I have cast a ballot in every primary, general and special election since 1951. Many were heralded as the “most important of a lifetime.” Most of the time it was a lot of blather. However, I cast my ballot Nov. 6 believing it is the most important election I have voted.
I voted for every Democrat on my ballot. The Democrats taking back the House encourages me, but by no means gives me solace that the poisoned atmosphere in our country today will get better soon. The Republicans have sold their souls to the devil. They gained two seats in the Senate. The deranged president will hunker down and his vile vituperative will only get worse. And the gutless Republicans will enable him as they have since he took office. Their hypocrisy is exceeded only by the contempt they have of their morals and family values. They knew what they were enabling. Their philosophy is “hooray for me and pee on you and I got mine and screw you.” The 16 months before he was elected, he lied over and over again (and has since), identified himself as racist, demagogue, buffoon, misogynist, adulterer, narcissist, unfit and a divider. (He accuses Democrats of mob rule! I have seen his rallies where he lies, and calls every opponent names and makes fun of the handicapped and spewing all kinds of lies and hate. And his supporters whoop and yell and hold up signs of approval. They scare the hell out of me.) He called his opponents all kinds of names and degraded their wives and families (and those same ones cowardly, joined and enabled him), alienated our friends and allies, they knew what he is.
And they have gotten away with it because of the disparity of demographics their party has created. They have gerrymandered states to guarantee their candidate will win. Twenty states with a population totaling about 40 million each send two senators to Congress. A total of 40 senators. The other 60 senators represent over 280 million people. To me that is minority rule. Example: Over two thirds of the population opposed Judge Kavanaugh, but he sits on the Supreme Court. Again, as is usually the result, more votes were cast for Democrats than Republicans. Minority rules!
God Bless America!
Carl Taddeo, Mansfield, Ohio
The fundamental law of Marxism is that the “state” gathers the wealth of a country and redistributes it to what Valdimir Lenin called the masses. Socialist, Communistic and Fascist governments all use the gathering of the wealth and redistributing of the same to the benefit of their country’s citizens. All Scandinavian countries, which are judged the best-run in the world, and most industrialized nations use a modified Marxist/Engle doctrine to provide their citizens with health, dental, eye care and elder care, along with free medications; even ambulance rides are paid by the government.
The presidency of Donald Trump and our Republican-dominated Congress have instituted the Marxist methodology of running our country with one major difference — our government gathers up our tax dollars and feeds it to the top 10% of the wealthiest people in America. Included in that 10% are the five uber-rich Americans who are the wealthiest people in the world.
Seventy percent of all Americans surveyed want Medicare for all. Eighty-five percent of Democrats want Medicare for all. Fifty-two percent of Republicans want Medicare for all. So why don’t we have single-payer for all? Simply put, the GOP and the millionaires and billionaires who support the Republican Party don’t want the masses to have it.
In a recent article in USA Today President Trump dammed Medicare for All as “radical socialism.” Yes, Mr. President, it is socialistic in nature, but nowhere near as radical as the GOP’s socialism of funding the wealthy of our country with the tax dollars of 90% of Americans.
Ed Hodges, Washington Island, Wis.
Wayne O’Leary’s and John Buell’s articles in the 11/15/18 TPP tell of the right measures to restore.public confidence in our Supreme Court. They remind us again of FDR’s 1937 Court-packing threat. I’d love to see more political commentators proclaiming the need for this. Ralph Nader’s article supplies sufficient reason, without offering the appropriate remedy.
Nader does mention that a series of adverse rulings by the Court’s right wing do not serve the public’s interest. Impartial fairness is not the right-winger’s operating standard (for some time now, as O’Leary’s article suggests). It’s something else when moneyed interests want the Court’s approval of the way they operate, which cannot be described as being fair to all. It’s tilted.
If a significant portion of the American public agree that this Court cannot be fairly impartial, then FDR’s measure is what is required.
William A. Montgomery, Reading, Ohio
I am writing on response to Sally Herrin’s “Indivisible November 2018” in the 11/1/18, TPP. I was born in 1944 and have voted in 13 presidential elections, beginning in 1968. At that time, the voting age was 21.
