No, "Whiteness" is Not Under Attack

...White Privilege is.

The White Supremacist march and Heather Heyer's murder ripped the bandage off a still-open wound in America:  racial hate.  The backlash against anyone that equivocated on the issue, up to and including our president, was immediate and clarion-clear.  No.  Just, no.  But, with almost Newtonian precision, the equal and opposite reaction inevitably came.

There is a small, but insistent counterpoint in America that asserts that "Whiteness" is under attack.  First of all, I'm not sure, and never have been, what "Whiteness" is supposed to entail.  But I do see the very real pinpoint pressure that is inevitably penetrating the white bubble.  And that is being met with strong resistance among many who don't want that bubble popped.

This article is for the ones in their bubbles.  From a white man who had his popped and lived to tell the tale.  My message: stop fighting it.

If I had to define "Whiteness" I suppose I would have to use the word naiveté.  Our history and heroes are carefully disinfected and sanitized to remove any of the warts of reality or controversy.  Our holidays and patriotic remembrances are purged of any burden of conscience.  And our systems are inoculated with isolated examples of transformation, just enough to let us off the hook.  And, sustained by this cocktail, we can walk through life with rose-colored glasses, completely blind to the much larger and more complex reality of the American fabric.

I've always struggled with my German heritage.  My family came to the US well before WWII and my grandparents served in the US Armed Forces during the war.  As an Army brat, I was raised in Germany on an American base, an army of occupation still, in a 2,000 year-old city surrounded by relics both ancient and modern.  I learned that Germans had not erased their national shame, but confronted it and placed it centrally in their culture, so to never repeat it.  It didn't make me proud, exactly.  More like determined.  

Then I moved back to the states.  And, for the first time in my life, I was relentlessly tormented as a "Nazi".  There was no explaining to these people that (a) I was an American, (b) came from a multi-generational family who served in the American military (c) modern Germans are more determinedly anti-fascist than they could conceive.  They wouldn't hear it.  I retreated socially and kept my head down until we were tapped to move to our next base.  I didn't realize it at the time, but I'd just had my first brush with "otherness".  

I don't tell you this to evoke your sympathy or to ingratiate myself to any person or group.  I say it because what I learned was the importance of confronting one's history head-on.  Of owning it.  Of realizing that it is beyond my power to take back from the pages of history, but it is my duty to both carry it forward and make sure those lessons are not forgotten or re-lived.

That's where American "whiteness" fails us all.  Instead of confronting and coming to terms with our history and its very real ongoing impacts to people of color, we sink into our bubbles.  We deny, deflect, and "whatabout" with ridiculous statements like "all lives matter" and - the absolute worst - "political correctness."  When you don't treat a wound, it festers.  It gets infected.  And your problems multiply beyond the point where the original wound is no longer even recognizable.

My white friends who are struggling with this often say "I shouldn't have to keep apologizing for something I never did!"  Yet they continue to celebrate their white-sanitized version of America, not realizing that their continued denial is, in itself, doing damage.  Let me explain something.  People of color don't want Bob Smith to apologize for the sins of your ancestors.  They want Bob Smith to acknowledge that those things happened and still happen today.  They want Bob Smith to be an ally.  When you wake up.  When you pop the bubble.  When you SHOW UP in support for people that are still struggling against institutional and cultural racism and acknowledge it for what it is, that whole "apologize for my ancestors" thing goes away.  Take it from a German.

Is the President a Racist?

SPOILER ALERT:  No, I truly don't think so.  But that shouldn't make you feel any better.

I'll get more to the president in a moment.  But first, let's lay a few things out there.

First, there's a big difference between the political spectrum of ideologies and actual legitimate political parties.  Let's have the sophistication to separate the two.  Not all ultra-conservative (reactionary) ideologies are related to (or welcome in) the Republican Party, just as not all ultra left-wing ideologies are related to (or welcome in) the Democrat party.  Sovereign Citizens, anarchists, eco-terrorists, Marxists, and other fringe ideologies do not have a foothold in either party.  Just because someone is classified as "far left" or "far right" in ideology doesn't merit legitimate actors and parties being pasted and smeared with their acts or words (Anybody who does is lying to and manipulating you and should not be trusted.)

