Trump – Head of State or Head of Government? Or neither?
Donald J. Trump felt the need this weekend to retreat to the comfort of his campaign memories and to the reinforcement 
provided by his incondicional supporters, which CBS pollsters on Face the Nation last Sunday told us number about 20% of the population. He has found Washington, D.C. to be a foreign place to him, full of enemies and of conventions and rules that do not bend to his will. His first month as President has been crisis-ridden, chaotic, and his government has shown itself to be highly resistant to the changes he is seeking to impose on the country as he promised he would during his campaign.
Trump has failed to take control of his government and seems not to understand the meaning of being both head of state and head of our government. He continues to govern as if he were the head of his patriarchal business units and has only himself to answer to. Unlike the British model, among others, we combine the roles of head of state and head of government. The British vest the responsibilities of the state in the monarchy and those of government in the Prime Minister in their Parliamentary system. Donald Trump seems unwilling and perhaps incapable of assuming either these roles, preferring to rule alone, listening to a few trusted advisers, seeking no counsel or advise from his appointed Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury or Homeland Security, among others.
Before leaving for his “Winter White House” in Mar-a-Lago, he gave us a virtuoso performance at his press conference on Thursday, in an apparently successful attempt to recover his lost mojo. He once again attacked the mainstream media as his enemy, full of negativism and always conspiring to bring him down. He once again lied to us about several things, particularly his “overwhelming” victory ove Hillary Clinton, the “mess” he inherited from President Obama, his impressive and historical level of accomplishments during his first month in office, and the well-oiled machine that has been is administration during this last month.
This week has been a very bad week for his Presidency. Monday he was forced to fire Michael Flynn, his head of the 
National Security Council. Congress is threatening to launch a full-scale investigation into the growing scandal of Trump’s campaign staff contacts with high-level Russian Intelligence officers as well as Putin’s interference in the elections in November. The scandal surrounding Trump’s support for Putin and the leaks to the press, particularly the New York Times, about contacts with Russian intelligence during the campaign have been very damaging to Trump and has finally prompted Republican leadership in Congress to declare their intention to investigate fully these allegations. This has become a major distraction for the White House and has detracted from their efforts to regain control of the narrative and demonstrate that they are in control of the situation. His nominee for Labor Secretary was forced to withdraw his name from consideration after it become apparent he could not be confirmed by the Republican Senate. Finally, this growing chaos is beginning to gnaw away at one of his professed strengths as a successful businessman – his ability to run a business and an organization with focus and with success.
There was not much new ground covered in his 77 minute press conference. He continues to seek solace from the oppression of the constant attacks of his implacable enemies, the mainstream press and Democratic Party smarting from their disastrous electoral defeat at the hands of the Trump machine. He ignored the urgings of some of his advisors to avoid confrontation with his critics and to focus on regaining control of the narrative of his presidency by solving the problems facing him and to demonstrate with successes that he is in fact in full control of his government.
What seems clear from Trump’s behavior this week is that he does not understand the meaning of assuming the responsibility either as head of state or as head of our government. He continues to flounder with the intractable reality that governing is not at all like managing a corporation or a business. He has so far failed to understand what it means to be the President of the United States of America and he has not taken control of the reins of government as yet. He is woefully behind in the work of appointing top-level positions in all of executive departments, from State to Treasury and all those in between. Some think he prefers it that way so the White House does not have to deal with these important functionaries as it continues to take unilateral actions without consulting the heads of his different departments.
So far we have been fortunate to have avoided a major crisis during this initial period of the Trump Presidency, but I fear that if the President does not change course and move decisively to take the reins of government and of the state he will not be able to confront successfully any crisis that occurs in the coming months. The federal government is a highly complex and difficult organization to manage and without effective White House control of it I fear for our nation when the inevitable crises befall us.
Trump cannot manage any crisis from a ballroom at Mar-a-Lago and he cannot fashion an effective response to any crisis involving national security without controlling effectively the apparatus of National Security of our government. President Trump has no National Security advisor to coordinate intelligence and the actions of the different agencies involved in protecting us from external threats. He seems to be depending on Steve Bannon and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, neither of whom has any experience whatever in national security matters nor knowledge of the government agencies involved in it, to advise him in the event of a crisis. I fear this is a formula for disaster.
