Here’s a tough philosophical question for you. What is more important to you – the well-being of those of us presently living on Earth, or the well-being of succeeding generations?

Over the past fifty years, the Republican Party has taken a definite stance of minimizing its commitment to the well-being of those of us who currently inhabit Planet Earth. The GOP has become more callous in how it regards, or disregards, the well-being of those of us who currently on Earth.

In recent years, when America has been in crisis such as the Great Recession of 2008-09, or the recent and current COVID pandemic, Republicans become extremely miserly. They resist providing necessary financial aid to those who are suffering the most. This is odd, because many people believe that it is natural for currently alive human beings to look out for their own well-being first and worry less about those who come later.

Some believe that an inherent element of evolution is for each generation to want to make the world better for those that come next. But the history of our world has been replete with wars; ones in which billions of children have had their parents taken from them. Left behind are children with limited resources and bitter memories. If the Republican philosophy of prioritizing the future over the present held true, each generation would have become more peace-loving and prosperous. While there is some evidence of that, for the most part the economic and human rights status of today’s children is falling behind that of their parents, most particularly those in the United States.

There are clear political explanations to these conundrums. Democrats, particularly the progressives among them, are consistently seeking to improve the quality of life for those of us who are currently inhabiting Planet Earth. It may seem odd to speak of the New Deal or the Great Society in the context of cosmic issues such as planetary or universal evolution, but what is essential to know about Democratic policies is that they have a key common denominator. They are always working to make the quality of life better for those of us who at any point in time happen to be alive on earth. The New Deal was essential in moving millions of Americans out of poverty and misery. The Great Society provided enhanced civil liberties, health care, job training, educational opportunities and more for those who were alive in the 1960s. Republicans were largely opposed to these programs, just as they have recently been to the stimulus and social welfare programs of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

In Bob Woodward and Robert Costa’s book Peril, about the end of the Trump Administration and beginning of the Biden one, we see how Republicans are very parsimonious when it comes to providing needed aid to those Americans who are suffering through the COVID pandemic as well as growing economic inequality.

Upon becoming president, Joe Biden sought $1.9 trillion for Americans to recover from the COVID pandemic and the damage it was doing to the economy. Republicans wanted far less. Maine’s GOP senator Susan Collins cobbled together a group of ten Republicans with the express purpose of forging a reasonable compromise with the new administration. The figure that the Republicans offer is $618 billion, less than a third of Democratic $1.9 trillion amount from President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

There have been times in American history when the political parties would have a disagreement like this. Each side recognized that its figure was a starting point. Representatives would meet in small groups. In this case of relief from the COVID pandemic, the Democrats would figure out how low they could go; the Republicans, how high they could go.

But in this case, the Republicans felt that the fact that their figure was greater than zero demonstrated that they were negotiating in good faith. They felt that it was good enough to let the American people, including the Democrats, know that they cared enough about the COVID problem that they were willing to do something, no matter how little.

The problem is that the Republicans expressed no awareness of the suffering that so many Americans, and individuals outside the United States, were experiencing at a time of severe illness, double-digit unemployment, and psychological isolation.

Simply put, the Republicans showed virtually no empathy for hundreds of millions of Americans who were suffering through the pandemic and related maladies. An illustrative component of the Republicans’ lack of concern and commitment about the suffering of the American people was that it did not seem to matter that millions of Republicans were among those hardest hit. This became particularly clear in early 2021 when COVID vaccinations hit the market and many Republicans chose to forgo them.

A second contemporary issues that clearly demonstrates how Republicans have minimal regard to for the currently living is abortion. Republicans have gone to all lengths to make legal abortion difficult, even impossible, in the United States. The bizarre Texas law with bounty hunters is only the latest in their efforts to suppress of women’s reproductive rights.

Republicans seem comfortable abrogating the rights of their wives, girlfriends, sisters, daughters for the vague commitment to protecting the lives of fetuses. While protecting the lives of fetuses is sound policy when examined in isolation, it pales in comparison to protecting the well-being of currently-living woman who is experiencing an unwanted pregnancy. The result is that we have more women, and men, who reluctantly become parents and often do not provide the necessary love and attention to their unwanted children.

