Joe Biden thoughts. Briefly, edited excerpts from an article by George Dillard Medium July 6/7
Our convention is a month away, so anything could happen, but in today’s context, this: You’ll be voting for “Joe Biden,” not Joe Biden. “Joe Biden” is a team. The American president is a remarkably important figure. The Trump years showed that the quirks and personality traits of the president can matter quite a bit. But it’s useful to remember that you’re not really voting for one person when you elect a president, you’re voting for the team of people that the president will hire. Joe Biden does not run the government all by himself. Biden is the face of an organization that’s made up of thousands of individuals who help guide decision-making. For sure Biden knows a fair amount about most issues that cross his desk, from his five decades of public service. But even a president as experienced as Biden is utterly reliant on his aides to tell him what he needs to know. When it’s time to discuss tariff policy or NATO expansion or student loan cancellation, Biden is briefed by a team of experts who provide him with a range of options. He can and probably does push back against these options from time to time, but he’s generally going to choose from the menu with which he has been presented. And we are familiar with many in the top tier of the Biden team, as we hear them from one platform or another. I think most people would rate these people more than equal to people Trump has surrounded himself with and who could form a Trump team. Trump’s likely team would consist of people who are, in democratic speak “deplorables”. If it were 1884 rather than 2024, Biden’s stage performance wouldn’t matter at all. Newspaper readers would receive one set of second or third-hand reports or another. Progress: now we all can see and hear. The medium beats the mortals, in many respects. Over the course of the 20th century, the presidency moved more and more into the public eye—an entertainment product, largely due to the evolution of radio and television. The media evolved to cover it as such. It’s easier and safer for the media to do theater criticism around the campaign than to wade into the issues. We have always contrasted the different parties on issues. How are issues doing vs spectacle today? Anyway, remember it’s the whole team.
0 Comments
What does “woke” actually mean to people in today’s political context. It seems to be used just as a shorthand for various things the MAGA right does not like. If so, it doesn’t make much sense to get into definitions and semantics. Except that it does make sense to try to get people—at least some people—to confront the difference between their actual values and the implications of using the “woke” term.
And another road bump: as an Anglo, and with limited experience with the lives of black people, who am I to weigh in on this. Where I live, surely this is an issue removed, an issue for discussion in communities more diverse, like in the metroplex. The problem, even here, is this any term of derision that can be brought forward against democratic candidates, even our local ones, …any term will be used. We need some basis to mount a rebuttal or at least to lessen any impact of that attack. So, as churches play and have played such an important role in speaking about and living values, what do we see from churches? There is a recent book by Eric Mason, “Woke Church: An Urgent Call for Christians in America to Confront Racism and Injustice”. See: https://denverjournal.denverseminary.edu/the-denver-journal-article/woke-church-an-urgent-call-for-christians-in-america-to-confront-racism-and-injustice/ https://founders.org/reviews/you-dont-need-to-be-woke-to-be-biblical-a-review-of-eric-masons-woke-church/ Through points of good critique, an exploration of the difference various segments of society have in understanding the term. https://www.centerforbiblicalunity.com/post/5-signs-your-church-may-be-going-woke The troubling use of the term “woke” by those accepting Critical Race Theory. The post mainly highlights troubling acceptance of terms associated with Black Lives Matter and CRT from the pulpit. https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2024/02/is-your-church-woke/ Another troubling stand So, you try to wake your friend up to the conflict between religious teachings and disrespect of woke…and you get a blank stare. He isn’t moved. Remind him of the “First they came for the Socialists…. scenario. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...). Maybe he plays the “You say these black people deserve special consideration, but not us. You call us ignorant rednecks for supporting Trump. You diss me when you raise these others”. A reply: we fail if we disrespect you, but you don’t need to put others down to raise yourself (like Trump does). So if we see you trying to hold blacks back, we bring blacks forward in our work. But we are trying to raise wages for everybody, to provide for education for everybody, to help everybody get good health care. I am imagining a confrontation with someone you want to correct or someone who wants to correct you. Some people are just parroting what they’ve heard on air or in posts and may not really understand the facets to the issue. Perhaps the best approach is to just ask “What would be the opposite of woke?” or somesuch to have them decide this is not their real issue. Some people may key on the racial basis, and that may be their touchstone. You can’t expect to make headway against ingrained racism, but…. An imagined response to a racist who objects to your/our Wokeness: We hope you outgrow your racial bias, but until then remember: You share the needs of black/brown/other people. The same political/social group that is pressing for their uplift also works for your rise. There is enough at the end of the rainbow for all to share. DAB Let Charities Take Care of It