Trump and the Rule of Law
Since Donald Trump has become the presumptive candidate of the Republican Party he has redirected his vitriol from his competitors in the primary campaign to his personal problems and his pet peeves. His comments have ranged far and wide but increasingly revolve around his personal business life, as was clear this week after a Federal judge in San Diego ruled that documents from a pending civil lawsuit against Trump University should be made public. Since then, Judge Curiel has come under repeated personal attacks by Trump in his political events and press conferences.
Donald Trump
Today the New York Times published an article by Adam Liptak (see http://tinyurl.com/hej6ayx) in which not only legal and constitutional scholars but also libertarians sound a warning that Trump may be dangerous for the nation. He cites concerns raised by them, including:
- Trump’s clear contempt for the First Amendment’s freedom of speech – Trump wants to punish all those in the press and outside for speaking against him, by loosening libel laws and using federal regulators to harass his critics
- Trump’s failure to understand the concept of the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches – he has publicly excoriated Federal Judge Curiel en San Diego for being a “Trump hater” and for having a conflict of interest because of his “foreign” heritage (though the judge was born and raised in Indiana)
- Trump’s threat to bar Muslims from entering the US is a clear challenge to the guarantees for all of us in the Constitution – freedom of speech, due process, and equal protection under the law.
In Liptak’s article appears a compilation of all Trump’s Twitter insults (see http://nyti.ms/1PWpSUr) and it’s startling to see gathered in one place the grossly ignorant statements of Donald Trump as he attacks and insults anyone who crosses paths with him and fails to yield allegiance to him.
The most disturbing aspect of this is that Trump’s threats and criticisms all arise from personal grievances, not from policy or philosophical differences, not from political causes, nor any other principled differences. Repeatedly Trump simply lashes out at any who dare to oppose him publicly, ask him difficult or embarrassing questions or publish critical information in the press or on the Internet.
This is not a politician lashing out at his opponents – this is a megalomaniac who imagines that he is going to be President of the US and expects the rest of us to fall into line and cheer him on towards his next outrageous insult. He clearly intends if elected to use the power of the Presidency to punish and intimidate anyone who criticizes or opposes him, and this extends not just to the political arena but also to the legal and judicial arena where he clearly expects judges to fall into line as well.
Trump has no respect for the law or the Constitution and he intends to use his executive power if elected to impose his will on all of us, regardless of whether doing so would be illegal or in violation of our Constitution. I find it startling and remarkable that so many Republican leaders have fallen in line to support Trump, as Speaker of the House Ryan did yesterday. From a party that prides itself on family values, law and order, strict adherence to the Constitution and the values of our founding fathers, I cannot condone or accept the spineless obeisance to Trump and to the dangers he poses for our nation.
Those who support Trump out of inconformity, contempt, or disgust for the prevailing powers in their political party or our government should be warned. This is not a man who is going to make things better for us. He would rule with authoritarianism and contempt for the law and for the values that we Americans hold dear. Donald Trump is only interested in himself and works only to protect his own interests. His claims to make things great “again” for our country are part of the fraud that he represents, part of the bankruptcy that he has used so often to cheat his investors, his clients, his customers, and his followers.
Posted with BlogsyTrump and the NRA
How many innocent children have to die like this before we embrace the need to control access to firearms to those stable and mature enough to use them responsibly? 
Dominic Castro, three-year old stepson of his killer, was another in a long line of innocent victims of the policies of unfettered gun ownership in our country. At present we know little about the family involved and of the background of the young man, George Wayman, who shot his stepson in the head apparently because he was irritated with him for jumping on his bed.
The report of this tragedy was published in this article in Salon: (http://tinyurl.com/z7zh39r) lifted from this Texas web site (http://tinyurl.com/grh8n8x) provides another tragic example of the danger of unfettered gun ownership.
These articles do not disclose much information about the 18-year old boy who possessed a gun that he had in his bedroom and which he used to threaten and then shoot his three-year old stepson while his Mother was away visiting a relative. 
While we wait for more details on this tragic event, it’s clear that the Texas “shoot first and ask questions later” gun culture has claimed another innocent victim.