Why is it that many Republicans place so little value on women and men and even children who are living now, and place greater importance on yet to be born generations? It is difficult to fathom. The impact of this public policy is huge. It reduces our collective chances of improving the quality of life for those among us who are currently living.

What is essential to keep in mind is that when we diminish the quality of life for those among us currently on Earth, we sacrifice opportunities for each current generation to improve life for itself, and equally important, for those who will follow. By addressing current needs on earth, we allow for subsequent generations to live more complete lives because the generations before them will have enjoyed greater human and economic rights.

Building from one generation to the next is not that difficult a concept, but regrettably, most Republicans have a difficult time grasping it. We see the results of their myopic view. Republicans give us the likes Donald Trump for a president and manipulate our political system so that even when Democrats such as Barack Obama or Joe Biden to win elections, it is difficult for them to govern effectively.

Democracy is at risk. A big step towards saving it is for Republicans to refocus their main concern to the well-being of those currently alive. This will help both the present and the future. It may be in the category of wishful thinking, but at this point, wishing is our best hope.

The post Republicans Have A Very Strange Perspective on the Here and Now appeared first on Occasional Planet.

History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes. I’ve been trying to figure out why our current political moment feels so familiar and the answer has been there the whole time. We never stopped fighting the 2016 campaign, the names of the characters have changed but the dynamics haven’t, nor have the issues. The Democratic candidates have their Republican parallels, I’ve done my best to figure out who they are. I’ve found that the description for each candidate fits fairly well whether you’re thinking about 2016 or 2020.

Cory Booker is George Pataki

He’s running a campaign on ideas that the party doesn’t really want. As an elected person representing a populous north eastern state you’d think he’d be more formidable because to be frank he knows where the money is. He is the happy warrior and he wants to talk about American renewal and love. But here’s the thing, voters are angry and have been this entire decade and if you didn’t know that then you were destined to lose. Overall he’s running a “goober” campaign that despite the resume, lacks gravitas.

Tulsi Gabbard is Chris Christie

They once had a promising future in the party, but made a political decision that upset the elites and torpedoed that future. Now they only exist to get bad press coverage and attack weak candidates who haven’t faced real scrutiny. They probably would’ve been better off not running but they don’t have a stellar track record for good decision making. They have theoretical bipartisan appeal, or so we hear from political analysts who seem to have never met a person without a Master’s or makes under $165,000 a year.

Beto O’Rourke is Jeb

We know he’s not running anymore but we can’t believe it all fell apart so quickly. He began his campaign with so much promise and institutional support. After losing the last election the party got together and tried to understand why the last nominee failed and thought they optimized the winning formula with him. But he never had a natural constituency or performed well in debates, so he started to fade. Originally he was loved by the media and then they turned on him. Now he’s universally disliked by the opposition and not especially loved by his own party so now he kind of just wanders aimlessly.

Amy Klobuchar is Carly Fiorina

The media keeps waiting for her to surge but it doesn’t seem to be happening. She’s had some decent moments during debates, but never has broken out of the single digits. She’s still running but it doesn’t seem like it’s for President anymore, yet she’s maintaining that she has a special electability argument. She also has a reputation for “complicated” relationships with staff.

Andrew Yang is Rand Paul

He’s libertarian who is running for the nomination of one of the major parties. He’s saying some things that make a lot of sense and there’s real enthusiasm there. It doesn’t seem like any of his competitors are taking him seriously which is rude considering he polls even or better than many of them.

Kamala Harris is Marco Rubio

They made sense on paper and was promoted as the future of the party. They performed great during debates by challenging the front runner, they had a natural case for electability in possessing several qualities the last nominee didn’t have, and they’re well known in the party. However, they haven’t lived up to expectations and have only seen their polling decline recently. They now seem unlikely to win any primaries, and almost certainly will lose their home state where they were just popularly elected to a different office. This campaign badly damaged their brand and they might be stuck in the Senate forever. To add insult to injury they don’t even poll well with the voters that they campaigned on being able to attract.

