When
Sharice Davids won the primary, I left a message on her web-site that she
impressed me and that I would likely vote for her if she continued to
demonstrate honesty in her campaign, even though her politics are way left of
my moderate approach. (That’s because character is very important to
me.) As you can see below my signature block, I then wrote to her when
she and her campaign manager each, in separate conversations, denied that she
said the statements she made about ICE. She continually says she does not
support de-funding ICE, which may well be true, but rather than admit that she
strongly supported de-funding when talking with liberal media, she instead
continues to falsely accuse Kevin Yoder of misrepresenting what she said.
I
had thought her determination to avoid debates was because she figured she was
ahead, so did not want to risk a debate. Tonight, Tina and I watched the
one debate she finally agreed to do one week after voting started. It was
discouragingly clear how determined she is to avoid telling voters her
positions, despite repeatedly describing herself as “the new leader we
need”. To mask her support of Nancy Pelosi, this new “leader” said she
would wait until she gets to Congress to determine who to follow.
Having
repeatedly touted her bi-partisan nature, she was asked, by the press running
the debate, to identify something on which she agrees with President
Trump. She cited his move to base Medicare pharmaceutical payments on
prices paid for those drugs overseas. However, tellingly, she could not
bring herself to say she agreed with his position, instead saying that it was
something that could be discussed.
Her
platitudes about pre-existing conditions and special interests are meant to
scare and mislead voters rather than to illuminate issues. She might do
well debating alternative approaches to deal with pre-existing conditions, but
she has no interest in doing so. Instead her advertising falsely suggests
that anyone with a large variety of conditions has a pre-existing condition
which Republicans would use to deny health insurance. If insurers were
such a special interest that benefits from Yoder’s votes, as she repeatedly
claims, why do health insurance companies have mediocre price-to-earnings
ratios? That’s because most insurance lines of business have low, steady
earnings. Health insurers get a small mark-up above whatever the cost of
care is. Certainly, you could argue that their executives are overpaid
but unfortunately any such overpayment is a blip on the total cost of
care. The term “special interest” is used to tar any industry a
politician thinks is unpopular, not to educate. If I had to pick a
problematic “special interest”, I’d pick class action attorneys (who
overwhelmingly support Democrats). While I love the concept
of class action lawsuits, these attorneys have created an industry in which
they make tons of money and their clients get pennies (literally; we’ve gotten
class action settlements of less than $1, with a letter advising us to consult
with a tax attorney before cashing the check). Ironically, insurance
companies are largely owned by mutual funds and pension plans which
significantly benefit “middle America”, while class action attorneys are
privately-owned businesses generating huge personal wealth.
I
commented to Tina many times during this campaign that my impression is that
Sharice Davids is a very good person, but that she seems to be letting her
handlers run her campaign rather than taking charge. Tonight it was 100%
obvious that she wouldn’t speak her mind. Clearly she is not the leader
she pretends to be. Why would an independent person vote for someone with
radical politics who refuses to state her opinions honestly?
As
you know, I was a “never Trump (unless Cruz is the alternative)” guy and I
still answer each poll saying that I strongly dislike the way Trump is running
the country. But not everything that he does is wrong and I also strongly
object to the lies and distortions of the “resistance” politicians and
media. Although I was inclined to vote against Yoder at the beginning of
this campaign, Tina and I have decided to vote for him. Beyond my above
comments, it seems likely that there will be a Blue wave and I fear giving the
“resistance” too much power which can extend beyond Trump’s presidency. I
had not intended to express my opinion in this election publicly, but Sharice
Davids’ performance in the debate stimulated this message.
For
governor, I’ve favored Greg Orman, who is running as an Independent, but I
recently went to his web-site to say I (like Tina) would vote for Laura Kelly
because I fear Orman will split the anti-Kobach vote, allowing Kobach to win
the general election although only a minority of voters support him, just as he
won the Republican primary despite only a minority of primary voters supporting
him. It would be good to have rank-order voting so voters could show
their true preferences in such circumstances.
I’d
be interested in your thoughts if you care to share them. No obligation
of course.
******* (my response to some "Trump is the issue" feedback
People
receiving this email responded in one way or another that we needed to show
displeasure with President Trump in every way possible this election. His post-election moves have underscored your
argument!
Although
you may have been right, I fear we may over-correct. As Tina pointed out, many Democrats would view
votes for Sharice Davids, not as anti-Trump votes, but rather as pro-Socialism
votes. Since the election, a number of
columnists have opined that the left-most Democratic candidates did poorly
compared to more centrist Democrats, but the parties, like many people, interpret
elections to suit their biases. (I have
often told people that Republicans were misguided to presume that people
dissatisfied with the ACA would support Republican positions; many people who were
displeased with the ACA because they favor a single-payer system, not potential
Republican alternatives.)
The
possibility that President Trump will be the Republican nominee in 2020 has
been increasing. I fear having a worse
presidential choice in 2020 than in 2016.
Therefore I do not want to encourage the Democrats to nominate a
socialist. Voting for Davids would have
done so. Some people think that Republican
senators might oppose President Trump more going forward; that would be nice
and could reduce his chances of getting the nomination again in 2020. But I’m still very concerned.
Although
some people amazingly believe Trump’s lies, most people see through his lies or
understand when the media or another source points out his lie.
Some
of you wondered why I fear the resistance.
The lies and deceptions of the “resistance” are more insidious in the
sense that they appear more believable and the mainstream media don’t expose
them. When President Trump was elected, Michelle Obama said “When they go
low, we go high!” That was a wonderful approach to espouse, but in my
view, the “resistance” has accepted Trump’s limbo challenge (“how low can you
go?”). Too many people accept, then spread, deceptions. In partisan elections, nearly every ad makes
me less likely to vote for the candidate whom the ad favors. Apparently, we voters reward deceptive ads.
Here
are some other things that scare me about the resistance:
1.
Many
in the resistance do not believe in free speech; they believe in free speech only
for people who agree with them.
2.
Many
in the resistance believe in government control of many aspects of life.
I think we need government to monitor the situation and call out the
people/entities who do wrong. When the government is in charge, we lose
not only creative competition, we also lose an important independent control
over bad things that happen.
3.
The
continual degradation of our society that results from extremist misleading
discourse is scary. We need to move to the center, not to replace one
autocracy with another.
4.
I
think we have a huge number of amazing teachers, but when I was a teacher, I
did not like the teacher’s union. Unions make it hard for excellent
teachers to stand out and be recognized. Unions want pay to be based solely
on degrees/credentials and years of service. They protect poor teachers
from being fired. (There has been some
movement in that regard, but I think only because of strongly-expressed public
opinion, which will lose influence if the resistance controls.) Unions
try to crush competition such as charter schools. I cherish that charter schools
grant principals the authority and responsibility to determine the school’s
strategy and to hire/reward teachers who will help develop that school’s
mission/brand.
5.
The
resistance leaders, like so many politicians, have convinced themselves that
the only way we can succeed is with them in charge. Therefore, “the end
justifies the means” and they’ll go to nearly any means to win their way.
6.
They
have engaged in character assassination solely for political purposes. They’ve also (as do most people) criticize
people without knowing what is going on.
I don’t know who wrote “I Am
Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration” but that person went
from being abused by the resistance to being idolized by the resistance. Perhaps that should give pause to the
resistance?
Please
note that I am not saying the resistance is unique in the above
characteristics. I tried hard to convince people to pick someone other
than Trump/Cruz. As explained below, see "Is Trump Machiavellian?". I’m just
answering the “what scares me” question.
Others
wondered how I could find anything positive in what President Trump has done. Here are some positives:
1.
Under
Trump, the unemployment rate has declined to historic lows despite pulling a
lot of people off the sidelines into the pool of those seeking work. The damage that President Obama did to
workers was masked because a lot of people left the work force, causing the
unemployment rate not to fully reflect the malaise. It is preposterous that President Obama and
his supporters take credit for results which they preached could never happen
because of the fundamental differences in today’s world.
2.
Although
I would have voted against Kavanaugh (I’ll post my thinking when I have time),
I think President Trump’s Supreme Court nominees will be excellent
justices. I have concerns on some
issues, but if I’m right we need to improve our constitutional arguments or
work for our goals through Congress.
3.
