for the traffic light to turn green.  Now I am not suggesting Democrats should emulate the incivility and lack of respect exhibited by MAGA-world, but they could take a clue concerning the medium.

Last week, the Biden campaign tweeted the following in response to Alabama senator Tommy Tuberville announcing that his state would receive $1.4 billion from the federal government for affordable broadband access.  “See you at the groundbreaking.”  Biden’s point, Tuberville had voted against the $555 billion infrastructure bill which authorized the project’s funding. But it was a one-day news story.  And if Biden does attend the groundbreaking, it will be another one-day news story.

What should they do?  Rent billboards on major highways in and around the communities that will benefit from the infrastructure project.  It should read.

The broadband access you’re enjoying today would not have happened if  a Republican had been in the White House or Republicans like Tommy Tuberville, who voted against funding it, controlled the U.S. Senate.
You’re welcome.  President Joe Biden.

Democrats share majority values on a number of issues including women’s reproductive right and sensible gun regulation. They do not believe in book banning or the right of one parent to decide what all children can or cannot see or do.  They do not belief a single, lower court judge should be able to overturn years of legal precedent.  Nor that Supreme Court justices should not be held to a code of ethics, as is EVERY other federal official.

I am reminded of a true story about the Apollo moon mission when engineers working on the lunar module were faced with an issue of weight versus fuel capacity.  They suggested to the project manager Thomas Kelly the vehicle did not need four large windows (the original design) if the astronauts stood closer to two smaller triangular portholes.  It would also eliminate the need for seats, another weight factor.  Kelly rejected the proposal saying, “I don’t see it.”  Instead of blaming Kelly for his lack of appreciation of their brilliant idea, one of the team members said it was their job “to make him see it.”  They did by creating a mock-up of the interior of the lunar module, sans seats.  When Kelly could experience rather than just hear about what they suggested, it made the difference

The Biden White House and campaign need to have its own “misery index.”  It should be defined as how underwater the incumbent stands on issues which polling suggests are at the forefront of voter concerns.  Especially those on which Biden and Democratic candidates for Congress are more aligned with the majority than any of their potential GOP opponents. If the current team cannot change that dynamic, it is time to put them out of their misery (pun again intended) and find messengers who can make enough voters “see it” to ensure victory in 2024.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP