dailykos--2020-10-09--Can Our Politics Be Moral?

Can Our Politics Be Moral?

It seems such an odd question .
If it strikes us as odd , it ’ s probably because we ’ ve become inured to the corruption and duplicity of our current exceedingly-polarized politics .
Nowadays , when we think of moral , we probably think there ’ s an ought hidden in there , as in “ we ought to do this , and we ought not do that.
” We say to ourselves , “ Folks who think or do this are moral , while folks who think or do that are immoral.
” That ’ s conventional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more conventional than wisdom ) , and each of us quite likely has at least some inchoate sense of the sorts of ideas and behaviors that we would judge to be moral or not .
Politics , on the other hand , is about gaining and exercising power through the apparatus of government in order to achieve certain ends , outcomes , purposes , or objectives sought by citizens .
In a civil community or society where many people live together under a government , unanimous agreement is extremely rare because the objectives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Since politics is the way we broker decisions that affect all of us , being engaged in politics and government is about the only way to achieve certain of our goals .
Political power is the agency we use to achieve what we believe ought to be the rule or law for everyone ; this rule ought to apply to all , and this ought to be the situation for everyone .
So in a sense , the extent to which politics seeks and applies an order to human societal existence is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the inherent morality of politics .
What tends to be missing from this common-sense approach to politics and morality is precisely the underlying purpose of politics and the central purpose of morality .
The Declaration of Independence states that all human beings are endowed with unalienable rights to “ life , liberty , and the pursuit of happiness.
” The purpose of government , then , is to secure these rights with a system of government “ deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
” Thus , the purpose of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieving a meaningful and satisfying life for all the citizens of the realm .
In short , the purpose is to secure the conditions requisite for what political philosophers , both ancient and modern , have called the good life .
Into this scenario comes morality , for the good life is itself a moral matter .
Moral philosophers contend that a society ’ s strength and security depend on morality ; everything from trust in friendships to assurance in business interactions and confidence in government is ultimately rooted in an acquired sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ethical dimension of the roles we play in our lives and the rules we follow to guide our actions in our societal world are based on the premise that cooperation and collaboration—life together in community—makes it possible for compatriots to flourish .
Thus , the purpose of morality is not simply or only to articulate the justification of moral claims or assess what is right and what is wrong with respect to an individual ’ s character or behavior .
Rather , its purpose also includes analysis and appraisal of what is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live with and relate to one another in a shared socioeconomic world .
It should be clear , then , that politics and morality are inextricably fused .
Now morality is not an inherent trait of the Republican or Democratic or any political party , and deciding not to affiliate with any political party doesn ’ t make one any more or less moral .
What is inherent to political parties are views of the role of government in securing and protecting inalienable rights , and we all know these views differ across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declared , however , by the adherents of the various political views , is precisely what is their vision of the “ good life ” and how to secure the requisite conditions for people to actualize it .
If the purpose of politics is to govern our individual and societal lives , and the purpose of government is to secure and protect our fundamental right to life , liberty , and the pursuit of happiness , then surely our politics and our government ought to be informed by both a vision of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the consent of the governed .
And the moment we say “ ought ” here , we ’ ve found ourselves at the center of the place where politics and morality intersect .
As it happens , the end or goal of both politics and morality is the good life .
The question , however , is : What is this good life and in what does it consist ?
Without getting bogged down in the history of philosophy , it can nonetheless be said that the predominant course from Plato and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinkers is that the good life is a life of well-being , a life of being well ( right disposition ) and doing well ( right action ) , a life of thriving and happiness , of meaning and fulfillment .
It is a life of eudaimonia , as Aristotle called it , or as we say in the United State , life , liberty , and the pursuit of happiness .
With these thinkers , we can affirm that the good life is the state or condition of well-being and not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well-being .
For example , the good that is sought and that is well-being can not be identified with or produced by pleasure , wealth , property or possessions , social position , privilege , or prestige for the simple reason that all of these are transient and contingent on external circumstances .
While obviously correlated in some sense with external circumstances , well-being and doing , “ happiness , ” or eudaimonia is not necessarily dependent on certain external conditions , except as these provide the context for exercise of the virtues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good life .
What is required to actualize the good life is a certain character , formed by the intentional exercise of virtues , and demonstrating reasonable and sensible judgment .
Granted , there are now , and long have been , contested lists of virtues construed as essential to the good life .
But for both practical and philosophical purposes , all disputants would agree that the virtues are character traits or dispositions that lead one to feel and act in specific ways , in particular , to recognizably display good behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to recognize a “ moral ” or “ virtuous ” person as the agent of the behavior .
While it is possible to construct long lists of virtues ( see here and here ) , many such lists are too unwieldy for the purpose of exploring the intersections of politics and morality , and , quite frankly , contain unique behaviors that can simply be described by many words ( e.g.
, the “ virtue ” of compassion is caring , kindness , consideration , understanding , generosity , mercy , service , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referring to compassion are not each a separate virtue in themselves ) .
Yes , there are many behaviors we judge to be laudable and good , but the virtues held in view by the long train of moral and political philosophers are fundamentally the so-called cardinal virtues : courage , temperance , wisdom , and justice .
Yet another list that merits attention at the confluence of morality and politics are behaviors sometimes called the seven cardinal virtues , identified as the morally right and true opposite of the seven deadly sins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenges gluttony , patience dispels anger , kindness opposes envy , diligence stands against sloth , liberality counteracts greed , and chastity overcomes lust .
For a virtue to be a true disposition of character—and this does not go without saying—its exercise must be a choice that results in action that is judged to be right and good .
As Alasdair MacIntyre says in his book After Virtue ( University of Notre Dame Press , 1984 ) , “ such choices demand judgment and the exercise of the virtues requires therefore a capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing in the right place at the right time in the right way ” ( 150 ) .
To be expressively and intentionally moral , our politics needs to account for the good life by distinguishing among the humans who seek to live it , the behaviors that lead to and express it , and the conditions necessary for any and all to achieve it .
Under an ethic of moral virtues , these first two elements take us again to the matter of character which , as former UCLA basketball coach John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ a person ] does when no one is watching.
” I agree with Wooden , but I also think we need a larger notion of character , one that will serve the task of exercising reasonable and moral judgment in weighing the virtuousness of political behavior .
Toward that end , I want to suggest that we consider character to be the peculiar constellation of beliefs , attitudes , values , and commitments that distinguishes one person from another and that comes to expression in behaviors and social roles through one ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ character is formed and achieved by intentional development rather than being innate or inborn ; it is cultivated by the exercise of rational reflection and judgment and the choice to enact and habituate virtues recognized as demonstrative of the good , the right , and the true .
In this frame , the virtues are to be regarded as moral excellences .
What remains , undone here is robust consideration of distinctively civic virtue , or the personal qualities and standards of behavior we associate with responsible and honorable involvement in the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or a private citizen .
This exploration will inevitably require that we identify and probe what conditions are necessary for all citizens and residents to contribute to the common good , maximize the common welfare and well-being of all , and assure that citizens in the exercise of virtue can achieve the good life .
The vision of the Founders of our republic was that individuals had indefeasible rights that needed to be secured and protected in order that personal freedom and the capacity to achieve a meaningful and happy life could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Preamble to the Constitution declares that one of the purposes of government is to “ secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
” Or as Thomas Jefferson asked and answered in his second inaugural address : “ What more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people ?
Still one thing more , fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government , which shall restrain men from injuring one another , shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labor the bread it has earned .
This is the sum of good government.
” It is precisely the just and honorable performance of this type of government that politics ought to have in view and strive to achieve , for the flourishing and well-being of all .
Both we who are citizens here , and those who serve us as elected or appointed officials in our government , are summoned to give evidence of moral excellence , for ultimately there can be no society or community in any meaningful sense without a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life we all seek .
Absent a shared purpose and vision , we are not , really , a social or political community .