The argument is that we don’t want a “big government” spending tax money to help with this health care/social issue/environmental/housing/etc. problem—there are charities. Let people donate their money to spend on problems important to them without stretching the US deficit. I don’t know if this is an explicit argument on the public table—since I don’t expose myself to the full range of news and views—but I feel this is a stance that people take. People who have some care about the problems others face may tell themselves that church or other charities are taking care of this. Charities are at least in principle a potent agency. But if people feel this way, maybe they are inclined to let small-government, low tax arguers win them over. You know “Fermi’s Paradox” paradox applied to the question of alien intelligence in other worlds: A popular way this is stated…..If they are out there, why aren’t they here? The same response can be given to this problem—the role of charities versus the role of government in addressing societal needs. If there are sufficient charities to tackle these problems, why are there these problems still naggingly with us? (Of course there is the flip side: if there is sufficient government spending to tackle the problems, why do we have charities?—see below) There are major charities and there are major big-money donors supporting some of these charities. And yet? Donor A: I give my money to solving cancer. Others are spending on other problems. Donor B: I give to save the whales and ocean ecosystems. Donor C: I’m using my meager discretionary million to fight hunger in Africa. Donor D: I can see supporting these various charities in Dallas. I can’t afford to just scatter money to these other places. Donor E: I’ll be leaving some money in my will. Also: Can’t—paying alimony in five states. And: First Mars. Let’s ask Elon a favor, to support our initiative to address homelessness in Texas. The problems are still out there, despite the efforts of good-hearted titans of capitalism giving back, and despite the good-hearted parishioners giving weekly in their church, all over the country. The problems, the needs, are still there and big. And I am not saying that government spending should or is able to take the place of all charities. But some needs do not attract many charitable donations. And some needs do not seem to many to be valid or worthy. You have seen that media attention can bring out a spurt of public interest and giving—for a family who or a community that suffered a tragedy. That often does not last. And there are so many stories of tragedy untold. There is also the root cause problem. As a people working through our legislature, we can address root causes that have led to problems. And of course, that is another aspect of government that is scary to some who know their guilt. The flip side? Why are there charities if government could handle things? Really, charities came first, probably because governments have long neglected the poor and classes of people deemed too low to care about. These are my views, not an expert analysis, but consider the main points in case you encounter a young person seduced by something new and different.
Is No Labels a political party? No labels was begun in 2009 by a prominent democratic fund-raiser as an organization dedicated to encourage bipartisan thinking, working to span the divide between liberal and conservative on some issues. Initially, that may have been the case. Some argue that the group has changed focus. Lately, under the guise of funding those who work to achieve bi-partisan goals, No Labels has given funds to Kristen Sinema and to Henry Cuellar and to the effort to weaken ObamaCare (Slate). No Labels seems to be gearing up to fielding (or just funding?) national candidates seen as between liberal and conservative. The group is classified as a 501(c)(4) non-profit social welfare group. Thus, they are not required to disclose funders. (Mother Jones and Slate identifies some notorious ones). However, they may have to formally accept being a party as a result of challenges. In some states, No Labels has been certified as a political party allowed to field candidates. Other states do not see them that way. In some states, local affiliates act as go-betweens. No Labels Texas has registered to be a political party. No Labels seems to be acting like a party, but one focused only on the presidential race, disavowing interest in state and local contests. No Labels says that it will hold a virtual convention to decide whether or not to support a candidate (or to decide on a candidate). Their website and literature states a position of not endorsing/fielding a Third way candidate unless that candidate can win… And they go to great lengths to further the position that neither Republican nor Democratic candidates are popular. The No Labels website is very slick and not directly helpful. There are links to purchase issue papers. I was put off, and so have relied on other sources here. What is a political party? When a candidate is affiliated with a party, you have some idea of where the candidate is likely to stand, even without analyzing speeches. (Of course, with Trump, we have seen the tail wagging