Only once was I convinced, at the time, that I was voting for the “good” — that was my vote for George McGovern in 1972. I have been a pragmatic voter all of my life, though my presidential vote has seldom mattered because I have always lived in Texas, where few presidential candidates who could be labeled “good” ever carry the state, assuring that all of Texas’ electoral votes go to the least “good” candidate.
It is way past time to cease blaming Ralph Nader for Gore’s loss in 2000. There are many other events and circumstances that also tipped the election to George W. Bush: the Supreme Court’s unprecedented intervention in the vote recount in Florida, the loss by Gore of his home state of Tennessee, the large bloc of Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush or failed to vote in the presidential contest. Had any one of these examples been reversed, Gore would have won. While Gore might not have been “good,” he was certainly better than George W. Bush.
From the vantage point of time passed, I’m not sure that George H.W. Bush in 1992 would not have been the better choice that year. It is not unreasonable to argue, though, that Clinton won, largely because of the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot, so third parties don’t always hurt the Democrat. My point is that we seldom have the chance to vote for the “good.” The least bad is our normal choice. Sloganeering in politics may be essential, but not at the expense of ignoring all the relevant facts.
Just for the record, I am a progressive, pragmatic, independent voter, who votes for the closest thing to the “common good” whenever possible and necessary. When how I vote clearly won’t matter in a particular race, it may not be necessary that I vote for the candidate who is closest to “good,” if he or she doesn’t satisfy my other criteria.
Lamar W. Hankins, San Marcos, Texas
On Oct. 19 I made a first-time ever call to NPR’s CEO Jarl Mohn. Leaving a phone message I told him that although I’ve supported New Hampshire Public Radio since its inception in the 1970s, a donor every time and now a sustaining donor, lately I’ve turned off my radio every time I hear Trump’s mean and demeaning voice. It seems his voice is on every hour or half hour. If he’s having a rally somewhere of his mob and cheering them on with lies and exaggerations, his adeptness with his power over them sickens me. NPR covers it. NPR seems afraid to cross Trump. NPR includes every rally Trump pumps up. A result could be to desensitize the radio stations’ audiences to Trump’s regular disregard for civility and fact. I’ll add science to that list of what Trump disregards — I have a scientist-daughter and respect the scientific process. Trump’s low standards are becoming the new norm. Nothing like it since V.P. Dick Cheney one time said in public to Vermont’s Sen. Leahy, “Go f*** yourself.” That shocked me. I’m going to resist Trump and being desensitized by his meanness. I’m not going to hear it anymore. As I write, my kitchen radio is off four days now. In all my years as an adult/mother/grandmother/teacher/activist, it’s been on 24 hours/day.
Now I am reading my daily New York Times and Concord Monitor to have the “news” of Trump. I can get it without hearing his nasty-man voice that puts me on edge and makes me fear for the planet, which is home to my family and the blessed many cultures of the world and to creatures large and small that I don’t see but care about. I don’t know if Trump will use the nuclear codes in a willful and stupid move, because he can.
Who else lives this way?
Lynn Rudmin Chong, Sanbornton, N.H.
Congratulations to TPP and Thom Hartmann for the cover article (“Republicans are coming for your Social Security ...”) in the 11/15/18 issue. Too bad this kind of commentary didn’t come a month or so ago when it might have swayed a few elders (even, perhaps, white males!) to switch parties.
Two caveats: As the excellent book, The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, makes clear, greater equality makes EVERYONE better off — even the wealthy. Secondly AI [artificial intelligence] is rapidly making much of the population redundant as far as productivity is concerned. This is quite different from Marxism which postulates virtual enslavement of the proletariat; what is occurring now is the increasing obsolesce of the proles. (thought question: what happens to unneeded people?) .
Anyway this letter is written just before the elections. I, for one, don’t see much of a blue wave, so let us hope TPP is allowed to keep publishing and Thom can continue to make public his trenchant analyses.
John D. Palmer, Huntington, W.V.
I enjoyed Hal Crowther’s article {“Cue the Visigoths,” 10/15/18 TPP]. I particularly liked his names for Trump [Agent Orange, Soulless Ginger Orangutan]. Here’s another: The Lyin’ King.
Jim Hansen, Indianapolis, Ind.
From The Progressive Populist, December 1, 2018
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us
PO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652