It seems such an odd question. If it strikes us as odd, it’s probably because we’ve become inured to the corruption and duplicity of our current exceedingly-polarized politics. Nowadays, when we think of moral, we probably think there’s an ought hidden in there, as in “we ought to do this, and we ought not do that.” We say to ourselves, “Folks who think or do this are moral, while folks who think or do that are immoral.” That’s conventional wisdom (though for many it is more conventional than wisdom), and each of us quite likely has at least some inchoate sense of the sorts of ideas and behaviors that we would judge to be moral or not.
Politics, on the other hand, is about gaining and exercising power through the apparatus of government in order to achieve certain ends, outcomes, purposes, or objectives sought by citizens. In a civil community or society where many people live together under a government, unanimous agreement is extremely rare because the objectives vary; different people want different things. Since politics is the way we broker decisions that affect all of us, being engaged in politics and government is about the only way to achieve certain of our goals.
Political power is the agency we use to achieve what we believe ought to be the rule or law for everyone; this rule ought to apply to all, and this ought to be the situation for everyone. So in a sense, the extent to which politics seeks and applies an order to human societal existence is indicative, in variable degrees, of the inherent morality of politics.
What tends to be missing from this common-sense approach to politics and morality is precisely the underlying purpose of politics and the central purpose of morality. The Declaration of Independence states that all human beings are endowed with unalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The purpose of government, then, is to secure these rights with a system of government “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Thus, the purpose of government is to secure the means for achieving a meaningful and satisfying life for all the citizens of the realm. In short, the purpose is to secure the conditions requisite for what political philosophers, both ancient and modern, have called the good life.
Into this scenario comes morality, for the good life is itself a moral matter. Moral philosophers contend that a society’s strength and security depend on morality; everything from trust in friendships to assurance in business interactions and confidence in government is ultimately rooted in an acquired sense of normative responsibility and obligation. The ethical dimension of the roles we play in our lives and the rules we follow to guide our actions in our societal world are based on the premise that cooperation and collaboration—life together in community—makes it possible for compatriots to flourish. Thus, the purpose of morality is not simply or only to articulate the justification of moral claims or assess what is right and what is wrong with respect to an individual’s character or behavior. Rather, its purpose also includes analysis and appraisal of what is the good, and how we ought to live with and relate to one another in a shared socioeconomic world. It should be clear, then, that politics and morality are inextricably fused.
Now morality is not an inherent trait of the Republican or Democratic or any political party, and deciding not to affiliate with any political party doesn’t make one any more or less moral. What is inherent to political parties are views of the role of government in securing and protecting inalienable rights, and we all know these views differ across political parties.
What needs to be declared, however, by the adherents of the various political views, is precisely what is their vision of the “good life” and how to secure the requisite conditions for people to actualize it. If the purpose of politics is to govern our individual and societal lives, and the purpose of government is to secure and protect our fundamental right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then surely our politics and our government ought to be informed by both a vision of the good life and the significance of government by the consent of the governed. And the moment we say “ought” here, we’ve found ourselves at the center of the place where politics and morality intersect.
As it happens, the end or goal of both politics and morality is the good life. The question, however, is: What is this good life and in what does it consist? Without getting bogged down in the history of philosophy, it can nonetheless be said that the predominant course from Plato and Aristotle, through Aquinas and the Enlightenment thinkers is that the good life is a life of well-being, a life of being well (right disposition) and doing well (right action), a life of thriving and happiness, of meaning and fulfillment. It is a life of eudaimonia, as Aristotle called it, or as we say in the United State, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
With these thinkers, we can affirm that the good life is the state or condition of well-being and not a particular content which produces a sense of well-being. For example, the good that is sought and that is well-being cannot be identified with or produced by pleasure, wealth, property or possessions, social position, privilege, or prestige for the simple reason that all of these are transient and contingent on external circumstances. While obviously correlated in some sense with external circumstances, well-being and doing, “happiness,” or eudaimonia is not necessarily dependent on certain external conditions, except as these provide the context for exercise of the virtues, the practice of which is the good life.
What is required to actualize the good life is a certain character, formed by the intentional exercise of virtues, and demonstrating reasonable and sensible judgment. Granted, there are now, and long have been, contested lists of virtues construed as essential to the good life. But for both practical and philosophical purposes, all disputants would agree that the virtues are character traits or dispositions that lead one to feel and act in specific ways, in particular, to recognizably display good behavior. That display is what moved observers to recognize a “moral” or “virtuous” person as the agent of the behavior. While it is possible to construct long lists of virtues (see here and here), many such lists are too unwieldy for the purpose of exploring the intersections of politics and morality, and, quite frankly, contain unique behaviors that can simply be described by many words (e.g., the “virtue” of compassion is caring, kindness, consideration, understanding, generosity, mercy, service, etc., and these other ways of referring to compassion are not each a separate virtue in themselves).
Yes, there are many behaviors we judge to be laudable and good, but the virtues held in view by the long train of moral and political philosophers are fundamentally the so-called cardinal virtues: courage, temperance, wisdom, and justice. Yet another list that merits attention at the confluence of morality and politics are behaviors sometimes called the seven cardinal virtues, identified as the morally right and true opposite of the seven deadly sins; so humility counters pride, abstinence challenges gluttony, patience dispels anger, kindness opposes envy, diligence stands against sloth, liberality counteracts greed, and chastity overcomes lust. For a virtue to be a true disposition of character—and this does not go without saying—its exercise must be a choice that results in action that is judged to be right and good. As Alasdair MacIntyre says in his book After Virtue (University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), “such choices demand judgment and the exercise of the virtues requires therefore a capacity to judge and to do the right thing in the right place at the right time in the right way” (150).
To be expressively and intentionally moral, our politics needs to account for the good life by distinguishing among the humans who seek to live it, the behaviors that lead to and express it, and the conditions necessary for any and all to achieve it. Under an ethic of moral virtues, these first two elements take us again to the matter of character which, as former UCLA basketball coach John Wooden once said, is “what [a person] does when no one is watching.” I agree with Wooden, but I also think we need a larger notion of character, one that will serve the task of exercising reasonable and moral judgment in weighing the virtuousness of political behavior.
Toward that end, I want to suggest that we consider character to be the peculiar constellation of beliefs, attitudes, values, and commitments that distinguishes one person from another and that comes to expression in behaviors and social roles through one’s personal agency. As such, character is formed and achieved by intentional development rather than being innate or inborn; it is cultivated by the exercise of rational reflection and judgment and the choice to enact and habituate virtues recognized as demonstrative of the good, the right, and the true. In this frame, the virtues are to be regarded as moral excellences.
What remains, undone here is robust consideration of distinctively civic virtue, or the personal qualities and standards of behavior we associate with responsible and honorable involvement in the public square, whether as a public servant or a private citizen. This exploration will inevitably require that we identify and probe what conditions are necessary for all citizens and residents to contribute to the common good, maximize the common welfare and well-being of all, and assure that citizens in the exercise of virtue can achieve the good life.
The vision of the Founders of our republic was that individuals had indefeasible rights that needed to be secured and protected in order that personal freedom and the capacity to achieve a meaningful and happy life could be possible for all. This is why the Preamble to the Constitution declares that one of the purposes of government is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Or as Thomas Jefferson asked and answered in his second inaugural address: “What more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
It is precisely the just and honorable performance of this type of government that politics ought to have in view and strive to achieve, for the flourishing and well-being of all. Both we who are citizens here, and those who serve us as elected or appointed officials in our government, are summoned to give evidence of moral excellence, for ultimately there can be no society or community in any meaningful sense without a shared purpose and vision for the good life we all seek. Absent a shared purpose and vision, we are not, really, a social or political community.


dailykos--2020-10-11--Kitchen Table Kibitzing: Reading this may be dangerous for your mental health: 10/10/20