I
believe we had too much bureaucracy. The
changes in the Food and Drug Administration appear to be positive. Relative to the EPA, President Trump seems to
be over-correcting, but the EPA was not operating properly before.
4.
I
particularly objected to the lack of due process when an agency would accuse
someone of wrong-doing and, if the accused person or company protested, the agency
itself would make the final determination.
I think this has reduced under Trump.
I’m
a high-tax, graduated-income-tax guy (but, in contrast to the Democrats, I want
to pay down debt). Nonetheless, when I
studied the new tax bill, I was pleased that it had some good aspects to it. It simplified aspects and removed some
distortions. Although it included
provisions which Democrats had supported during the campaign, the Democrats,
for political reasons, called it “morally obscene” and “the worst bill ever”. The Democrats and mainstream media misrepresent
the bill, ignoring such aspects as:
a1)
Some
corporate stock ownership (pension plans, 4.01k programs, ESOPs, individual
stock ownership, etc.) benefits the less affluent.
b2)
Some
employees got raises and bonuses specifically because of the tax bill increased
business earnings.
c3)
It
inspired growth that has led to more jobs and we seem to be seeing an increase
in wages as a result of competition for workers (obviously, that takes time to
develop).
d4)
It
is hard to lower income taxes for those who don’t pay income tax already (of
course, that can be done through a negative income tax)
If
we increased everybody’s taxes by $1 and gave all the money to the poor, I
would conclude that we’re helping the poor.
But typical Democratic analysis would criticize the tax as regressive,
because they ignore how the tax money is spent.
Bill
Clinton’s immorality scared me. But he did a good job as president and generally
brought us together. Since then, each
president has been increasingly divisive. I think Bush II, Obama and
Trump have each been overall negatives.
If interested, see my attached message to a friend who responded to my “how
we intend” email with a strongly pro-Trump message and referred me to an
article which praised Trump’s realpolitik approach. As noted in "Is Trump Machiavellian?", I am very leery
of “ends justify the means” approaches. That’s a slippery slope which so
many people of all political stripes embrace.
I
hope things will turn out well. Sharice
Davids appears to be idealistic, which I like.
By the way, some people criticized her for having moved into the
district to run against Yoder. That
seems to be true, but I pointed out that she lived here from high school
through under-grad, then went to Cornell for law school, Washington to work in the
White House and South Dakota to work with Indians. She had good reason to be away from KS. Some also noted that she had little
experience and that it was all in Indian Affairs; I think it is great to have have four people of Indian heritage in Congress (no, I don’t count
Elizabeth Warren as one of them). Some
respondents noted that Yoder has worked on behalf of individuals in his
constituency; that’s true and great, but as one of you noted, that’s not a
driving force in determining how to vote.
In
other races, I’m glad Laura Kelly beat Kris Kobach to be governor of KS but Steve
Watkins (the less honest candidate it seemed) beat Paul Davis for a nearby seat
in Congress and Josh Hawley beat Claire McCaskill for the Senate seat in MO. Those are three races in which I favored
Democrats but I could not vote in the latter two. It is kind of strange for me to favor Claire
McCaskill although I have always considered her to be a nice person and less
partisan than many senators. In 2012,
she perverted the political process by investing $1.7 million and in addition,
the support of her strategic team, to get Todd Akin the Republican nomination
to run against her. As she later wrote “Running
for reelection to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat from Missouri, I had
successfully manipulated the Republican primary so that in the general election
I would face the candidate I was most likely to beat.” Despite my disgust for such a brazenly unethical
action, she was still a better candidate than Akin. I did not expect to favor her again, but I
did against Hawley because his campaign was more dishonest than hers and
because he hitched himself to Trump.
It
is not easy to share political opinions, but I consider it to be a civic
responsibility. Our culture warns
against discussing politics with relatives or friends and it is considered to
be improper to discuss politics at work.
But, particularly with the complicated and divisive nature of our
politics, our society can benefit from such discussion. I often tell Steve Rose that he is my
favorite op-ed writer because after reading his columns, whether I agree with
him or not, I almost always feel more confident of my position. Perhaps I have served such a purpose for you
or perhaps I’ve encouraged you to share your opinions.
No comments:
Post a Comment