My first reaction was stupefaction, incredulity that an 18-year old boy in the photo to the left could have acquired a deadly firearm in the first place. This tragedy claimed three victims, the child taken from his mother, his mother, and this young man who will have to live with the moral weight of his careless decision to kill a child whose only offense was playing on his stepfather’s bed. The emotional toll of this terrible tragedy on the families of Dominic’s mother and his stepfather must be crushing.
The juxtaposition of this tragic event with the announcement yesterday that the National Rifle Association (NRA) has endorsed the candidacy of Donald Trump 
reminds us of the terrible consequences of our fanatical obsession with firearms and of the moral turpitude and the craven cowardice of so many politicians who lack the courage to risk the wrath of the NRA and its followers by passing legislation to prevent immature young men like George Wayman from acquiring deadly firearms in the first place.
The data are clear that gun ownership by individuals who lack the training and the necessary emotional maturity and psychological stability creates a much greater risk of claiming innocent victims like Dominic than of affording any real protection from home invasion and other forms of criminality. Yet the gun lobby and its cowardly coterie of politicians who kowtow to it do not even allow the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to collect statistics on gun violence and gun deaths to help us to understand and evaluate the terrible problem we have with possession of deadly weapons by those lacking the training and maturity to use them responsibly.
Now we have a demagogue like Donald Trump adding his name to the roster of politicians who with craven political calculation and cowardice have sought the imprimatur of Wayne LaPierre, 
president of the NRA and extremist leader of the gun lobby. How many more innocent victims like Dominic do we need to convince us of the need for responsible measures to control access to deadly weapons and assure as much as humanly possible that gun ownership is reserved for those who are capable of using their guns responsibly.
Entertainment, Television & our Politics
I listened tonight to the Friday night political feature “This Week in Politics” on All Things Considered on NPR and the inevitable discussion of Donald Trump and his amazing success at generating media fascination as well as his Teflon-like imperviousness to criticism from the other candidates manifest in last night's debate. His outrageous behavior and shocking declarations continue to fortify his appeal to his followers while doing him no harm in the polls.
Reince Priebus, Party Head
One of the pundits proffered the explanation that the Republican Party leadership had essentially unleashed the nativist wing of its base by refusing in recent years to disapprove of or discredit the birthers, the bigots, and the many lies and distortions offered by its extremist and even not so extremist candidates. The Party has lost control of this dynamic and in doing so has permitted candidates like Donald Trump to gain ascendancy in this primary campaign.
I cannot disagree with this analisis and with the conclusion that the chickens are coming home to roost. Despite the best efforts of the Party leadership to counter his appeal, Donald Trump has only gotten stronger as the establishment candidates like Marco Rubio, John Kasich, and Jeb Bush fail gain traction against him as his popularity grows and his leadership in the polls continues unabated.
Donald Trump
There is another factor that has played a critical role in the political and polling dynamics during this campaign. This came to me listening to a sort of off-hand comment by the other pundit on NPR, that the wildly exaggerated and shocking statements of Donald Trump sound more interesting and carry more appeal to the television news audiences than explanations and truth-telling by the other candidates.
I have commented in previous posts about the demise of professional journalism, particularly television, in favor of entertainment. The networks are owned by media conglomerates who have eviserated their news departments and stripped them of their professionalism and their commitment to seeking the truth. To these networks, Donald Trump is a godsend and for that reason they have given him millions of dollars of free publicity and promotion by fomenting and delighting in Trump's outrageous declarations and behavior.
Ted Cruz
I understand of course that there are other factors at play in this dynamic, not the least of which is the wild, wild West of the Internet, which has no filters, no editorial control, and no control over content. Nevertheless, as one who grew up watching Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, I miss being able to rely on the networks for reliable and impartial news coverage. These reporters and many others from CBS, NBC, and ABC reported our news with so much greater commitment to professional journalistic standards and to the quest for the truth. Of course they failed at times, but the standard was there and they aspired to it.
I remember so clearly when CNN came into its own during the war in Iraq and developed into an exciting and very professional news organization under its founder Ted Turner. Now CNN is an entertainment division of Time Warner. The Fox Network is a propaganda outlet for the ultra-conservative right which places absolutely no value on reporting truthfully and impartially, much less professionally. This situation contributes greatly to the current political environment of polarization, extremism, intolerance and indifference to the truth.