Today is World Mental Health Day , in a year that has probably been the most stressful for people in this country and the rest of the world that they have known in their lifetimes .
And apropos of that , we go to Arthur Brooks , writing for The Atlantic , explaining why research suggests readers of political news websites are quantifiably unhappier than readers of , say , People magazine .
While there is little research directly in support of this phenomenon , Brooks interpolates data from a Dutch study conducted in 2017 , which found that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for every additional television hard news program watched a week.
” This was due , the researchers reasoned , to the predominance of negative stories , particularly in television shows with a political slant , and the feelings of powerlessness such a constant torrent of depressing information tends to evoke .
Brooks also conducted his own analysis and concluded , based on data from the General Social Survey , that people who expressed a strong interest in politics were eight percentage points more likely to be unhappy than those with “ little or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes something beyond the negative and depressing character of news programming is behind this .
Brooks believes that the fact that people now more overtly tend to select romantic partners based on political alignment , the imposition of politics into such a consequential aspect of human existence such as biological mating and companionship may have , in its inevitable effect of reducing proportionally the availability of romantic partners for everyone , had a less than salutary effect on our permanent psyches , and thus , our overall happiness .
In other words , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advice in 1970 may have been to “ Love the One You ’ re With , ” the prevailing sentiment now , if you ’ re a Democrat , would be to “ love the Democrat you ’ re with.
” And vice versa for Republicans .
So the result , as Brooks puts it , is “ If politics is so important as to preclude romantic love where it otherwise might have blossomed , happiness will fall as a result.
” The influence of parents on their childrens ’ choice of partner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes : So not only do we want our kids to share our political beliefs , we want to make damn sure that whoever they partner up with shares them as well .
But the real concern appears to be -- the in-laws .
And it appears that even if they ’ re from the “ correct ” political party , people don ’ t want their counterparts in-law to be ” “ too intense , ” even if they happen to agree with their views .
As Brooks notes , “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we tend to dislike overly political people , but it doesn ’ t take too much imagination to guess that constant foam-flecked political outrage makes one quite tedious.
” But Brooks loses me a bit with his next hypothesis , which is that watching too much partisan news results in a certain degree of ignorance about the world , which tends , then , to make one rather boring .
I ’ m not sure I buy that .
If you ’ re talking about right-wingers , perhaps .
But people on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as topics that challenge and stimulate them .
That ’ s why you have so many highly-educated people on the left .
I believe that on balance they ’ re interested in a broader range of topics , which would seem to make them less boring by default .
At any rate , Brooks recommends three antidotes to overdosing on partisan news consumption : 1 ) Get involved rather than keep complaining ; 2 ) ration your consumption of news so as to not make yourself one-dimensional ; and 3 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as DailyKos ) .
1 ) is obvious , 2 ) is feasible , but as for 3 ) , sorry , not gon na happen .
It looks like , for me anyway , Buddha ’ s going to have to wait until at least November 4th .
The evening would not be complete without a tribute to the late Eddie Van Halen .
But rather than a clip from the rest of his band , which I never found particularly appealing aside from Eddie himself , here is a version @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , live from the Orange Lounge .

Today is World Mental Health Day, in a year that has probably been the most stressful for people in this country and the rest of the world that they have known in their lifetimes.
And apropos of that, we go to Arthur Brooks, writing for The Atlantic, explaining why research suggests readers of political news websites are quantifiably unhappier than readers of, say, People magazine.
As the election season heats up, many Americans are attached to their opinions—especially their political ones—as if they were their life’s savings; they obsess over their beliefs like lonely misers, and lash out angrily when they are threatened. This is the source of much suffering, for the politically obsessed and everyone else.
While there is little research directly in support of this phenomenon, Brooks interpolates data from a Dutch study conducted in 2017, which found that “on average, well-being falls 6.1 percent for every additional television hard news program watched a week.” This was due, the researchers reasoned, to the predominance of negative stories, particularly in television shows with a political slant, and the feelings of powerlessness such a constant torrent of depressing information tends to evoke. Brooks also conducted his own analysis and concluded, based on data from the General Social Survey, that people who expressed a strong interest in politics were eight percentage points more likely to be unhappy than those with “little or no” such interest.
But Brooks believes something beyond the negative and depressing character of news programming is behind this.
I believe that today’s partisan climate, media polarization, and constant political debates are interfering directly with the fuel of happiness, which is love.
Brooks believes that the fact that people now more overtly tend to select romantic partners based on political alignment, the imposition of politics into such a consequential aspect of human existence such as biological mating and companionship may have, in its inevitable effect of reducing proportionally the availability of romantic partners for everyone, had a less than salutary effect on our permanent psyches, and thus, our overall happiness. In other words, while Crosby Stills and Nash’s advice in 1970 may have been to “Love the One You’re With,” the prevailing sentiment now, if you’re a Democrat, would be to “love the Democrat you’re with.” And vice versa for Republicans. So the result, as Brooks puts it, is “If politics is so important as to preclude romantic love where it otherwise might have blossomed, happiness will fall as a result.”
The influence of parents on their childrens’ choice of partner also weighs in the mix, Brooks believes:
In 1958, according to a Gallup Poll, 33 percent of parents who were Democrats wanted their daughters to marry a Democrat; 25 percent of Republican parents wanted their daughters to marry a Republican. Not so in recent years: Those numbers were 60 and 63 percent, respectively, in 2016. I suspect they are even higher in 2020.
So not only do we want our kids to share our political beliefs, we want to make damn sure that whoever they partner up with shares them as well.
But the real concern appears to be --the in-laws. And it appears that even if they’re from the “correct” political party, people don’t want their counterparts in-law to be” “too intense,” even if they happen to agree with their views.
And beware especially of in-laws: To quote the researchers, “many people do not want their child to marry someone from their own party if that hypothetical in-law were to discuss politics frequently.” In other words, these days you need to have the right politics for your beloved’s folks, but you can’t be too intense about it. It’s a bit of a high-wire act.
As Brooks notes, “The research doesn’t reveal precisely why we tend to dislike overly political people, but it doesn’t take too much imagination to guess that constant foam-flecked political outrage makes one quite tedious.”
But Brooks loses me a bit with his next hypothesis, which is that watching too much partisan news results in a certain degree of ignorance about the world, which tends, then, to make one rather boring.
I’m not sure I buy that. If you’re talking about right-wingers, perhaps. But people on the left are usually very open to alternatives as well as topics that challenge and stimulate them. That’s why you have so many highly-educated people on the left. I believe that on balance they’re interested in a broader range of topics, which would seem to make them less boring by default.
At any rate, Brooks recommends three antidotes to overdosing on partisan news consumption: 1) Get involved rather than keep complaining; 2) ration your consumption of news so as to not make yourself one-dimensional; and 3) turn off ultra-partisan news sources (apparently such as DailyKos).
1) is obvious, 2) is feasible, but as for 3), sorry, not gonna happen.
Each of us has political views, many of them strongly held. Each of us is convinced that we are right—and some of us might well be. But if we let these views dominate our thoughts, our time, and our conversations, they will harm our relationships and happiness. We can be happier if, sometimes, we follow the Buddha and just let our opinions go.
It looks like, for me anyway, Buddha’s going to have to wait until at least November 4th.
The evening would not be complete without a tribute to the late Eddie Van Halen. But rather than a clip from the rest of his band, which I never found particularly appealing aside from Eddie himself, here is a version of “Jump” by Paul Anka, live from the Orange Lounge.


dailykos--2020-10-10--Tie Republicans to the fossil fuel anchor they grabbed

After Biden and Harris trounced their respective opponents in televised debates , I have one simple request for our candidates .
Embrace the transition from fossil fuels to renewables , aggressively and with passion .
It ’ s a winner .
For the sake of humanity , we need it .
At the debate with Kamala Harris , Mike Pence repeatedly thought he had Harris caught in some fracking corner .
He lied about unleashing energy , which follows years of Trump ’ s sucking up to coal .
Don ’ t worry Democrats .
It ’ s an opening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s some things to keep repeating as often as they tout fossil fuel jobs , or when they cower about China .
There are more jobs in renewables than in fossil fuels .
The green economy is coming .
Other countries are going hard towards this future .
They will pass us if we don ’ t make the transition .
China advanced to the top position in renewable and clean energy investment because they embrace science and renewables .
Clinging to fossil fuels will let them dominate the future energy economy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fossil fuels .
We are not banning fracking , but fossil fuels are going away .
Those who cling to fossil fuels are dragging us down and holding us back .
The less we frack , the better our ground water will be .
Renewable energy helps us to save our water .
There are more jobs in renewables than in fossil fuels .
Reliance on fossil fuels motivated us to fight wars in the Middle East .
Stop killing our heroes over outdated technology .
There are more jobs in renewables @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local jobs and control of energy supplies .
Bring the wealth to neighborhoods instead of oil company board rooms .
Coupling conservation with renewable energy will provide even more jobs and a clean home for our kids .
There are more jobs in renewables and conservation than in fossil fuels .
Republicans want to be known as the defenders of fossil fuels .
Tie that anchor to them .
Be a champion now and in the future .
Embrace renewable energy and the green economy .

