On Being Stubborn - House Freedom Caucus

[From Bill Lifka - Graphic by Ira]

MAX THE ARMY MULE

I knew a sergeant at The Artillery School who’d served from before WWII when horse drawn artillery still existed. He’d served in a mountain battery that used mules to carry the small howitzers in two pieces. The tube was placed on the back of one mule and the carriage with wheels on another mule. The ammunition and other battery equipment were also carried by mules. Mules were chosen over horses because they were stronger, had staying power and were sure-footed on mountainous terrain.

On the negative side, some mules are downright stubborn and unwilling to do their jobs if doing so doesn’t suit their fancy at the moment. In Sgt. Clancy’s battery, one of the mules, Max, was noted for being most stubborn of all. His habit was to rear up on his hind legs when the job or situation wasn’t to his liking. 

On or around Fort Sill there are no mountains but there is rolling terrain. One fairly big hill, called Signal Mountain, rises 1200 feet or so over its base at an increasingly higher slope near its top. A punishment hike or two up the hill was a regular Saturday event for me when I attended OCS. (Actually performed at a “paratroop shuffle”.) 

For the mountain artillery, Signal Mountain was the only way to keep its mules in shape. On one fateful day, Sgt. Clancy’s battery was on its way up the mountain. Max was having one of his more ornery days and had been kicking and rearing from the moment he’d been led from the corral. His handlers couldn’t let him get away with bad behavior on this occasion or he’d be worse the next time.

Eventually, Max settled down sufficiently so a carriage could be loaded on and he fell in the line of mules heading out on the trail. As I know from personal experience, the trail up Signal Mountain is narrow and falls off sharply to one side. There’s not much room for error, which mules seem to know instinctively. With the exception of Max, all the mules settled into the climb at a steady pace, placing their hoofs with practiced care. 

Max knew better but he continued to show his dissatisfaction by skittering around and tossing his head. Finally he reared up on his hind quarters, a tremendous feat considering the load he was carrying. Unfortunately, he rose past the point where he exceeded the center of gravity (his and his load), fell backward and rolled down the mountain upside down atop the carriage wheels accompanied by the cheers of his handlers. Max was stubborn to his end.

PERSEVERING VS BEING STUBBORN

There’s a difference between persevering and being stubborn. When one keeps trying to attain a goal using other than previously failed actions, one’s persistence is considered to be strength. When one keeps trying the same failing action, it’s called stubbornness and stupidity. 

That brings me to my subject which is current historic levels of stubbornness and stupidity in Congress, as opposed to the usual stubbornness and stupidity that’s a hallmark of those hallowed chambers.

It might have been better if the Republican-led House had practiced with a few easier initiatives before introducing a bill that began changing Obamacare. I use the word “began” because the plan of the Speaker and his associates was to effect a change in three stages. It was quite certain Democrats in the Senate would vote 100% against any Republican sponsored health bill out of the House because Democrats in Congress and those not yet removed from Executive Branch departments have been waging a fierce war against all Republican initiatives since the election. 

It makes no difference that the country needs adult leadership right now desperately; the main goal for Democratic officeholders is to let their constituents know they are bent on revenge for having lost the White House and the sweetest revenges for most Democrats are preventing any changes to Obamacare and preventing the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Last week the Democrats succeeded in the first of these and next week they hope to succeed in the second. 

Actually, it wasn’t Democrats who defeated Obamacare replacement. It was 25+/- Republican congressmen who call themselves the “Freedom Caucus.” They consider themselves to be “true” Conservatives and, therefore, are “real” Republicans who take Party principles seriously. 

As far as I can figure out, I share all the major beliefs of these guys but I want you to know I think they were stubborn and stupid on this occasion as they were back when the previous Speaker gave up and retired rather than fight them as well as a President (Obama) out to destroy the Republican Party. 

In my view, Ryan had a correct strategic plan that addressed the Senate process and the bare majority held by Republicans in that house. It was Freedom Caucus Republicans who would not follow the leadership again because they didn’t think their plan went far enough.  

I had the opportunity to talk to my Congressman just after the fiasco. I told him he was wrong and needed to change his ways. He has a great name, an impressive appearance and a pat answer, as I had expected. He is a stereotypical politician: 18 years in the Florida House, 10 years in the Florida Senate, 6 years (so far) in the U.S. House. In each of these offices he ran from two different districts because of redistricting; he likes the job. I rated his reason for blocking Ryan’s bill as unadulterated BS, although he argued well. He denied he’s a member of the “Freedom Caucus”. (That caucus ran him as a candidate for speaker against Boehner.) He argued the Ryan bill didn’t go far enough and denied Freedom Caucus changes would prevent Senate passage. 