Extremists on either end of the political spectrum are fundamentalists, with binary values (I'm right, and everyone else is wrong), and prone to violent expression (whether physical or just in rhetoric).  The "conventional" political spectrum, in which the Republican and Democrat parties operate are, in effect, the moderate middle (I know that's hard to believe).  Because, no matter how much we disagree, we all believe that participation in the processes and institutions of our Constitutional Democracy is the way to effect change.

Second, you either operate within the political apparatus (parties, PACs, votes) or outside of it.  There are people who have extreme ideologies who operate inside the apparatus, and those people tarnish anybody or any organization that suffers them.  David Duke espouses ideologies (white supremacy) that are FAR outside any party platform, but is tolerated within Republican circles.  That brings into legitimate question how tolerant the Republican Party is of such attitudes.  Conversely, there are moderate groups with mainstream ideology and sentiments that are not directly involved in party politics.  Non-profits, advocacy groups, churches: these are all examples of institutions that share certain ideologies but don't operate primarily in the political machine.

Recapping:  You can be an extremist insider or a moderate outsider or any combination of them.  It's important to understand where players are on the spectrum.

Third, let's be clear about the difference between violent political ideologies and incidents of opportunistic violence.  A march by the non-violent and social justice #BlackLivesMatter movement that is co-opted by hooligans and thugs is not the equivalent of anarchists or white supremacists harming people and property as a vehicle for their ideology.

Thanks for your patience.  Now to the matter at hand.

I do not believe the president is a racist.  That's no vindication; I actually believe that his inability to empathize with other human beings makes racism basically irrelevant to understanding him.  But he's the president, and he's accountable for the environment and people around him.  And that's where we get to the root of the current situation.  I said before that fringe groups are basically binary; so is the president (albeit for different reasons).  And therein lie the inescapable parallels and attraction between the two.

The president has inarguably surrounded himself with racists and advocates of racist (and generally hostile toward all marginalized groups) policies.  Bannon, Miller, Gorka, and Sessions have clear records and agendas.  No sugar coating it: they're straight-up racists.  There haven't been so many race-hostile people in the executive branch in decades, and that makes a clear statement.  He can't possibly distance himself from racism philosophically when he can't distance himself physically.

And then there's the president's policy agenda, starting, most significantly with his absolute determination to erase everything about this nation's first black president.  There is nothing that white nationalists want more than to eradicate Barack Obama's legacy from the annals of American history.  It's easily thrown off as pettiness (and to him it probably is), but make no mistake, this is a bright neon sign to those fringe so-called "alt-right" elements.  His "victims of Obamacare" charade is like a guestbook of aggrieved whiteness.

Simultaneously, in his "win or lose" brain, the president has bought in to key elements of the white nationalist "America under attack" mantra.  That is, immigrants from Central and South America, and Middle Eastern Muslims.  And he has laid down aggressive policy agendas to "fight back" against these false threats.  Again, he's gone so far as to create "victims lists" and "undesirable" lists and published them.  These policies are precisely the sort of "victories" that politically-minded fringes are looking for.

So, if he's not a racist (according to me, anyway) why won't he denounce, by name, the white supremacists who support him?

Those who have examined the president most closely describe him has having an insatiable need to be adored.  That's why he loves the rallies so much.  It's why he also constantly speaks in superlatives.  That hole will never be filled, no matter how much money he makes, how many buildings bear his name, or how many votes he gets.  It will never be enough.  Many have posited that the president might be a "useful idiot" to Putin.  That has yet to be proven.  But, undoubtedly, he is being used as a vehicle for white nationalist/supremacist ideologues, in return for their adoration.