Pete Buttigieg is John Kasich

We didn’t really know him at first but now it seems like there’s two profiles about him a week in major magazines. He won’t stop talking about the Midwest and winning elections despite winning fewer votes in his re-election campaign than both his immediate predecessor and successor did in their first campaigns. He isn’t popular with a core constituency in the party which almost certainly makes his campaign a non-starter, but he’s going to unconvincingly pitch to them anyway because he has fundraised enough money from the worst people you don’t know to last until June. Right now, he’s hoping for a brokered convention to win on a fourth ballot or at the very least something to get him the hell out of Indiana.

Elizabeth Warren is Ben Carson

For a little while there it really seemed like they were running away with it! They become the leader in national polls and state polls and had the highest favorable ratings in the party! But increased scrutiny hasn’t been their friend and some voters are questioning their sincerity on some major issues, others don’t think they’re electable anymore. Yet they still represent a large chunk of the party and do reasonably well in polls. Not that long ago, it would have been hard to imagine someone like them leading a major party but there was a politician who looked like them before who shattered the glass ceiling. It’s hard not to find them endearing even if how they deliver speeches is often lacking in energy. People are also whispering about controversial things they did in their youth that would come up in a general election campaign but they built their mythology around it, so they pretty much brought it on themselves.

Bernie Sanders is Ted Cruz

He is supported by the activist base and not well liked by elected officials in his own party. His candidacy represents the natural evolution of the party, many of his positions have been adopted by the field, and he has led national discourse the last few years. He and the front runner clearly don’t like each other, but somehow they like everyone else running even less. He’s ideologically rigid which endears him to many voters, but it angers his colleagues. His plan for the nation is less about policy, although the policy is there, and more about a revolution of kinds to remake America. He makes the most sense as a nominee but it likely won’t happen because of institutional barriers but in spite of that, he’s more motivated in stopping the opposition than stewing over what might’ve been. People never doubt his authenticity because he’s been consistently for the same things forever and so he’s become the standard bearer for his wing of the party.

Joe Biden is Donald Trump

Ever since he announced he’s been the front runner. He’s objectively out of step with the direction the party has been attempting to go and he’s unpopular online. The media doesn’t get it and they desperately want him to fail if the coverage is to be believed. You might think there’d be stronger candidates considering his gaffes, old school ideas, and scandals but it seems like voters are kinda into it. They’ve known of him for the last 40 years, but they really got to know him the last 10 because of his relationship to Barack Obama. We keep waiting for him to falter but about one third of the party seems to be sticking with him. Sure, other candidates rise and fall but typically only ever to second place because nothing has been more consistent this campaign than his dominance in the polls. He’s the favorite to be the nominee and yet we’ll still be surprised when it happens because “I don’t know anyone who voted for him”. Also, what’s going on with his son? Is he alright?

Honorable Mentions:

Steve Bullock is Mike Huckabee

If it were 1988 he’d be President. But his political career didn’t line up with our current political moment and so he’s languishing at the bottom of the pack. He’s the Governor of a state that had ancestral roots in his party but has been long gone in this century. Why didn’t he run for Senate?

John Delaney is Bobby Jindal

Is he seriously running for President or is this a mix of mid-life crisis, boredom, and trying to find work as a talking head on CNN? Regardless he’s shockingly easy to meme and you’re not even sure if he’s still running.

Michael Bloomberg is Michael Bloomberg

He’s a Republican running in the wrong primary.

Deval Patrick is Jim Gilmore

Who? He’s running for What?

Julián Castro is Rick Santorum

He missed his chance to be President in the last cycle. It turns out that being out of Government for four years renders you essentially irrelevant to the voters unless you’re a Clinton.

The post The 2020 Democrats as Their 2016 GOP Counterparts appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The American republic is in crisis. Presidents abuse their power with impunity. Congress wallows in its dysfunction. The mechanism established by our Constitution to democratically and collectively address national concerns is collapsing.

Sound like an exaggeration? Good. Sound alarmist? Even better.

This next presidential election may be the most important in American history. The astonishingly corrupt and contentious reign of Donald Trump needs to end. But it needs to be replaced with an administration willing to take drastic action to address our most pressing problem: unrelenting and increasingly polarized politics.

That is why the Democratic candidate for President needs to pick a Republican as a running mate. Moreover, these two individuals need to pledge – if elected – to work together to put nation above either party.

Democrats naturally will hate this idea. They desperately want to wrestle back control of the White House and use executive authority as aggressively as the GOP has. Sharing this opportunity with Republicans will sound absurd. Democrats will demand their pound of flesh. And who can blame them?

But they need to resist this urge.

Everyone can agree that the parties have never been more polarized. Voters and elected representatives have never been further apart. Finding common ground has become increasingly difficult. Compromise has become almost impossible.

But we don’t live in a parliamentary system that regularly allows for “one party at a time” control. Our Constitution establishes a presidential system anchored on checks and balances and separation of powers. The President who enforces law is elected separately from the Congress which makes the law. Divided government (where different parties control different branches) is common.

Here’s why that matters. A system where divided government is common demands bipartisanship and compromise if anything is to get done. Public policy that successfully addresses the nation’s needs requires the recognition of common ground.

A Democratic administration beginning in 2021 will almost certainly be stuck with a Republican controlled Senate. Even if the Democrats pull off a miracle in 2020 and win a majority in the Senate, it won’t be a “filibuster-proof” majority. Divided government will again prevail. Gridlock and dysfunction will again abound.

Our best chance at escaping this nightmare requires the new administration putting nation above party. It involves using the “Bully Pulpit” of the presidency to advance compromise and bipartisan solutions. With a Democratic president working closely with their Republican vice-president, the White House will be able to champion proposals advancing national priorities. One party wouldn’t be able to own the policy since both parties had worked together in its creation.

Compromise would again become possible. The system, in other words, would finally work again as it was designed.

Congress would be compelled to play along and put petty partisanship aside. Representatives and Senators refusing to reach across the aisle would be labeled as obstructionists. But unlike the badge of honor that label now represents, in this new era of executive-led bipartisanship, obstructionists would be risking electoral suicide.

James Madison’s presidential system will never be replaced by a parliamentary system. And our political parties will not become less polarized anytime soon. These two simultaneous realities explain our dysfunction and the republic’s malaise.

A bi-partisan executive administration reminding us of our required need to find common ground gives us our best hope for the future. Short of this, the American experiment will continue to fail under the weight of polarized parties, executive overreach, and Congressional gridlock.

The post Why the Democratic presidential nominee must choose a Republican running mate appeared first on Occasional Planet.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff [D-CA] has published an open letter to his Republican colleagues, urging them to, at long last,  break their silence and speak out against the democracy-killing actions of Donald Trump –actions that they privately acknowledge as dangerous, but have been afraid to talk about publicly.

“The president has just declared a national emergency to subvert the will of Congress and appropriate billions of dollars for a border wall that Congress has explicitly refused to fund. Whether you support the border wall or oppose it, you should be deeply troubled by the president’s intent to obtain it through a plainly unconstitutional abuse of power,” writes Schiff.

Noting that many Republicans have expressed alarm about Trump’s actions — but only in whispered conversations behind closed doors, Schiff issues an urgent plea to these concerned Republicans to come out of the shadows in the interest of preserving America’s democracy.

To my Republican colleagues: When the president attacked the independence of the Justice Department by intervening in a case in which he is implicated, you did not speak out. When he attacked the press as the enemy of the people, you again were silent. When he targeted the judiciary, labeling judges and decisions he didn’t like as illegitimate, we heard not a word. And now he comes for Congress, the first branch of government, seeking to strip it of its greatest power, that of the purse.

Many of you have acknowledged your deep misgivings about the president in quiet conversations over the past two years. You have bemoaned his lack of decency, character and integrity. You have deplored his fundamental inability to tell the truth. But for reasons that are all too easy to comprehend, you have chosen to keep your misgivings and your rising alarm private.

That must end. The time for silent disagreement is over. You must speak out.

Then he asks for courage — the inner strength and concern for something greater than oneself that supersedes political loyalties and the short-term, self-interested need for re-election:

This will require courage. The president is popular among your base, which revels in his vindictive and personal attacks on members of his own party, even giants such as the late senator John McCain. Speaking up risks a primary challenge or accusations of disloyalty. But such acts of independence are the most profound demonstrations of loyalty to country.

And if not now, when, asks Schiff.

If we cannot rise to the defense of our democracy now, in the face of a plainly unconstitutional aggrandizement of presidential power, what hope can we have that we will do so with the far greater decisions that could be yet to come?

Although these times pose unprecedented challenges, we have been through worse. The divisions during the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement were just as grave and far more deadly. The Depression and World War II were far more consequential. And nothing can compare to the searing experience of the Civil War.

If Abraham Lincoln, the father of the Republican Party, could be hopeful that our bonds of affection would be strained but not broken by a war that pitted brother against brother, surely America can come together once more. But as long as we must endure the present trial, history compels us to speak, and act, our conscience, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Republicans, Trump propagandists and Trump-TV commentators will undoubtedly give Adam plenty of Schiff over this. I think he should be applauded for doing exactly what he’s asking his Republican colleagues to do–what we all should be doing — speaking out for democracy.

The post Schiff to Republicans: Speak out, already! appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In a recent Occasional Planet on-line poll of 239 randomly selected Americans, a somewhat surprisingly high number of strong Republicans place their trust in the mainstream media. Those who identified themselves as strong Republicans were asked, “

Which of the following do you trust most (check one)?

• News from liberal sources
• News from mainstream news
• News from conservative sources

The responses among these strong Republicans were:

• Liberal Sources – 6%
• Mainstream – 41%
• Conservative Sources – 53%

Of course, this is all muddied when we don’t really know how each respondent defines the media sources. For instance, if you were asked whether your local television stations are mainstream or conservative, could you make a strong argument that they’re conservative because they reinforce traditional American values and never want to “rock the boat?”

Is CNN mainstream because they’re not Fox or MSNBC, or are they liberal because they frequently state up front that President Trump is not telling the truth?

When a local station runs a story about the Susan G. Komen efforts to fight breast cancer, is it liberal because it involves empathy, or is it conservative because it bypasses the entity with the greatest resources to fight cancer, the federal government?

So, when 41% of strong conservatives say that they trust most the mainstream media, we really don’t know what they mean. Once again, another reason for greater study of conservatives from progressives if we are to better connect with conservatives and their concerns.

The post Surprising number of Republicans trust mainstream news appeared first on Occasional Planet.

As is self-evident, Republicans are gung-ho on cutting taxes because there is very little that government does that they truly value. The bigger the gaps are in the safety net, the better it is for many Republicans. The less protection of the environment, the more freedom there is, particularly for abusers. The more unregulated the financial institutions are, the more opportunity there is to create “funny money,” and the poor will only get a piece of that when it becomes a known counterfeit commodity.

We talk about the value of having a bird’s eye view of our society. If you could fly over every nook and cranny of our country, swooning down when desirable to get a better look, what would you see as America’s greatest, and most obvious problems? Since your flyover would include observations of the hollars in Appalachia as well as the neighborhood of Chicago’s west and south sides, you would see the abject poverty that reflects how tens of millions of Americans live.

You would also fly over Hempstead, the North Shore of Chicago and Beverly Hills. To a reasonable person, it might appear that the residents have more wealth than is necessary to live a comfortable life. That is particularly so when compared to the squalor in which so many of the others who we have seen are forced to live.