He was wrong or betting I wouldn’t know. He said maybe it was good Obamacare would continue since it would fail and that would force Americans to embrace a truly great replacement. When I mentioned “party loyalty”, he denied that was important. He was wrong again. I know some really smart Conservatives who think like my (new) Congressman. I just don’t get why they like what I think is all bad. 

Any improvement in Obamacare would be better but still bad because any federal government involvement in health care will cause it to be ineffective. To let Obamacare fail (as it will) is just plain irresponsible and Republicans will get the blame. 

Democrats in the Senate are as bad as the wrong-headed Republicans in the House. They have acted like idiots in their questioning Neil Gorsuch, who has been rated as an ideal candidate for the Supreme Court by legal organizations ranging from Liberal to Conservative. His extensive service as a federal judge provides unwavering testimony to his fairness in upholding the law and not making the law, as Liberals expect of them. Senate Democratic leaders rant and rave in their frenzied attempt to defeat him. (Or anyone Trump might name.) The basis of every argument against Gorsuch is that Democrats expect judges to make decisions on ideological grounds not on the law as written. They are too stupid to realize that would bite them in the ass in due time.

The problem of the Freedom Caucus is the same as that of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate. Although they are directly opposed on all political issues they share a monumental stubbornness and lack even the barest smidgen of modesty in their belief they are 100% right and any opposition is 100% wrong. I wonder if there’s a steep hill near Washington DC on which we could gather these folks together and tie wheels on their backs. 

Bill Lifka

A Conservative View of US Political History

[from Bill Lifka] I’m re-reading the book: A Patriot’s History of the United States by Schweikart and Allen. The authors are professors of history at the University of Dayton and the University of Washington. Unusually for their field, the professors are Conservative in their political view.

According to Schweikart, the reason for their book was that Liberals have written the overwhelming majority of text books on American history. Not only do these tales tell the American story with a strong leftward slant but major events and characters are absent from the pages. Schweikart’s and Allen’s version received praise for accuracy and fairness from objective experts.

The truth is that America’s history of its famous and infamous characters is a mix of altruism and selfishness, honesty and corruption, courage and cowardice, wisdom and stupidity, prudence and rashness, unity and divisiveness. Natural cynicism makes me think the specific gravity leans to selfishness, corruption, cowardice, stupidity, rashness and divisiveness.

WHY HAS AMERICA SURVIVED SO FAR? HOW MUCH LONGER?

It raises questions why America has survived so far and how much longer a nation so confounded can survive. Survival to this point and beyond has nothing to do with American people standing head and shoulders above their counterparts in other countries. Americans are not exceptional as a group of individuals.

In my opinion, the reasons for success are a design of government structure that has withstood efforts of generations of Americans to destroy it and that the nation was placed under protection of an Almighty God from the very beginning, first by early European settlers and again by the Founders as they laid out the design of a governmental plan. Who knows how much further we can stretch the wisdom of the Founders and the patience of God?

HISTORY OF THE MODERN DEMOCRATIC PARTY (AND MARTIN VAN BUREN)

1821 - A good place to begin my argument is in the year 1821 which was when the modern Democratic Party was formed. (It wasn’t the party of Jefferson, as widely proclaimed. Jefferson and Madison had very different principles and goals but they, especially Madison, did start the party system.)

I summarize the story from the history book as follows. Martin Van Buren was the son of a tavern owner in Kinderhook, New York. He resented the autocratic landowning families in this area and found enough like-minded politicians to control the New York State Constitutional Convention in 1821 enacting universal manhood suffrage.

He learned to employ newspapers as no other political figure had, linking journalists’ success to the Party’s fortunes. He perceived the necessity of discipline and organization to control the masses he sought to organize. He sought to create a political party dedicated to no other principle than holding power.

The problem with the political climate developing in the young nation was the disagreement over slavery which was dividing the states between the North and the South. Van Buren (and many others) viewed the logical result of this would be civil war, which he hoped to avoid. The best way to do that, he reasoned, was to remove slavery (and any other issues) as a party consideration.

He joined southern planters with northern non-elites to form a national organization dedicated to attaining and retaining political power. An important factor in attaining success was in taking advantage of the growing size of government which provided an ever-larger pool of government jobs with which to reward supporters: to the victors belong the spoils. Van Buren tied his star to a practice that, at its roots, viewed men as base and without principle. If they could be silenced on the issue of slavery with the promise of a job, what of their integrity? Yet, that was the strategy for the noble purpose of saving the nation from civil war.