So it's not surprising that megalomaniacs like Donald Trump can manipulate the press to his advantage and there is no counterweight to the sensationalism he offers. My only hope is that Republican voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and the succeeding primary states are not unduly swayed by this hype and all the lies being told in this primary campaign. It is a true test of our democratic system and I am optimistic about the outcome but not insensitive to the dangerous possibilities that exist.
Rep. Schweikert – Let’s get serious
Rep. Schweikert
PLEEZE, Mr. Schweikert, don't insult our intelligence. Don't be ingenuous or ask us to be. This situation in the House after Kevin McCarthy's withdrawal from the election for Speaker is about power and the imposition of HFC's will on the legislative process. Being a minority of 40 or 50 members of the 247 member Republican Caucus, the HFC is not looking for participation in the process but for veto power over what legislation is introduced and which bills get sent to the floor for a vote.
If they were given full democratic PARTICIPACION they would generally be outvoted by more moderate members of the Caucus. No, they are looking for more than participation and we all know it. The HFC is fanning out with the media this weekend to do their public relations work and to put the best possible face on this attempt to force the Republican leadership to make promises that the leadership does not want to make.
Freedom Caucus
They asked McCarthy to make such promises and he refused to do so and immediately the HFC announced that it would vote in bloc for Rep. Daniel Webster of Florida for Speaker, thereby denying McCarthy an easy path to the 218 votes needed to win the Speakership. Fearing humiliation if the vote proceeded, McCarthy bowed out, leaving the leadership in the lurch.
Until the Republican Party national leadership understands that the Tea Party is bringing the party failure and legislative deadlock with its ideological and legislative intransigence, this dance is likely to continue. The Party's fear of an upstart third-party formed by the Tea Partiers is clouding its political judgement and its strategic calculus.
Reince Priebus - chairman RNC
No one wants to be Speaker with the Tea Party holding sway over the Republican Conference in the House and threatening constantly to unseat the Speaker if he/she does not give in to their demands. This will continue until the national Party leadership and the House Republican Conference are willing to risk a third-party revolt by the Tea Partiers and seek to create a more bipartisan working environment in the House to get their legislative work done. This would enable the Republican Congressional leadership to demonstrate that the Party can govern, can be an viable alternative to the Democratic Party. This has been an publicly avowed objective of the leadership since they gained the majority in the Senate in the 2014 elections.
I am convinced that the third-party threat is an empty one. If the Tea Partiers were to abandon the Republican Caucus to form their own third-party caucus they would lose ALL of the power that they now have as they hold sway over the Republican Caucus. Additionally, the Republicans would lose the majority in the House, ceding it to the Democratic Caucus, which would be far worse. Why the Republican strategists in the House and in the national Party do not see this is beyond fathoming.
So get you heads straight you Republicans and recognize the dire straights into which you have placed your party and abandon the Tea Partiers to their own fate. If they do not not like the decisions of the Republican leadership and the Speaker's office, they are FREE to form their own party and their own caucus within the House. See how long the threat lasts.
Though I have nothing personally against the Tea Partiers (though I do disagree with them), the strategy and tactics of the Tea Party leadership in and out of Congress are leading the Republican national party to permanent status as an opposition party which will never demonstrate it is capable of governing.
Kevin McCarthy Throws in the Towel
With this shocking display of political cowardice, the Republican House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy cedes to the pressure from the House Freedom Caucus (HFC), withdraws from the election for Speaker, and sinks the Republican Caucus in the House yet deeper into the swamp into which it has wandered in the last two years without even noticing. The idea that the Caucus MUST unite behind one candidate whom ALL can support is preposterous. Yet another victory for the tyranny of the minority in the Caucus represented by the Freedom Caucus.
Boehner must be having nightmares now about his decision to resign and remove himself from the conflict, leaving his trusty lieutenant behind in his wake to carry on the good fight. McCarthy obviously lacks the requisite ambition and self-confidence to be an effective Speaker, so this will probably in the long run be beneficial to the Republican Caucus, unless the HFC manages to impose its own radically conservative speaker, which seems to me unlikely.