After Biden and Harris trounced their respective opponents in televised debates, I have one simple request for our candidates. Embrace the transition from fossil fuels to renewables, aggressively and with passion. It’s a winner. For the sake of humanity, we need it.
At the debate with Kamala Harris, Mike Pence repeatedly thought he had Harris caught in some fracking corner. He lied about unleashing energy, which follows years of Trump’s sucking up to coal. Don’t worry Democrats. It’s an opening, not a corner. Here’s some things to keep repeating as often as they tout fossil fuel jobs, or when they cower about China.
There are more jobs in renewables than in fossil fuels.
The green economy is coming. Other countries are going hard towards this future. They will pass us if we don’t make the transition.
China advanced to the top position in renewable and clean energy investment because they embrace science and renewables. Clinging to fossil fuels will let them dominate the future energy economy.
There are more jobs in renewables than in fossil fuels.
We are not banning fracking, but fossil fuels are going away. Those who cling to fossil fuels are dragging us down and holding us back.
The less we frack, the better our ground water will be. Renewable energy helps us to save our water.
There are more jobs in renewables than in fossil fuels.
Reliance on fossil fuels motivated us to fight wars in the Middle East. Stop killing our heroes over outdated technology.
Fossil fuel wealth has empowered corrupt autocrats. Stop supporting dictators with fossil fuel wealth.
There are more jobs in renewables than in fossil fuels.
Renewables provide local jobs and control of energy supplies. Bring the wealth to neighborhoods instead of oil company board rooms.
Coupling conservation with renewable energy will provide even more jobs and a clean home for our kids.
There are more jobs in renewables and conservation than in fossil fuels.
Republicans want to be known as the defenders of fossil fuels. Tie that anchor to them. Be a champion now and in the future. Embrace renewable energy and the green economy.


Pick One

This late in the game it ’ s hard to imagine anyone not being clear on what the stakes really are in this upcoming election .
But yet we still see so many actually proclaiming their own superiority because of their refusal to “ sacrifice their principles ” .
They insist on voting third party and won ’ t stop trying to convince others to do the same .
Neither candidate is up to their standards .
While I can ’ t disagree with that sentiment , the time has come for pragmatism .
Everybody can ’ t have their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re in a fight for our very lives here .
Pick one of the two !
Demanding perfection has its place but not when you ’ re standing at a fork in the road having to choose one way or the other and one leads to a cliff with nowhere to go , and the other to a clearing where you can temporarily set up camp and from where you can then choose a better place to go .
Pick one of the two !
Let ’ s use another analogy .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Your favorite team didn ’ t make it .
Two teams you hate are battling it out .
Do you now change your focus and still root for one of the two , or do you sulk and boycott the entire thing because your team is out ?
If the one team has already cheated , ignored the rules , bought referees and officials , and vowed to officially change the rules in their favor if they win , then what ?
How about if they steal the trophy and it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If they lose and pretend they won , officials let them , and then they just pass the trophy on to other members of their team… ?
What will you do ?
Pick one of the two !
Will a “ protest vote ” convince the cheaters to listen to what you have to say in the future ?
Will it help to insist that YOU want your team to win ?
How about screaming that the local high school team deserves the trophy and you will refuse to watch if that doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be bothered by what you think in the least if they ’ re already operating outside of regulations ?
This is not multiple choice anymore .
We ’ re left with two contenders .
Pick one of the two !
Are you really going to vote for someone who ’ s not actually in the game ?

Crossroads
This late in the game it’s hard to imagine anyone not being clear on what the stakes really are in this upcoming election. But yet we still see so many actually proclaiming their own superiority because of their refusal to “sacrifice their principles”. They insist on voting third party and won’t stop trying to convince others to do the same. Neither candidate is up to their standards.
While I can’t disagree with that sentiment, the time has come for pragmatism. Everybody can’t have their very own tailor-made candidate. We’re in a fight for our very lives here. Pick one of the two!
Demanding perfection has its place but not when you’re standing at a fork in the road having to choose one way or the other and one leads to a cliff with nowhere to go, and the other to a clearing where you can temporarily set up camp and from where you can then choose a better place to go.
Pick one of the two!
Analogy
Let’s use another analogy. You’re watching the Super Bowl. Your favorite team didn’t make it. Two teams you hate are battling it out. Do you now change your focus and still root for one of the two, or do you sulk and boycott the entire thing because your team is out?
If the one team has already cheated, ignored the rules, bought referees and officials, and vowed to officially change the rules in their favor if they win, then what? How about if they steal the trophy and it’s very obvious that they did so? If they lose and pretend they won, officials let them, and then they just pass the trophy on to other members of their team…?
What will you do?
Pick one of the two!
Will a “protest vote” convince the cheaters to listen to what you have to say in the future? Will it help to insist that YOU want your team to win? How about screaming that the local high school team deserves the trophy and you will refuse to watch if that doesn’t happen? Will the cheaters be bothered by what you think in the least if they’re already operating outside of regulations?
This is not multiple choice anymore. We’re left with two contenders. Pick one of the two!
Are you really going to vote for someone who’s not actually in the game?