1824 - Andrew Jackson was chosen as the standard bearer for Van Buren’s party in 1824. The Electoral College vote was: Jackson 99, (John Quincy) Adams 84 and Clay 41. There being no majority, the decision fell to the US House of Representatives. Clay was Speaker of the House and he detested Jackson so Adams received his votes. The one-term Adams’ administration was plagued with “pay back” acrimony for the “stolen election”.

1828 - In 1828, Jackson and his VP, John Calhoun, coasted into office. When he left office, Jackson had more totally consolidated power in the executive branch than any previous president, ensuring what Van Buren had dreaded: a powerful presidency subject to sectional pressures. His adept use of the spoils system created a large-scale government bureaucracy that further diminished states’ rights. This planted the seeds for the “New Deal” and the “Great Society” and (I would add) Obama’s eight year reign.

1836 - Van Buren followed Jackson into the presidency in 1836 to reap the blame for all that turned out badly from Jackson’s initiatives. After one term he was defeated by Whig candidates, William Henry Harrison (Tippecanoe) and John Tyler.

Harrison died after one month in office and Tyler succeeded him. The interesting thing about the succession is that the US Constitution’s language on presidential succession is not precisely clear that the Vice President automatically becomes the fully empowered president when his predecessor dies in office. Some doubts were raised. Tyler just assumed direct succession was the intention and took control. In this little-noted act he cemented the foundation of the Republic in future times of chaos and instability. This small snippet of history typifies the generally untidy political proceedings that have been part of our nation’s Presidential campaigns and the use of presidential power, once elected.

The formation of the modern Democratic Party isn’t a particularly heart-warming story especially the part about founding principles. However, there have been moments in later history where that party has provided great leadership for the country.

PARTY POLITICS NOW (AND DONALD TRUMP)

At this moment, the Democratic Party is at a low point in its history, despite having one of its members in the White House. At least, that’s my opinion. In many ways, it espouses the principles and methodologies Van Buren invented but has added cultural dogma and governing philosophy that moves the nation far from the direction the Founders intended and defined.

The Democratic Party is not alone in American political history in experiencing recurring shifts in goals, initiatives and methodologies. All have been the same in that regard. But now is a very bad time for one of the two major political parties to be focused on matters of lesser importance.

Of course, Donald Trump is doing his best to coax Republicans into the same mindset. The Democratic Debates have been particularly useless in addressing key national issues. The Republican debates have been notably better except for time spent in personal attacks. The debate this Thursday should provide good reminders of issues which should be the basis of your vote in November. Trump’s likely absence should raise the quality of debate immensely.

Bill Lifka

Old Geezers Should Communicate with Young Folks

[from billlifka, posted with his prior permission]

A few days ago, I heard an excellent talk by a local political guru of the Conservative persuasion. He was offering ideas how ordinary folks of his political persuasion might help the Republican Party do better in the coming election. The bottom line was that he recommended the old geezers in the audience should start communicating with young folks between the ages of fifteen and thirty.

His principal argument was that, beyond the age of thirty, people tend not to change much from what they have become and what they believe in at that point in their lives. Also, he argued that people in the target age range were open to considering new ideas, perhaps even eager to try new things. He cautioned that these strange young folks should be approached cautiously, even deviously, because if they knew an exchange of political ideas was the goal, they’d be turned off immediately.

I suspect he was right in all respects, at least for the majority of young adults. I’ve been following his recommended practice for a number of years, at least the basic idea. One of the great joys of my life is being able to learn new things that change my life even as I approach the end of life. I hope it will be the same for you.

As to a devious approach, it’s not like me not to say (or write) just what’s on my mind. Most folks who read what I write would judge it to be political, yet I argue that it may seem so to them but I am really writing about good governance, good goals and good process. If it turns out that the same people in office keep governing poorly, have troublesome objectives and use questionable means to achieve those objectives, it’s to be expected they will come off poorly in my writings.

Long before now you should have recognized that I prefer to focus on national issues I believe to be of greatest importance to the nation’s well-being, the elements of those issues, what history (should have) taught us about optional ways of addressing those issues and, usually, suggesting what I believe to be the best options.

As I do this, some people stand out as bad guys and, of late, these have all belonged to the left wing of the Democratic Party. I’m sorry about that because I really want our leaders to be outstanding leaders no matter which political party they call home. If they are not, then I am going to be against that party until they start running competent men and women for office who focus on the critical issues with honesty, coherence and perseverance.

I’ve never wanted anyone to vote for my preferred candidates just because they were my choice. What I want is for the overwhelming majority of voters to know the truth about main issues and how opposing candidates stand on those issues. I’ll never get what I want because the majority of voters don’t take time to become knowledgeable and the majority of politicians do their best to mislead the voters.