Though one is tempted to credit the shrewdness of the Freedom Caucus, I cannot credit them for this turn of events. To me it is yet another demonstration of the inept and maladroit Republican leadership, that has allowed itself to be defeated at every turn by these radical and nihilistic Tea Partiers now forming the Freedom Caucus. The utter guileless and hapless leadership of the Republican Caucus defies belief. The leadership of the Republican Party itself is incredibly silent as their party is being torn asunder in this conflict.
This development opens up many interesting possibilities, particularly since the Speaker is elected by the full House, including the Democrats. One can only speculate about the interesting possibilities this opens for a more moderate Speaker elected by Democrats and moderate Republicans. However, such an eventuality would split the Republican Caucus wide open, so it seems unlikely to gain much traction.
So we are left with mere political speculation about who might be the most likely candidate to try to unite the Caucus. The New York Times tonight carries an article about who that might be (see Possible Candidates for a Brokered House Speaker Race – The New York Times).
Whoever might emerge, it seems likely that some time will pass as negotiations ensue among the different Republican factions to determine the best course of action for their party. This is getting more interesting by the day.
Freedom Caucus – they aim to cripple our democracy
I have written previously about the dangers posed by the radical wing of the Republican Party which from its inception as the 
Tea Party Caucus in Congress in July 2010 has openly avowed to seize control of the Republican Party from its leadership and the more moderate elements of its membership. This group of legislators in the House of Representatives has sought to stifle debate and to eliminate any possibility of negotiation with the Democrats or even moderate elements of the Republican Party. Now we see this group rise to prominence again, threatening our democratic processes in Congress and determined to rule the Republican majority in the House
Make no mistake about it. These people aim to control the House with just 40 to 50 members of the total of 247 Republicans and majority rule be damned. They are so sure of their political convictions and philosophy that they feel fully justified in seeking to impose their will on all of us, even though they represent only 10 to 15% of our total voting population. They have no qualms about shutting down our government if they don’t get their way.
The danger this poses to us is that governing in our two-party system involves conciliation of different interests and points of view, negotiation of legislative initiatives, and compromising at times to get legislation passed that our country needs. This is and has always been the essence of the legislative process and of the principle of majority rule which has provided the basis for our government to function and for laws and initiatives to pass Congress.
The Tea Partiers reject these principles and prefer that our government not function at all and that occasionally it be shut down in order for them to impose their minority will on the majority of the House and on our country as a whole. They have no interest in governing at all, but in forming the opposition party.
This group has just recently created a new body that calls itself the House Freedom Caucus (HFC). It´s current rallying cry is the defunding of Planned Parenthood (see this for a detailed explanation of the controversy http://www.vox.com/2015/7/14/8964513/planned-parenthood-aborted-fetuses) and it has called for shutting down the government once again if it does not get its way. Another impulse for the formation of this ¨freedom¨ caucus is the
imminent election for Speaker of the House to replace the current Speaker, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, who resigned recently, effective the end of October. The HFC sought to prevent the election as Speaker of Kevin McCarthy, the current Republican Majority Leader, whom they see as yet another John Boehner, and as of this morning they appear to have succeeded.
The unpardonable sin of John Boehner has been in the last few years to negotiate, alongside the Senate Republican leadership, with the Democratic leadership in Congress and with the White House to enable the passage of key legislation that is sorely needed not only to keep the government running but to legislate in areas critical to our needs. In the eyes of the Tea Partiers in the Freedom Caucus, they prefer no legislation at all to legislation that they oppose. They have largely succeeded in the last two congressional sessions, which have been the least productive of the last 70 years.
Though there are some cracks in the unity of this movement, they are unlikely to change the course of action the HFC is pursuing. One of the Freedom Caucus’s founding members, Rep. Tim McClintock of California, quit the caucus on Wednesday, saying that ¨… I believe the tactics the HFC has employed have repeatedly undermined the House’s ability to advance them.” (see Rep who quit Freedom Caucus: Republicans are thanking me | TheHill). Another example of disunity in this movement was recently published in Roll Call´s Gossip Blog, (see Madisonville Reveals the Freedom Caucus Chronicles). Senator Ted Cruz was participating as guest speaker in this meeting cited in the article, urging the Freedom Caucus to war with the Democrats to such an extreme degree that Rep. Mark Meadows moved to vacate the guest speaker to move on to more constructive issues than closing down the government as Cruz advocates.