dailykos--2020-10-12--Trump Vs. Obama:  Farm Income & Subsidies

Farmers continue to get bashed over the farm subsidies question .
Even more so under Trump , and with the release of updated data on farm income and wealth , ( USDA : Economic Research Service ( ERS , ) 9/2/20 , `` Data Files : U.S. and State-Level Farm Income and Wealth Statistics , '' ) https : //www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/farm-income-and-wealth-statistics/data-files-us-and-state-level-farm-income-and-wealth-statistics/ ) .
Many Democrats seem to be claiming that Trump has been good for farmers , especially across the major grain farming regions and the South , where there are a lot of red states .
These Democrats make a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
All of this helps Trump win , of course , and they 're mad about it .
Many others join the chorus .
Behind these claims are a number of major farm subsidy myths that I 've addressed here and elsewhere over the years .
Most importantly , people look only at the subsidies , and not the larger economic context behind them .
For example , the cornbelt has received the most subsidies from Trump , much more than from Obama .
It ’ s also had the biggest reductions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there have been problems on farms under Trump , starting with the trade war with China , and continuing with some big covid 19 impacts , such as reductions in livestock due to problems at meat plants , resulting in lowered demand for corn .
Waivers from biofuels usage , ( big for corn and soybeans , ) is another problem that 's being talked about .
But still , there has been a lot of writing and posting complaining about the government subsidies farmers receive .
The bigger problem of farmers paying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CAFOs , ( animal factories , ) and to foreign buyers like China , ( all as cheap , below cost farm prices , ) gets little specific mention .
It seems clear that this side of the issue package gets little traction .
Behind all of this is blindness to the actual full evidence , subsidies , yes , but in the context of the larger market context .
The subsidies are visible , it seems .
The larger context remains hidden .
Here I correct this .
Net Farm Income comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsidies and other factors , and then subtracting expenses , as computed by ERS .
What I show is a variation on that .
I show what net farm income would be if there were no subsidies , and then I include all subsidies , ( Direct government payments , ) on top of that .
These payments include the main farm subsidy programs , Agricultural Risk Coverage ( ARC , ) and Price Loss Coverage , ( PLC ) , Trump 's big new temporary subsidies , plus payments for conservation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some farmers is how regular farm subsidies , Agricultural Risk Coverage , ( ARC , ) and Price Loss Coverage , ( PLC , ) have worked out .
ARC has dried up for some crops during the Trump years .
For example , 97 % of Iowa Corn farmers chose ARC in 2014 , as PLC wouldn ’ t pay anything at those Obama era price levels .
But then corn prices fell , year after year , from $ 6.92 in 2012 to $ 4.49 in 2013 , $ 3.71 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 3.30 in 2016 and $ 3.31 in 2017 , and only a little higher in 2018 .
As prices fell , however , ARC subsidies declined , to where almost all ARC recipient across a large region received no subsidies for corn , soybeans and wheat in 2017 and 2018 , ( paid in 2018 and 2019 ) .
( www.fsa.usda.gov/… & www.fsa.usda.gov/ ... ) The ARC program is irrational .
It ’ s not at all “ risk management.
” It ’ s forced gambling .
Related to this , PLC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prices , and originally set in 2013 , ) were not adjusted for inflation in either the 2014 or 2018 Farm Bills .
So , for example , the subsidy trigger for corn , originally $ 3.70 , ( below which you get a fraction of the reduction as a subsidy , ) falls down close to $ 3.00 by 2023 ( in 2013 dollars ) .
( See the discussion below about the original Democratic Party Farm Bills and more recent proposals . )
Additionally , the PLC subsidy triggers for peanuts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full costs , while the comparable “ Reference Prices ” for most grains were set well below these costs , favoring the South over the Midwest .
( More about these comparisons is also shown in the slide shows . )
It seems that few farm and food issue advocates who are concerned about subsidies have given much thought to what the full evidence actually looks like .
NET FARM INCOME IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER WITH TRUMP , EVEN WITH BIGGER SUBSIDIES The full evidence shows a very different picture .
Net Farm Income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the red Trump region , especially in the Cornbelt , ( Iowa , Illinois , Indiana , Ohio , Missouri , ) Plains states , ( North Dakota , South Dakota , Nebraska , Kansas , Oklahoma , though Texas is up , ) and 5 Dairy or Lake states , most of which connect with the Cornbelt , ( Minnesota , Wisconsin , Michigan , New York , Pennsylvania ) .
The Cornbelt got the biggest subsidies , but also had the biggest reductions , both quantitatively and as a percentage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states ) .
Farm debt is up , as are interest costs .
Yearly average net value for corn and soybeans , ( value minus USDA full costs , ) averaged nearly $ 10 billion above zero for Obama , while with Trump they 've averaged more than $ 5 billion below zero .
That 's a $ 15 billion difference per year for corn and soybean farmers .
Over all farm cash receipts are down more than $ 12 billion per year for livestock and nearly $ 28 billion for crops .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduction of more than $ 150 billion dollars .
2 DETAILED SLIDE SHOWS OF HOW FARMERS ARE HURT BY TRUMP These statistics mean much more if they can be seen , along with maps of where this is happening , not just read .
That 's now available on two slide shows I 've uploaded featuring this data .
The first slideshow shows the contrast between Trump and Obama and other time periods by farming region .
The main focus is on comparing Net Farm Income ( showing subsidies ) .
Other comparisons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regular farm subsidies have all but disappeared by 2019 for states like Iowa .
This slide show is found on SlideShare , here .
The second slideshow shows the data for every state .
It 's on SlideShare , here .
The rural vote is important for winning the electoral college .
To win , Democrats should respect the need of farming states to be heard , and not drowned out by urban mega-centers .
Democrats must re-learn about the core farm issues .
Historically Democrats have supported much cheaper farm bills that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That 's reflected in the Net Farm Income charts , which start with the `` parity '' years , ( 1942-1952 , ) of the early Democratic Party Farm Bills of the New Deal .
For most states , this early period had much higher Net Farm Income , with hardly any of it coming from Direct Government Payments of any kind .
This is also seen , very dramatically , in the various progressive populist Farm Bill proposals over the decades , like the Family Farm Act of 1987 , ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which found that this approach would favor grass-fed livestock systems over CAFO systems .
More recent proposals come from the National Family Farm Coalition , the National Farmers Union , the Texas Farmers Union , and the Wisconsin Farmers Union ( https : //zcomm.org/zblogs/primer-farm-justice-proposals-for-the-2012-farm-bill-by-brad-wilson/ ) .
There have been econometric studies done inmost of these proposals .
They make more money on farm exports , make CAFOs pay farmers significantly more , and cost much less than Republican approaches .
Years ago Joe Biden supported the Harkin-Gephardt proposal , above , and says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harris also supported this more profitable , less expensive , Democratic Party approach , ( repeatedly touted in Democratic platforms over the years , www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ ... ) .
With all of the big spending in response to covid 19 , including the farm subsidies and those in response to Trump ’ s trade war , farm subsidies will be much at risk in the future .
To see how bad this might be for farmers , check out the blue portion of the Net Farm Income bars on the charts above and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Net Farm Income would have been without any subsidies .
Meanwhile , the farm economy has been very bad , with very profitability , very low low Rates of Return on Equity and Assets from current income .
On the other hand , with the Steagall Amendment of 1941 and other legislation , the farm programs were used as a non spending economic stimulus , where minimum farm Price Floors were raised to “ living wage ” or “ parity ” levels to create wealth , ( 85 % or 90 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of parity of income ) .
( See my Daily Kos diaries on this here www.dailykos.com/… and cf .
here www.dailykos.com/ ... . )
Today these programs need extra features to make up for all of the damage that ’ s been done to U.S. agriculture , to climate and the environment , to minority farmers , and to the economy generally , ( less wealth and lower rates of wealth creation , ) all for the benefit of agribusiness .
We need to restore the diversity of livestock systems to bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alfalfa and clover hay , and feedgrain nurse crops like oats and barley .
Vast areas should be seeded down to this permanent cover .
Bringing back Supply Management systems should make the biggest farms cut back more , and give special advantages to organic farms and the farms of special needs farmers , including beginning farmers , women farmers , and minority farmers .
zcomm.org/ ...