I pointed out precarious national and international conditions and the critical importance of competent leaders being elected. I emphasized that the vote of the young adults would determine the outcome. I was correct. 2014 is another critical election year. By now you should know how much your future has been adversely affected by the outcomes of elections for which you’ve been eligible voters.

For the record, I'm a registered Republican but, under that umbrella, a Conservative with a few Libertarian tendencies. I was a “cradle Democrat” and remained so until the current age of my oldest grandchild. I was an ardent fan of the Chicago Cubs who did manage to capture two pennants before they forgot how to play the game.

These days, rooting for the Republicans seems like rooting for the Cubs. Both teams have talented players, know the principles of the sport, play like gentlemen but seem not to understand the objective is to beat the opponents. It may be the absence of a good manager and an ossified front office. Maybe the players should mutiny.

Currently, 31% of the voting population considers itself to be Democratic, 25% considers itself Republican and 42% considers itself Independent. The Republican % is the lowest it’s been in modern times. It’s no wonder that Democratic political tactics are designed to solidify its base and to infuriate Republicans.

Rather than fighting the “enemy”, prominent Republicans yell at each other while elbowing members of their own team into less desirable vantage points from which to launch a campaign for the big enchilada. Tea partiers are similar to Republicans in many ways except they are mouthier and more fed up, but still mostly nice people. They have no effective central control which is another thing they’ve in common with Republicans.

Independents are growing in number, mostly cutting into the Republican fan base. The not-at-all independent media blames this on Republican ineptitude but a goodly part comes from people being tired of much political talk and little effective political results. While the Democrats are more guilty of that, their fan base expects them to be obnoxious and ineffective at governing; it’s part of their appeal.

It’s bad enough for Republicans to lose those Independents who used to show up for their bigger games but now many Republican fans avoid the big ones and hardly any buy season tickets. As for the younger fans, forget it; they enjoy the raucous Democratic play and can’t understand the headier Republican approach to the game.

Republicans needn’t play Democratic ball to win. It’s not necessary to throw at the batter’s head or slide into second with spikes high. However, barreling over a catcher blocking home plate is admirable; the runner has a right to the baseline. Forget longing for a star hitter with 50 HR’s a season and 500 K’s. They need single hitters with high batting averages, fielders who hit the cut-off man, pitchers who credit the fielding for their low ERA’s and runners who follow the coaching signs. It’s a team game, dummies, not a boxing match to determine a single champion!

This might be amusing if not for the serious matter of America’s heading for a cliff without a capable government. There’s a World Series each year but an America only once in 8,000 years of history Mike Huckabee is a good guy and was a viable candidate in 2008. He made the same main point as this essay, but with less colorful imagery. Unfortunately, he played to the stands allowing partisan “sportwriters” a chance for another “war on women” tirade. His lesser point could have been made by citing the Justice Dept’s war on the Little Sisters of the Poor; he would have been playing a winning game. There are Republicans who can do that.

billlifka

More DEMOCRATS watch Fox News than CNN or MSNBC!

Could it be? YES IT BE!

Analysis of ratings data from respected Pew Research and Neilson
shows that more Democrats watch Fox News than either CNN or MSNBC.

Fox News has come up on this Blog several times. The data in this posting sheds more light on the situation.

THE PIE CHARTS ARE NOT TOO SURPRISING

The first pie chart shows the distribution of the MSNBC audience. As one would expect, 45% are self-declared Democrats and only 18% are Republicans. The remainder are Independents (27%) and "Don't know" (10%).

The second pie does the same for CNN, with the only surprise being that a higher proportion of Democrats (51%) watch CNN than MSNBC. 18% of Republicans watch CNN.

The third pie does the same for Fox News. 39% of their viewers claim to be Republicans and 33% Democrats.

It might be surprising to see the Fox News "balance" between Republicans and Democrats. 39/33 = 1.18. MSNBC has a balance between Democrats and Republicans of 45/18 = 2.5. The balance at CNN is 51/18 = 2.83.

THE REAL SURPRISE

Fox News has a considerably higher viewership than either CNN or MSNBC. I combined that (from the 2009 Neilson data) with the data from the most recent (2008) Pew Research report, to generate the graphic.

The bars show the number of viewers using Total Audience (all ages) and averaging over the Entire Day. The Blue bars are MSNBC, the Red Fox News, and the Yellow CNN. The surprise is that more Democrats choose Fox News than either MSNBC or CNN. Indeed, if you combine the Democrats who watch MSNBC and CNN, they total only a bit more than Democrats who watch Fox News. If you consider Independents, more of them watch Fox News than CNN and MSNBC combined!
BUT, WHO IS "FAIR AND BALANCED"

Of course, what appears "fair" or "balanced" to one person on MSNBC may appear biased to another person, and vice-versa on Fox News. This is a subjective issue that each person needs to resolve for him or herself. My personal opinion is that MSNBC leans way to the left and Fox News a bit to the right. CNN appears to me to go right down the middle, or a bit to the left of middle.