What is incomprehensible to me is how the Republican Party leadership over these last few years has allowed itself to be boxed in by this radical and nihilistic element of the party. I believe the leadership lost its bearings as they allowed their ardent opposition to President Obama to get the better of their power of reason. The Tea Partiers have clearly declared their intention to take over the Republican Party.
They have so far been unable to gain traction in the party leadership and with the party´s principal donors, but in Congress, particularly in the House, they have had considerable success due principally to the appalling inept leadership of Speaker Boehner. He has consistently been out-maneuvered by these 40 or so radical members of his Republican Caucus and he has allowed them to dictate in most instances what legislation would go to the floor.
Ironically, the few instances in which Speaker Boehner refused to follow the Tea Partiers wishes gave impetus to their campaign to force Boehner to resign. Now with the formation of the Freedom Caucus and their alliance with other radical firebrands like Senator Ted Cruz, the HFC is making life miserable for the party leadership in the House. With the withdrawal of Rep. McCarthy from the race for Speaker, the House Republican leadership is in disarray. Tune in for later developments.
Are we a nation of laws or of prevailing beliefs?
As a lot of my readers have been doing, I have watched this political circus taking place in Kentucky over marriage licenses for same-sex couples. The story of Ms. Kim Davis, the deeply religious County Clerk in Rowen County, Kentucky, who has refused to issue any marriage licenses since the Supreme Court decided that same-sex marriages are legal and must be respected now in all of our states, including the ones whose governors and legislators have opposed it.
Kim Davis speaks to co-workers at the County Clerks Office on Sept. 2, 2015 in Morehead, Kentucky.
I cannot find fault with Ms. Davis’s apparently deeply-felt conviction that homosexual relationships are immoral and a breach of her religious beliefs. However, we live in a country that was founded on the principal of separation of church and state. This means, among other things, that the state shall not establish any religion to be imposed on its citizens.
It means also that everyone is free to practice his or her chosen religion and to live their lives according to those religious beliefs. But this does not mean that citizens are free to pick and choose which laws they will obey based on their declared religious beliefs. (We would not accept the right of a religious sect to sacrifice human victims because their religion requires such sacrifices, would we?) Freedom of religion does not mean that we can impose our religious beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs nor does it mean that we can deny others their legal rights.
This is the critical point in this issue of Kim Davis as to whether the State (or government if you prefer) is violating her rights and religious liberties. Some conservative politicians, particularly those now running for the Republican presidential nomination, have sided with Ms. Davis by saying that the federal government (in the person of Judge David L. Bunning, US District Court Judge and son of former conservative Republican senator from Kentucky and former major league pitcher inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1996) was overreaching and somehow violating their religious liberties. For an impartial explanation of the concept of religious liberty, check this article of September 4 in Vox at http://www.vox.com/2015/9/4/9261449/kim-davis-religious-freedom. (More about what politicians have been saying about this in a later post.)
I cannot agree with this assertion that religious liberties permit anyone to ignore a law they disagree with and do as they please in pursuance of their religious beliefs. Ms. Davis is violating her oath of office to “faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor.” by selectively denying public services to same-sex couples based on her religious beliefs. She is violating the law of the land established and confirmed by our highest legal authority, the Supreme Court. No one forced her to run for office as County Clerk and no one is forcing her to defy the Supreme Court and to order her staff to act illegally..
What I believe that Ms. Davis should have done to obey her conscience was to resign her post as Country Clerk and seek some other line of work that would not require her to violate her religious beliefs. I agree that people should not be forced to act against their conscience, but in this case Ms. Davis was not forced to do so. In fact, in the negotiations with the federal authorities before Judge Bunning, she was offered several alternatives that would have allowed her to continue to work as County Clerk without violating her religion, but she refused all such offers.