the dog.) But No Labels? The group says it does not have a platform, that comes from the candidate. So knowing the candidate is identified with No Labels does not give information. EXCEPT that lately No Labels is talking about fielding a “Unity” candidate. But here’s my take on what No Labels brushes over: Biden is as much a unity candidate as we need. The voter dissatisfaction with Biden cited by NL actually is not because he is not centrist enough. On the contrary, many democrats see him as being too centrist! Political discourse in this country has been pushed right-ward recently, despite MAGA claims to the contrary, and maybe despite media publishers’ wishes. No Labels idea of a “unity” candidate would be rightward of center—Not the direction we should be happy with. Why is this important? I was a dis-enchanted young voter once. We need to remind young voters of the long view.. past the current election. A nebulous No Labels is not going that direction. End of good, long Slate article*: So what’s the deal with No Labels? Here’s a theory: Its leaders and guiding spirits—the Jacobsons, Penns, and Liebermans—are locked in a mutually delusional feedback loop with their donors in which everyone convinces themselves that a random politician whose main attribute is being objectionable to both parties could become president. They have a faith-like conviction that both sides must always be doing something wrong, a hunger for relevance, and enough confidence to keep going when everyone tells them they’re making a mistake. That (and $70 million) is more than enough to spoil an election with or without having a clear goal in mind. “What is No Labels’ plan for 2024?” might be the wrong question; a better one might be “Does No Labels ever have a plan at all?” Sources, and for more information: https://nolabelstexas.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Adopted-Interim-TX-Bylaws-No-Labels-Texas-12-13-2023.pdf NLTX “intends” to operate and qualify as a political party in Texas under the election code. Authorized by national NL to….. not to nominate or support candidates for state or local offices. https://www.npr.org/2023/11/02/1210211164/no-labels-democrats-republicans-third-party-2024-election-trump-biden-pelosi https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/no-labels-coalition-government-electoral-college-rcna130709 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-no-labels-a-political-party-or-social-welfare-organization/ https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/04/biden-third-party-peril-00139380 *https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/07/no-labels-third-party-2024-presidential-campaign.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/12/the-new-political-group-no-labels-shows-why-labels-exist.html Author: D.A. Brock, member This is just the view of one guy, and may not reflect reality, but this is an alert: I’m starting to see requests for funding from new groups. This is, of course, my own fault: I have donated to political campaigns in the past, and of course the mechanisms whereby a new group can get mailing lists insure that my name is “out there”. (FB has it’s own ways, I’m sure you know.) Last election cycle I was disturbed by the call from unknown groups for money. I’m sure I will see the same this year. But I do want to hear if y’all are seeing/feeling the same. Here is a message I sent to this group and to Propublica in 2022: This is probably not something major, but it bothers me. As a donor of small amounts to various candidates, my email is being swamped by requests, dire needs, etc. Nothing new, except…. Here is the text of an email I sent to Hannah Howell of the Texas (where I am) Democrats, Sept 28, 2022 (I did not hear back): I don’t mind getting email requests from candidates I support. But what bothers me is the torrent of requests I get from PACs I have no connection with: Future Democrats, MarchOn, Elect Southern Dems, EndCitizensUnited, etc. And it bothers me that after I unsubscribed from a couple of mailing lists, I started to get requests from PACs that hadn’t asked before. I seems to me that a fund-raising entity can be non-fraudulent and still be a vehicle for diminishing donations. I unsubscribed from some of those email lists, and now (and not before) I daily get multiple email requests from Voter Protection Project. Earlier, I did a bit of research and found that yes, candidates did report receiving funds from a couple of those entities. So maybe these aren’t fraudulent siphons. But maybe these are simple parasites, funding a small office, an income for someone. Maybe the appearance of new solicitors after old ones are blocked is just via algorithm from a typical email service. I just worry that this is a coordinated effort to distract the less savvy donor from donating to sites more directly benefitting who they want to fund. I did not check if funds are handed off in a timely manner (I wouldn’t know how). And I wonder if the deluge is meant to get me to leave all requests behind—fatigue. I know some of the groups mentioned above have worthy goals I support. However, I tell myself that the best way for us to advance those goals is through supporting candidates who are most likely to be sympathetic. ( I don't see TV ads, and I can't trust that online ads are seen by the general public and not just fed to liberals via an algorithm. So I could be underestimating the contribution of some groups to the election effort. Let us know.) Donate where your money will do the most good. Author: D.A. Brock, member ECDP
|