The above data indicates that, given a free choice, people who seek out cable TV news and talk tend to choose Fox News over the competition. If you add the presumably "fair and balanced"-minded Independents to the presumably left-leaning Democrats, you find that more of that cohort watch Fox News than CNN and MSNBC combined. And that is true despite the fact that Fox News is available to fewer households.

BUT READ THE "FINE PRINT" BELOW

In the above analysis, I used Total Audience averaged over the Entire Day. I did that because the Pew Research data was for all ages and did not ask people when they watched cable TV. Fox News tends to have a slightly older audience, so had I used the 25-54 year old demographic, the results would have been a bit less surprising. However, they would still have shown that more Democrats and Independents watch Fox News than CNN or MSNBC.

The statistics for Prime Time are also a bit different from averages over the whole day. However, Fox News is also ahead on that measure. For example, for the 25-54 demographic, Fox News leads with 446,000 to MSNBCs 250,000 and CNNs 143,000. For the Total Audience including us old folks, Fox News leads with 2,036,000 to MSNBCs 753,000 and CNNs 621,000.

Ira Glickstein

Constitutional Amendment

[from JohnS]

Premise:
The evolution of the two party system has distorted the intent of the founders in choosing our elected representatives by preselecting candidates for office without direct input from the electorate thereby making office holders more obligated to their party than the people and by creating career congressional office holders by perpetuating terms of office.

Consider the following:
1. The parties provide our only choices for our President, we the people do not.
2. The parties choose who runs for the Senate and House, again we the people do not.
3. If the people become discontent with their federal congressmen the parties provide alternate candidates.
4. The Electoral College makes the final choice for our President.
5. Party loyalty can assure one of a lifetime career in politics.
6. Today, fund raising is the primary tasks of our congressmen.
7. The two-party system, as exists today, thwarts the intent of our founders.
8. The two-party system, as exists today, isolates the people from the government.

Pressure from the electorate cannot change the system and there is no resolve or incentive within the congress to change their gravy train; the system will continue to reach new lows until it is changed. The only solution is to change our constitution. The following amendment will effectively control the two-party system while retaining the intent of our founders. (My comments appear in blue)

Proposed Amendment to the Constution

Article XXVIII

Bill of Citizens Rights - to provide a more representative government.

Section 1. Term Limitation.
a. Legislative term limit shall apply as follows: Members of the Senate two terms of six years, Members of the House of Representatives four terms of two year. Having served at least one term in office, members of either the Senate or House of Representatives shall not run for reelection until one full additional term has passed.
b. Federal justices, with the exception of Supreme Court Justices, shall be limited to two terms of 5 years. (Term limits will break the stranglehold the two-party system has on our federal government. Those running for legislative seats, knowing their time in office is limited will be less inclined to tow the party line knowing they will be returning to civilian status shortly and will have to live with the consequences of their legislative action. Assuming this amendment passes a review will probably be needed examining the benefits congressmen receive upon leaving office. I include judicial limits in this legislature although I am reluctant to limit terms for Supreme Court Justices; there is already too much politics in their appointment.)

Section 2. Voting Procedure.
Article XII is repealed. The following replaces paragraphs 1 through 3 of Section 1 Article II.
Each State shall appoint, in such manner, as the Legislature thereof may direct, an Elector, but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Each State shall receive, a number of Electoral votes, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. These votes must be assigned to the person receiving the greatest number of votes within the State for President and the person receiving the greatest number of votes within the State for Vice President.
The Elector shall tally the votes within his State, certify the vote and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole Number of Electoral votes. and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. However, in choosing the President, States, the representation from each State having one vote, shall take the votes; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the Person having the greatest number of electoral votes shall be the Vice President. However, if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by Ballot the Vice President. (This eliminates the Electoral College and the electors’ ability to override voter’s choice while retaining a fair vote amongst all states.)
Section 3. Sunset Laws.
All legislation authorized under section 7 of Article I shall
a. Contain a termination clause not to exceed 10 years. The legislation may be re-introduced at any time up to and including the termination date.
b. Be confined to a single purpose. All additions, amendments, modifications or adjustments shall only address the single purpose of the legislation. (The purpose is to stop pork and earmarks outside the specific purpose of the legislation, and omnibus legislation that our legislators do not have the time to read and understand.)