So, the obvious question arises. How can a country of so much wealth have so much poverty in it midst? This seems like such an obvious question to me. But that may be the problem. I am projecting my vision of America on everyone else, whether they agree with me or not. I don’t like the presence of poverty in our society, but clearly for many more, it is either a minor inconvenience or a badge of honor representing that some people clearly have it better than others.

For those who subscribe to the Bible, there is a line about the meek inheriting the earth. I guess that like virtually every other line in the Bible, it has a throw-away factor; a shelf-life only as long as it is convenient for someone the believe, or at least, espouse it. So, if I’m hung up on the economic disparity in our society, it may be that this is my problem and I need to “get over it.”

Like most people, I can be fairly stubborn and don’t like to sacrifice my values on a whim. But this leaves me in a position where I’m quite distant from the American mainstream.

I can be a bit of a policy wonk, but what good is advocating a set of policies if the public does not back them? The only other option is to grab an inordinate amount of the levers of power as so many well-healed Republicans seem to have done.

I could try to be preacher and spread the gospel of income inequality. But I think that many of our problems are papered over because there is the “preacher-industrial complex” telling us what to think and do.

I guess that the answer is for me to own my problem and hope that in small ways, the logic of the undesirability of income inequality will prevail. I can take a knee for that.

The post Is it my hang-up, or society’s, that we are so tolerant of poverty? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

How does the Graham-Cassidy “repeal and replace” bill compare to current law [aka Obamacare, ACA]? Roll Call has done the hard work of creating an easy-to-visualize chart to help us see the differences. [Spoiler alert: Graham-Cassidy is the most drastic version of “repeal and replace” yet.] Here’s the infographic. View it and weep. Send it to your Senator and Congressional representative, who most likely have no idea because they haven’t bothered to read or analyze the bill and/or are lying about what they do know. [And call, text, fax, and/or email your Senators, or sit-in, lie-in, or scream, kick and protest. This bill must not pass.] Note, too, that virtually the entire health-care world opposes this bill. [To see comments by the major healthcare organizations, click here.]

Graham-Cassidy vs. House-passed AHCA, vs. existing ACA requirements

The post Infographic: How Graham-Cassidy stacks up, in one chart appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The post After Equifax data breach, MO’s Ann Wagner votes against CFPB appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Throughout my entire adult life, my Republican friends insisted GOP policies were not racist: the laws are the same for everyone; let people pick themselves up out of poverty; there are poor white people too! As a white person myself, I wanted to believe this. I wanted to believe in a just government.

When I was young, I lived in Philadelphia. During a full decade of my life, I saw how the Move conflict developed because of race and ended in the bombing of a home full of black men, women, and children.

My father’s family were Texas farmers, and when I traveled to visit them in the slowly dying town of Nevada, TX, we passed through nearby Greenville – as you drove through this small town in the early 1980s, a banner hung across the road that read “The blackest land and the whitest people.”

Everywhere I lived and every state I have visited – it has been the same: in both the city and in the country I saw first hand that, no matter what, white people always had the advantage.

I saw the effect with my own eyes as I grew up – I knew people didn’t like to hire blacks, and that made it harder for them to earn a living. But I didn’t know that the federal government told banks not to invest in black neighborhoods. I didn’t know insurance underwriting was priced along racial lines. I didn’t know developments were authorized as long as they would not allow black residents.

My family moved to the suburbs to send my sister and me to good public schools. City schools were not good – like in so many cities.  Because we were white, it was relatively easy to build on our assets and leave the city.  I don’t remember one black person in my neighborhood. They lived across “City Line”, in Philadelphia.

My friends and relatives understood that slavery and racism was wrong in the abstract. But it did not seem to help them understand the full weight of racism on black people and communities. They didn’t see it with their own eyes. Or they turned away from it. It just was the way it was.

In my teen years, when Reagan attacked welfare using the “black welfare queen” idea, and I passed through black neighborhoods in Philly, I could see that was a big fat lie. No one was getting “rich”. It was harsh, depressing, and hopeless.