INTRODUCTION
Farmers continue to get bashed over the farm subsidies question. Even more so under Trump, and with the release of updated data on farm income and wealth, (USDA: Economic Research Service (ERS,) 9/2/20, "Data Files: U.S. and State-Level Farm Income and Wealth Statistics,") https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/farm-income-and-wealth-statistics/data-files-us-and-state-level-farm-income-and-wealth-statistics/). Many Democrats seem to be claiming that Trump has been good for farmers, especially across the major grain farming regions and the South, where there are a lot of red states. These Democrats make a case that farmers should vote for Trump. All of this helps Trump win, of course, and they're mad about it. Many others join the chorus.
The cornbelt, consisting of 4 red states and 1 blue state, was hit especially hard during the Trump years. Note: state data is only available through 2019. Cf. the U.S. chart, below.
Behind these claims are a number of major farm subsidy myths that I've addressed here and elsewhere over the years. Most importantly, people look only at the subsidies, and not the larger economic context behind them. For example, the cornbelt has received the most subsidies from Trump, much more than from Obama. It’s also had the biggest reductions in Net Farm Income.
People know that there have been problems on farms under Trump, starting with the trade war with China, and continuing with some big covid 19 impacts, such as reductions in livestock due to problems at meat plants, resulting in lowered demand for corn. Waivers from biofuels usage, (big for corn and soybeans,) is another problem that's being talked about. But still, there has been a lot of writing and posting complaining about the government subsidies farmers receive.
The bigger problem of farmers paying much bigger subsidies to agribusiness, including CAFOs, (animal factories,) and to foreign buyers like China, (all as cheap, below cost farm prices,) gets little specific mention. It seems clear that this side of the issue package gets little traction.
Behind all of this is blindness to the actual full evidence, subsidies, yes, but in the context of the larger market context. The subsidies are visible, it seems. The larger context remains hidden. Here I correct this.
NET FARM INCOME: SHOWING SUBSIDIES
Trump’s Net Farm Income is much lower than Obama’s, even with much bigger subsidies. This data includes forecasts for 2020.
Net Farm Income comes from gross crop and livestock receipts, subsidies and other factors, and then subtracting expenses, as computed by ERS. What I show is a variation on that. I show what net farm income would be if there were no subsidies, and then I include all subsidies, (Direct government payments,) on top of that. These payments include the main farm subsidy programs, Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC,) and Price Loss Coverage, (PLC), Trump's big new temporary subsidies, plus payments for conservation and anything else.
One important issue for some farmers is how regular farm subsidies, Agricultural Risk Coverage, (ARC,) and Price Loss Coverage, (PLC,) have worked out. ARC has dried up for some crops during the Trump years. For example, 97% of Iowa Corn farmers chose ARC in 2014, as PLC wouldn’t pay anything at those Obama era price levels. But then corn prices fell, year after year, from $6.92 in 2012 to $4.49 in 2013, $3.71 in 2014, $3.52 in 2015, $3.30 in 2016 and $3.31 in 2017, and only a little higher in 2018. As prices fell, however, ARC subsidies declined, to where almost all ARC recipient across a large region received no subsidies for corn, soybeans and wheat in 2017 and 2018, (paid in 2018 and 2019). (www.fsa.usda.gov/… & www.fsa.usda.gov/... ) The ARC program is irrational. It’s not at all “risk management.” It’s forced gambling.
Regular farm subsidies greatly declined for corn and soybeans.
Related to this, PLC subsidy triggers, (called “Reference Prices, and originally set in 2013,) were not adjusted for inflation in either the 2014 or 2018 Farm Bills. So, for example, the subsidy trigger for corn, originally $3.70, (below which you get a fraction of the reduction as a subsidy,) falls down close to $3.00 by 2023 (in 2013 dollars). (See the discussion below about the original Democratic Party Farm Bills and more recent proposals.)
Additionally, the PLC subsidy triggers for peanuts and rice were set well above 2015 full costs, while the comparable “Reference Prices” for most grains were set well below these costs, favoring the South over the Midwest. (More about these comparisons is also shown in the slide shows.)
It seems that few farm and food issue advocates who are concerned about subsidies have given much thought to what the full evidence actually looks like.
NET FARM INCOME IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER WITH TRUMP, EVEN WITH BIGGER SUBSIDIES
The full evidence shows a very different picture. Net Farm Income is down a lot all across much of the red Trump region, especially in the Cornbelt, (Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri,) Plains states, (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, though Texas is up,) and 5 Dairy or Lake states, most of which connect with the Cornbelt, (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania). The Cornbelt got the biggest subsidies, but also had the biggest reductions, both quantitatively and as a percentage, (as the most acute loser states).
Farm debt is up, as are interest costs. Yearly average net value for corn and soybeans, (value minus USDA full costs,) averaged nearly $10 billion above zero for Obama, while with Trump they've averaged more than $5 billion below zero. That's a $15 billion difference per year for corn and soybean farmers.
Over all farm cash receipts are down more than $12 billion per year for livestock and nearly $28 billion for crops. Multiplied by four years that's a reduction of more than $150 billion dollars.
2 DETAILED SLIDE SHOWS OF HOW FARMERS ARE HURT BY TRUMP
These statistics mean much more if they can be seen, along with maps of where this is happening, not just read. That's now available on two slide shows I've uploaded featuring this data. The first slideshow shows the contrast between Trump and Obama and other time periods by farming region. The main focus is on comparing Net Farm Income (showing subsidies). Other comparisons are also shown. For example, regular farm subsidies have all but disappeared by 2019 for states like Iowa. This slide show is found on SlideShare, here.
https://www.slideshare.net/bradwilson581525/farming-regions-obama-vs-trump
The second slideshow shows the data for every state. It's on SlideShare, here.
https://www.slideshare.net/bradwilson581525/trump-subsidies-in-context-states
WINNING THE RURAL VOTE
The rural vote is important for winning the electoral college. To win, Democrats should respect the need of farming states to be heard, and not drowned out by urban mega-centers. Democrats must re-learn about the core farm issues. Historically Democrats have supported much cheaper farm bills that help farmers get paid much more fairly. That's reflected in the Net Farm Income charts, which start with the "parity" years, (1942-1952,) of the early Democratic Party Farm Bills of the New Deal. For most states, this early period had much higher Net Farm Income, with hardly any of it coming from Direct Government Payments of any kind.
This is also seen, very dramatically, in the various progressive populist Farm Bill proposals over the decades, like the Family Farm Act of 1987, (Harkin-Gephardt, https://familyfarmjustice.me/2016/12/09/family-farm-act-of-1987/), which found that this approach would favor grass-fed livestock systems over CAFO systems. More recent proposals come from the National Family Farm Coalition, the National Farmers Union, the Texas Farmers Union, and the Wisconsin Farmers Union (https://zcomm.org/zblogs/primer-farm-justice-proposals-for-the-2012-farm-bill-by-brad-wilson/ ). There have been econometric studies done inmost of these proposals. They make more money on farm exports, make CAFOs pay farmers significantly more, and cost much less than Republican approaches.
Years ago Joe Biden supported the Harkin-Gephardt proposal, above, and says he might support it again. Kamala Harris also supported this more profitable, less expensive, Democratic Party approach, (repeatedly touted in Democratic platforms over the years, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/...).
A MUCH CHEAPER ECONOMIC STIMULUS
Rates of Return on Equity and Return on Assets have sunk to very low levels under Trump, as giant agribusinesses, profiting from farm reductions, have maintained quite high levels. The early “parity” farm bills, (shown on the first bar on various charts,) made agribusiness pay much more, and farmers were treated much more equitably. Since then, Republicans have led in the reduction, (1953-1995) and elimination, (1996-2023) of Price Floor programs. This needs to be reversed.
With all of the big spending in response to covid 19, including the farm subsidies and those in response to Trump’s trade war, farm subsidies will be much at risk in the future. To see how bad this might be for farmers, check out the blue portion of the Net Farm Income bars on the charts above and in the slideshows. The blue shows what Net Farm Income would have been without any subsidies. Meanwhile, the farm economy has been very bad, with very profitability, very low low Rates of Return on Equity and Assets from current income.
On the other hand, with the Steagall Amendment of 1941 and other legislation, the farm programs were used as a non spending economic stimulus, where minimum farm Price Floors were raised to “living wage” or “parity” levels to create wealth, (85% or 90% of parity with a goal of achieving 100% of parity of income). (See my Daily Kos diaries on this here www.dailykos.com/… and cf. here www.dailykos.com/....)
Today these programs need extra features to make up for all of the damage that’s been done to U.S. agriculture, to climate and the environment, to minority farmers, and to the economy generally, (less wealth and lower rates of wealth creation,) all for the benefit of agribusiness. We need to restore the diversity of livestock systems to bring back sustainable livestock crops like grass, alfalfa and clover hay, and feedgrain nurse crops like oats and barley. Vast areas should be seeded down to this permanent cover. Bringing back Supply Management systems should make the biggest farms cut back more, and give special advantages to organic farms and the farms of special needs farmers, including beginning farmers, women farmers, and minority farmers. zcomm.org/...


dailykos--2020-10-11--Nominee Barrett: How does your "originalism" theory account for Women? For African Americans?