The president is binary, win/lose.  And right now, he's losing.  His popularity is historically, stunningly low.  Who's sticking with him, though?  The nationalists.  He can't let go; that would be admitting defeat.  He's trapped, both by his own psychosis and the team he put around him.  But those nationalists are also operating freely and openly through the edges (but definitely inside) of the Republican political apparatus (see Iowa Congressman, Steve King, for example).  They've been quietly, distastefully tolerated, because they bring votes and money.  They have a seat at the table, even though nobody will admit they invited them.  And that's the ugly elephant in the room for Republicans (no pun intended).

Bottom Line:

There is no place for hate or violence in America in 2017.  The First Amendment gives you the right to spew this garbage, fine.  I served to defend that right.  But let's not kid ourselves.  It doesn't belong here.  And nobody who espouses hate or violence, for any reason in any form, should have a welcome seat in any mainstream political group.

Any reasonable, semi-informed person (let alone seasoned political operative) should be able to distinguish between extremist and mainstream ideology.  Likewise everyone should be able to distinguish between politically-motivated violence and opportunistic rage.  And if you can recognize it, you can tell the difference between righteous condemnation and ridiculous smear tactics.

It should be easy, therefore, to reject and condemn extremism and violence, no matter what your party affiliation or ideology.  Nobody should think for a moment that rejecting white supremacists should have any political implication.  But when the rats are in your midst, it gets a lot harder to deal with the traps.

Why Did Liberals Lose the Working Class?

Of all of the narratives perpetuated by the conservative media machine, the most damaging (and mystifying) has got to be that liberals and Democrats don't care about the "little guy," the working class.  When it comes to policy record, it couldn't be clearer that massive corporate interests are in the driver's seat in conservative circles, yet somehow the working class narrative sticks.  How did we get here?  How do we set the record straight?  I have a few ideas.

1. The "Spectator-ization" of the American Electorate
There are a lot of different ways to be involved in policy-making.  Running for office is just one (and the most specialized) way.  During the 20th century, being a union member was the best way for individual Americans to be directly involved in influencing policy that affected them.  It was real, it was concrete to observe conditions in the workplace, hiring and firing practices, and, of course, wages, and to say "this isn't right."  Unions provided a direct conduit to corporate leaders and, importantly, the political structure, to address grievances and improve conditions.  More often than not, unions found friends in the Democrat party.

But things have changed.  Union memberships are down significantly (about 33%) across the country.  And, in their decline, corporate interests have been able to pass right-to-work laws across 28 states.  Not surprisingly, these are "Red states" where the pro-business Republicans were only too happy to ingratiate themselves to their benefactors.

The result of this trend has been to make politics and policy less relevant to individual Americans.  They have become spectators to a process they used to help shape. And, with that, has come the hollowing out of the core participating base of the Democrat party.

Enter: Citizens United.  Corporate interests didn't stop by disenfranchising tens of millions of voters from direct participation in the democratic process (not elections - the democratic process of governing).  They wanted even more influence.  And that means buying it.  Election after election, the spending totals spiral more and more out of reach of ordinary Americans.

We now consume politics through cable news, rather than our daily life.  We are spectators, watching so-called "elites" take all the power and money and making all the decisions.  And, with each iteration of the cycle, the Republican/Corporate machine sinks its claws in deeper.  And, likewise, wage inequality gets worse and worse.

2. The False Conservative Narrative
If conditions have materially worsened during the progress of the Corporate-Republican march, how is it that the average American hasn't turned away?  Well, once direct participation through union membership waned, they were able to re-shape the narrative and, in so doing, invent new narratives to keep people focused on other villains.  And their villains of choice?  Globalization and Immigration.  It's worked beautifully.  Ask almost any conservative voter and they will tell you the reason their pay and benefits stink are because of one or both of those two factors.  Heck, ask many liberal voters and you'll probably hear something similar.  "Those people" are taking our jobs and doing it for cheap.  And who is going to tell you any different?  Who has direct, first-hand knowledge of what goes on behind closed doors?  Too few.