It is easy to believe the lie. With no real experience about black communities, it is easy to believe the political slogans and to blame black people for “their choices”. But “their choices” were our choices. Their conditions and limited opportunities were a product of our laws and social norms. And so poverty and all that comes with it deepens.

For 50 years Republican policies have successfully limited the black community and kept them “in their place”. But their anti-labor/anti-education/pro-big agra agendas, which unrelentingly include tax write-offs and benefits for the wealthy, have also slowly drained white working class communities of their opportunity and modest savings. They have drained poor white communities of hope.

And so, poor whites who may or may not have known or cared about the discriminatory policies of our government of the past century cry out, “What about us?”

And rightfully so.

Single issue voters have given Republican ideology so much power that now the GOP has openly abandoned even whites, especially poor ones.

Keeping people poor limits their choices and their voices.

Make no mistake. The African-American community has been silenced again and again by their poverty and their lack of options. Now the white people in Missouri and across the nation are also being silenced the same way. They are feeling the increasing pinch of the powerful removing their opportunity and freedom.  GOP policies will only make this situation worse for struggling white voters.

The recently failed Republican healthcare bills are evidence of this. Instead of actually solving problems, they continue to carry on with an ideology that provides healthcare to those who can afford it. If you can’t, it’s your own fault or it is okay you are left behind.

The GOP in so many states, including Missouri, has voted against making healthcare affordable or expanding Medicaid, has voted against infrastructure projects with decent wages, against retraining, against innovative businesses that bring new opportunities, and against education – the only way out of poverty for many. What have they really done to help the white working class avoid sinking into debt, illness, and poverty? I would argue nothing or very little.

It’s not the blacks or the Mexicans that are draining the system away from us and toward those in power. It is lobbyists and strategists and politicians.

It’s time for people of all races, Republicans and Democrats alike, to come together and demand change that benefits everyone. Not just ourselves. Not just the people at the top. Everyone.

The post White people ask, “What About Us?” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The current state of proliferating Trump scandals presents a once-in-a-lifetime political opportunity for the first Republican to truly stand up for what is right.

Think about it: One brave Republican congressperson, senator, governor or state legislator could build a 2020 presidential campaign on a single act of courage — standing up to the bully, being the first to publicly say no, and saving America from a despot. Remember Woodrow Wilson’s re-election slogan, “He kept us out of war?” Here’s one for a courageous — and ambitious — Republican: “He saved democracy.”

Clearly, taking a stand against Trump’s corruption, incompetence and mental unfitness is the right thing to do. Doing it for the sake of America’s future would be the purest of motivations — because it needs doing. But such an act of pure patriotism is probably too much to expect.

So, although I know it’s cynical to say this, an astute Republican with presidential aspirations could build a lot of political capital by being the first to seriously take on Trump. Doing so would be seen as an act of integrity and fortitude and leadership. Politicians have run — and won — on a lot less.

And if it’s a legacy one is seeking, this could be a big one: You could win the Profiles in Courage award, have a page reserved for you in every high-school textbook in America, be memorialized as a great American hero.

So, who’s it going to be? An article in the New York Times highlights several Republicans to watch  — not necessarily as potential presidential candidates, but as possible key players in the investigations into Trump/Russia that are now ramping up: Senators Susan Collins [ME], James Lankford [OK], Roy Blunt [MO], Marco Rubio [FL], Richard Burr [SC]. Judging from their past records, I have a hard time imagining any of these people taking a principled stand on anything, let alone bucking party loyalty and challenging Trump.

But maybe there are others whose political history is not as tainted as these old-guard party loyalists. Surely, if Trump’s popularity plummets and he is seen as a liability to continued Republican dominance in Congress, somebody’s going to glom onto the notion that breaking away–and being the first to do so — would be politically smart. So, even if a Republican can’t find the inner strength and moral imperative to do it for the good of the country, I’d settle for someone doing a good thing for the far less noble reason of seeing a political opportunity when it stares them in the face.

[This is not to imply that I would actually vote for such a person.]

The post Stopping Trump: a once-in-a-lifetime political opportunity appeared first on Occasional Planet.