Another in a line of proposed questions for Amy Coney Barret at the confirmation hearing .
I actually think it is criminal if these questions are not asked .
You are an open and staunch advocate of the “ Originalism ” theory of interpreting the Constitution , a theory popularly associated with your model , Justice Antonin Scalia .
Q .
By your Originalism theory , the meaning of the US Constitution is defined without any input from women .
At the time the Constitution was written and adopted , women were n't allowed to vote .
No woman was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The women at that time had views , correct ?
And those women ’ s views no doubt influenced the decision whether or not to adopt the US Constitution , right ?
Women were not irrelevant idiots , right ?
-- — What sources and authorities regarding women ’ s views have you ever consulted to inform your “ originalist ” interpretation ?
-- -— You have not done so because you are entirely comfortable with having the Constitution ’ s authoritative meaning today controlled only by property-holding White men in the 1780 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to your view , if women were barred from participating in the formation and passage of the Constitution , that is just too bad for US women today , right ?
-— The Constitution means only what those White men ( frequently slaveholders ) meant ?
-— At bottom , your Originalism view is that the “ authoritative ” meaning of the US Constitution is not informed by the views of women .
.
then or now , right ?
Q .
The US Constitution became effective in 1788 .
At that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slaves ( about 18 % of the total US population ) .
How does Originalism go about discovering and applying the view of African-American people in 1787 when determining the “ original ” meaning of the Constitution ?
Q .
If you think slaves should be disregarded today too .
.
.
in 1790 there were approximately 60,000 free African Americans in the U.S .
In applying your Originalism theory , what steps , if any , have you taken to ascertain the view point of these founding fathers ?
-— : You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comfortable with having the Constitution ’ s authoritative meaning controlled only by these 1780 ’ s White men , right ?
-- — According to your view , if African Americans were barred from participating in the formation and passage of the Constitution , that is just too bad for African Americans since then , correct ?
-- - The Constitution means only what those White men ( frequently slaveholders ) meant back then , correct ?
-- — And you are not just comfortable with that , correct ?
You are an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — And you will make this outcome happen , if given the chance , right ?
Btw , my prior suggested questions are here .

Another in a line of proposed questions for Amy Coney Barret at the confirmation hearing. I actually think it is criminal if these questions are not asked.
You are an open and staunch advocate of the “Originalism” theory of interpreting the Constitution, a theory popularly associated with your model, Justice Antonin Scalia.
Originalism and Women
Q. By your Originalism theory, the meaning of the US Constitution today is defined without any input from women. At the time the Constitution was written and adopted, women weren't allowed to vote. No woman was allowed in the Constitutional Convention.
— The women at that time had views, correct? And those women’s views no doubt influenced the decision whether or not to adopt the US Constitution, right? Women were not irrelevant idiots, right?
--— What sources and authorities regarding women’s views have you ever consulted to inform your “originalist” interpretation?
---— You have not done so because you are entirely comfortable with having the Constitution’s authoritative meaning today controlled only by property-holding White men in the 1780’s, right?
--— According to your view, if women were barred from participating in the formation and passage of the Constitution, that is just too bad for US women today, right?
-— The Constitution means only what those White men (frequently slaveholders) meant?
-— At bottom, your Originalism view is that the “authoritative” meaning of the US Constitution is not informed by the views of women . . then or now, right?
Originalism and Race
Q. The US Constitution became effective in 1788. At that time there were approximately 700,000 African American slaves (about 18% of the total US population). How does Originalism go about discovering and applying the view of African-American people in 1787 when determining the “original” meaning of the Constitution?
Q. If you think slaves should be disregarded today too . . . in 1790 there were approximately 60,000 free African Americans in the U.S. In applying your Originalism theory, what steps, if any, have you taken to ascertain the view point of these founding fathers?
-— Again : You have not done so because you are comfortable with having the Constitution’s authoritative meaning controlled only by these 1780’s White men, right?
--— According to your view, if African Americans were barred from participating in the formation and passage of the Constitution, that is just too bad for African Americans since then, correct?
--- The Constitution means only what those White men (frequently slaveholders) meant back then, correct?
--— And you are not just comfortable with that, correct? You are an advocate of that outcome, correct?
--— And you will make this outcome happen, if given the chance, right?
* * * * *
Btw, my prior suggested questions are here.


dailykos--2020-10-12--Democrats - a minority on the Supreme Court since 1970

The Senate Judiciary Committee begins hearings Mon.
, Oct. 12 , on the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court .
Her seat on the court will solidify its already very conservative majority .
National polls have shown that most citizens do not wish her , or anyone , to be appointed until after the presidential election .
A few Democrats have argued that if Barrett is appointed , seats should be added to the Supreme Court to balance its philosophical views .
President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence both asked their Democratic opponents in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court , presumably with liberals .
Both former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris danced around the issue , never answering the question .
They should have told the truth : The court is already packed — with conservatives .
In fact , in every year since 1970 , the majority of Supreme Court justices have been Republican appointees .
Since the beginning of Chief Justice Warren Burger ’ s court until the death of Justice Ruth B. Ginsberg , there have been 31 Republican appointed-justices and 8 Democratic appointed-justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no time was there a majority of Democratic justices on the court to write its majority decision .
By going to the web link for each of the last three Chief Justices , you can see those numbers .
In addition , the last four Supreme Court chief justices have been politically active Republicans appointed by Republican presidents : • Chief Justice Earl Warren ( 1953 to 1969 ) , was the Republican governor of California and Thomas Dewey ’ s vice-presidential running mate .
• Chief Justice Warren Burger ( 1969 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the 1952 Republican National Convention to get Dwight D. Eisenhower the presidential nomination .
• Chief Justice William Rehnquist ( 1986 to 2005 ) , was legal advisor to Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater .
• Chief Justice John Roberts ( 2005 to current ) served in Ronald Reagan ’ s and George H. W. Bush ’ s administrations in the Office of the White House Counsel .
When Trump warns the voters that Democrats would “ pack ” the court with liberal judges , he is basically saying he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But which ones ?
The three Republican-controlled Supreme Courts under Burger , Rehnquist , and Roberts have decided in favor of some major liberal issues .
Burger ’ s court with its Roe v. Wade decision recognized a broad right to privacy that prohibited states from banning abortions .
They also unanimously rejected Nixon 's invocation of executive privilege in the wake of the Watergate scandal .
Trump and some of the current Supreme Court justices have indicated they would not have supported those decisions .
President Ronald Reagan ’ s appointment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unanimously by the Senate , despite his role as the most conservative member of the Burger Court .
Times were different then .
Qualifications played a greater role than ideology .
The Rehnquist court was more conservative than Burger ’ s , as evidenced by its decisions limiting access to abortion ( while still allowing it ) .
On the liberal side , they overturned a prior court decision by ruling that intimate consensual sexual conduct was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment .
John Roberts ’ nomination as Chief Justice was approved by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half of the Democrats voting in favor .
It was considered a narrow vote at the time , but subsequent confirmation votes make it look like a landslide .
The New York Times describes the Roberts Court as the most conservative since the 1940s .
Nevertheless , a few liberal bills have received majority decisions .
The most controversial ruling upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act .
Engendering more heat , the court also proclaimed that same-sex couples had a right to marry and that businesses can not discriminate against LGBT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , conservative decisions made thus far by the Roberts Court — and by prior courts under the two former chief justices — far outweigh the liberal ones .
Often the more-liberal decisions were reached on a 5-to-4 vote .
The addition of judge Barrett would make the Roberts Court even more rigid than it has been to date .
So , it is inevitable that the court will interpret laws from the most conservative point of view possible .
Even the few liberal remnants from prior conservative court decisions will be subject to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arise ?
There are a number of theories .
One of the more meticulous explanations is provided by Prof. Nancy MacLean in her book Democracy in Chains .
It details the influence of billionaires , like the Koch brothers , who have shaped our judicial system to their liking .
They fund networks of organizations to oppose federal interventions that would place commonwealth concerns above individual liberties .
Hence , they support states ’ rights and legal philosophies that do not interpret laws in the context of modern social and economic problems .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ tool to navigate our current conditions are labeled as “ activist judges.
” Quinta Jurecic and Susan Hennessey of The Lawfare Institute make an additional point .
Writing in The Atlantic , they accuse Republicans of timing voluntary retirements of Republican-appointed justices “ to effectively bequeath seats to their political party.
” Sounds like a cool gimmick , but the pattern is not readily apparent .
Two of the last three Republican-appointed justices that retired voluntarily were replaced by liberal Democrats .
The exception was Samuel Alioto replacing Sandra Day O ’ Connor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court derives from how the Republican Party has slowly adopted an ideological litmus test to appointing and confirming justices .
This did not occur overnight .
Nominees from both parties had generally reflected a liberal or conservative approach .
But within that approach there was much variation .
Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed a variety of justices .
Hugo Black advocated a textualist reading of the United States Constitution , while Felix Frankfurter advocated judicial restraint in the judgments of the court .
Both approaches are widely supported by Republicans .
Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who were within the Republican fold but were broad-minded justices first .
As a result , Chief Justice Earl Warren arranged a unanimous vote for the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision , which declared that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional .
Right-wing reactionaries began an “ Impeach Earl Warren ” campaign over his refusal to support segregation .
Accusing some Democrats of wanting to enlarge the court with liberals is true .
Yes , they would like to follow in the footsteps of the conservatives in shaping the courts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this moment in history , if Democrats did expand the court , the result is most likely going to be similar to what FDR experienced .
Even with the Democrats controlling both Congressional houses by huge majorities , and FDR being a popular president , the public frowned on making such a jolting structural change .
Republicans have been able to reshape the philosophical orientation of our federal courts because the organizing effort has been underway for decades .
That doesn ’ t mean Democrats can not still make changes .
The D @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to learn from the Republicans , who provide an intellectual rationale for conservative justices .
Liberal justices need one as well .
A rationale that is open , not closed — one that can provide guidance , without requiring loyalty to any one creed .
Democrats believe their philosophy will help Americans across the political , economic , and racial spectrums .
D ’ s must not apologize for embracing this .
The Republicans embrace conservatism .
But Democrats fear embracing liberalism , because the very word has been so consistently attacked by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ searching for another label , such as progressive , social democrat , populist , or whatever .
The label doesn ’ t matter so much as the ability to explain it in simple terms .
D ’ s must believe in it and have the courage to openly present and defend it .
Nick Licata is author of Becoming A Citizen Activist , and has served 5 terms on the Seattle City Council , named progressive municipal official of the year by The Nation , and is founding board chair of Local Progress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ municipal officials .