We are all legally and morally obligated to obey the law and in this case there is no issue of religious liberty. Ms. Davis was obligated to obey the oath she took when she assumed the office of County Clerk but she chose to violate it as well as the law. This is not the first time that the conservative movement has sought to use the shield of religious liberties to justify violating laws that it does not agree with. A cake-maker in Colorado tried to justify refusing to make a cake for a celebration of a same-sex wedding. When Obamacare was passed one company sought an exemption from the provisions relating to providing birth-control services to its employees and in fact won an exemption, which I cannot agree with.
Using religion as a justification for discrimination and intolerance is offensive to me and should not be allowed. I do not believe that our Christian religions of all faiths and churches provide such a basis for hurting other people, no matter how much we may disagree with their personal choices. My religion and its moral principles that I learned as a teenager taught me to be tolerant and generous of spirit, loving my fellow man and respecting his principles and convictions even when they do no coincide with my own.
I believe that Ms. Davis has violated these principles and that she cannot be allowed to continue to practice discrimination against those she disagrees with. She has several reasonable options available to resolve her moral dilemma and avoid violating her religious convictions. She should take one of them to resolve her legal situation and to return to her work and family.
An Unprecedented Political Opportunity for Democrats.
We are at a political crossroads that presents Democrats with an unprecedented political opportunity. The real question is whether the party has sufficient prescience and wisdom to take advantage of it.
Let me explain. The Republican Party is shrinking in size and in inclusiveness. Moderates have been run out of the party at the leadership level and independent voters find less and less room for their beliefs in their own party. Litmus tests are the order of the day as the extreme right of the Republican Party (read Tea Party) demands that their representatives in state houses, state legislatures, and in Congress toe the line as defined by their litmus tests.
I believe that this has left many Republicans and independents who do not identify with the extreme right of the Republican Party in the lurch. They will not abandon their party or their independence for the Democratic Party as it currently defines itself. But they cannot embrace the extreme positions of the so-called “base” of the Republican Party which is driving the party further and further to the extreme right. So what do they do? They keep mostly to themselves and overtly support their party while increasingly feeling alientated from it by the exteme positions taken by the Tea Party and their allies.
Politics is the art of conciliating different political points of view, beliefs, and convictions. But politics has been subverted by the Republican Party which no longer believes in compromise, conciliation, and negociacion. It’s all or nothing at all for the Tea Party. Bipartisanship means for the Republicans in Congress caving on their beliefs and giving in to the Democrats. The Republican leadership operates in fear of backlash from their “base” if they try to govern via concilation and negotiation. Just ask Eric Cantor.
A majority of Americans is disgusted with the performance of our government and Congress owns the lowest ratings of all. Every year Congress passes less and less legislation, solves fewer and fewer problems, and works less and less for the public good, preferring to hue the line dictated by the Republican leadership in Congress. With the current political alignments and the negative do-nothing political dynamic in our government, someone has to do something to turn this around.
What to do? I would like to see the Democratic Party make their tent bigger and more inclusive, opening up new spaces for dialog with moderate Republicans and independents to offer them reasonable alternatives to the extreme and dogmatic positions of the extreme right of the Republican Party. This would certainly pose difficulties for the more progressive and liberal wing of the party, but the alternative is political paralysis and a drift toward mediocrity. This is not the United States I want to be part of.
We face many critical problems as a country and our government as presently constituted does not have the political will (or even the capacity) to address these problems. If the Republicans continue to work to frustrate the President at every turn, if the Republican Party continues to refuse to address the critical need for immigration reform, if it continues to ignore critical social and economic crises, our country will continue on its path downhill to a reduced stature among our own population and reduced relevance in world affairs.
Third parties do not work in our political system so one of our political parties needs to step up and accept the challenge to work towards a better future for our children and grandchildren. So let’s take a very serious look at the idea of opening up the Democratic Party to more of our fellow citizens with moderate (for Republicans) views and independent affiliation.
If we cannot have bipartisanship between the two parties, let’s make the Democratic Party more inclusive. We may have to give up some of our more liberal goals and priorities in the short term, but in the long term we can consolidate our political power and position in our society, enabling us to work towards making this a more inclusive and compassionate nation. That is after all what I think we as Democrats stand for. That is the United States I can fight for and defend against those who would destroy our way of life.
Reflections on our Times 