The Senate Judiciary Committee begins hearings Mon., Oct. 12, on the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Her seat on the court will solidify its already very conservative majority.
National polls have shown that most citizens do not wish her, or anyone, to be appointed until after the presidential election. A few Democrats have argued that if Barrett is appointed, seats should be added to the Supreme Court to balance its philosophical views.
President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence both asked their Democratic opponents in the recent debates whether they would pack the court, presumably with liberals. Both former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris danced around the issue, never answering the question. They should have told the truth: The court is already packed — with conservatives.
In fact, in every year since 1970, the majority of Supreme Court justices have been Republican appointees. Since the beginning of Chief Justice Warren Burger’s court until the death of Justice Ruth B. Ginsberg, there have been 31 Republican appointed-justices and 8 Democratic appointed-justices sitting on the Supreme Court.
At no time was there a majority of Democratic justices on the court to write its majority decision. By going to the web link for each of the last three Chief Justices, you can see those numbers.
In addition, the last four Supreme Court chief justices have been politically active Republicans appointed by Republican presidents:
• Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953 to 1969), was the Republican governor of California and Thomas Dewey’s vice-presidential running mate.
• Chief Justice Warren Burger (1969 to 1986), played a crucial role at the 1952 Republican National Convention to get Dwight D. Eisenhower the presidential nomination.
• Chief Justice William Rehnquist (1986 to 2005), was legal advisor to Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater.
• Chief Justice John Roberts (2005 to current) served in Ronald Reagan’s and George H. W. Bush’s administrations in the Office of the White House Counsel.
You couldn’t select more-partisan chief justices.
When Trump warns the voters that Democrats would “pack” the court with liberal judges, he is basically saying he’s against the court sustaining liberal laws. But which ones? The three Republican-controlled Supreme Courts under Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts have decided in favor of some major liberal issues.
Burger’s court with its Roe v. Wade decision recognized a broad right to privacy that prohibited states from banning abortions. They also unanimously rejected Nixon's invocation of executive privilege in the wake of the Watergate scandal. Trump and some of the current Supreme Court justices have indicated they would not have supported those decisions.
President Ronald Reagan’s appointment of William Rehnquist as Chief Justice was approved unanimously by the Senate, despite his role as the most conservative member of the Burger Court. Times were different then. Qualifications played a greater role than ideology. The Rehnquist court was more conservative than Burger’s, as evidenced by its decisions limiting access to abortion (while still allowing it). On the liberal side, they overturned a prior court decision by ruling that intimate consensual sexual conduct was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.
John Roberts’ nomination as Chief Justice was approved by the full Senate, 78-22, with half of the Democrats voting in favor. It was considered a narrow vote at the time, but subsequent confirmation votes make it look like a landslide. The New York Times describes the Roberts Court as the most conservative since the 1940s. Nevertheless, a few liberal bills have received majority decisions.
The most controversial ruling upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Engendering more heat, the court also proclaimed that same-sex couples had a right to marry and that businesses cannot discriminate against LGBT people in matters of employment.
However, conservative decisions made thus far by the Roberts Court — and by prior courts under the two former chief justices — far outweigh the liberal ones. Often the more-liberal decisions were reached on a 5-to-4 vote. The addition of judge Barrett would make the Roberts Court even more rigid than it has been to date. So, it is inevitable that the court will interpret laws from the most conservative point of view possible. Even the few liberal remnants from prior conservative court decisions will be subject to further truncating.
How did this situation arise? There are a number of theories. One of the more meticulous explanations is provided by Prof. Nancy MacLean in her book Democracy in Chains. It details the influence of billionaires, like the Koch brothers, who have shaped our judicial system to their liking. They fund networks of organizations to oppose federal interventions that would place commonwealth concerns above individual liberties. Hence, they support states’ rights and legal philosophies that do not interpret laws in the context of modern social and economic problems. Justices that treat the constitution as a tool to navigate our current conditions are labeled as “activist judges.”
Quinta Jurecic and Susan Hennessey of The Lawfare Institute make an additional point. Writing in The Atlantic, they accuse Republicans of timing voluntary retirements of Republican-appointed justices “to effectively bequeath seats to their political party.” Sounds like a cool gimmick, but the pattern is not readily apparent. Two of the last three Republican-appointed justices that retired voluntarily were replaced by liberal Democrats. The exception was Samuel Alioto replacing Sandra Day O’Connor in 2006.
The current composition of the Supreme Court derives from how the Republican Party has slowly adopted an ideological litmus test to appointing and confirming justices. This did not occur overnight. Nominees from both parties had generally reflected a liberal or conservative approach. But within that approach there was much variation. Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed a variety of justices. Hugo Black advocated a textualist reading of the United States Constitution, while Felix Frankfurter advocated judicial restraint in the judgments of the court. Both approaches are widely supported by Republicans.
Republican presidents, likewise, used to appoint people who were within the Republican fold but were broad-minded justices first. As a result, Chief Justice Earl Warren arranged a unanimous vote for the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, which declared that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. Right-wing reactionaries began an “Impeach Earl Warren” campaign over his refusal to support segregation.
Accusing some Democrats of wanting to enlarge the court with liberals is true. Yes, they would like to follow in the footsteps of the conservatives in shaping the courts more to their liking. But at this moment in history, if Democrats did expand the court, the result is most likely going to be similar to what FDR experienced. Even with the Democrats controlling both Congressional houses by huge majorities, and FDR being a popular president, the public frowned on making such a jolting structural change.
Republicans have been able to reshape the philosophical orientation of our federal courts because the organizing effort has been underway for decades. That doesn’t mean Democrats cannot still make changes. The D’s should recognize that they need to learn from the Republicans, who provide an intellectual rationale for conservative justices. Liberal justices need one as well. A rationale that is open, not closed — one that can provide guidance, without requiring loyalty to any one creed.
Democrats believe their philosophy will help Americans across the political, economic, and racial spectrums. D’s must not apologize for embracing this. The Republicans embrace conservatism. But Democrats fear embracing liberalism, because the very word has been so consistently attacked by the Republicans.
Democrats seem to be searching for another label, such as progressive, social democrat, populist, or whatever. The label doesn’t matter so much as the ability to explain it in simple terms. D’s must believe in it and have the courage to openly present and defend it.
Nick Licata is author of Becoming A Citizen Activist, and has served 5 terms on the Seattle City Council, named progressive municipal official of the year by The Nation, and is founding board chair of Local Progress, a national network of 1,000 progressive municipal officials.
Subscribe to Licata’s newsletter Citizenship Politics