3. Very Real Change 
As powerful as the decline of unions and a strong narrative have been, the Corporate/Republican machine didn't orchestrate the whole thing.  The last twenty years have powerfully and irreversibly transformed the drivers of our economy at a scale that hasn't been seen since the Industrial Revolution.  And we haven't kept up.  20th century institutions that built this nation (like coal and internal combustion vehicles) are waning.  And, like a drowning man, they are determined to grab onto anything or anyone, no matter the consequences, to stay afloat.  The real victims in all of that climate of denial have been the men and women employed by those industries.  With no advocates to ensure a transition, people are left to fend for themselves.  I don't care how you vote, that kind of existential threat to your ability to feed your family is scary as hell.  And that kind of desperation has led to extreme factions on the left and right.

A New Promise
The DNC has unveiled their new message.  They call it "A Better Deal."  Nobody asked me or I would have told them that "Promise 21" would have been better branding, but I digress.  The point is, it's time to acknowledge the set of factors that got us here, what we are facing, and remind people who actually is trying to put policy and protection in place that serves and protects the American Worker.

I don't know if labor unions will bounce back.  I don't know if they should in this new landscape.  But whether they do or not, people need to come back to politics.  They need to show up at party meetings and shape the conversation.  They need to see that they have a voice in the process and an advocate in the Democrat Party.  Because getting improved conditions, wages, and support for every American worker is not a spectator sport.  It doesn't filter down from the "elites" at the top.  It starts at the bottom.  And, as we look to the next wave of prosperity leading us into a new and transformed American economy, we need to make sure that working people have a voice and a seat at the table.

Because, at the end of the day, do you want someone representing you who took tens of thousands of dollars from companies with an axe to grind, or do you want that person to be accountable to you?

Untargeted: Why We're Wrong About Everyone

As part of an ongoing series exploring privilege and my journey to shedding it, I offer this first installment, a baseline if you will for taking a step toward understanding. Ironically, I see this first step as acknowledging that it's impossible.  And, oddly, how that's a very good thing. 

Of course, all this is merely a wandering exploration of my own understanding.  Renowned sociologists will probably pick me apart.  But that's okay.  

Humans are the strangest of creatures.  We are studies in contradiction.  We draw much of our identity from the groups we inhabit: cultural, professional, societal, and familial, among others.  And, as members of a group, if part of its collective identity is attacked, we cleave to it more strongly to protect our own.  Even "anti-groups" like the Punk Rock movement drew and aligned their identity to the collective.  Having an "us" is the ultimate survival mechanism.  

However, flip that scenario and assume that I, as a member of a group, am DEFINED by the group, and I will, almost reflexively, reject that assumption.  "You don't know me!" I'll say.  And it's true.  Although I'm a (proud) veteran, assuming that I hold certain attitudes or beliefs based on that one fact will provoke a reaction.  Nobody likes to be pigeon-holed.  

Rashida Jones

My statistics teacher taught me something that always stuck with me.  He said "all models are wrong; some are useful."  As a tool for achieving insight, models are incredibly valuable when looking at large groups.  But modelers know that their product is "precisely wrong."  We know that our population lies within +/- 3% of whatever we are stating.  But nobody is an "exact fit."  Now, as I constantly work to unravel my preconceived filters and biases, I realize that this rule is true in a hundred different ways at the same time.  None of us are exactly anything, but simultaneously ALMOST dozens of things.  Which of them is in the proverbial driver's seat at any given time is subject to change, and often a product of our environment.  

So, no matter how much we study, no matter how much we learn, we'll never be right about anyone.  Some see this as a reason to throw their hands up.  But I think it's the basis for a really profound understanding.  We are many things. We are OF many things.  We draw on those histories and traditions as a source of strength (and, sometimes shame).  But, even though I am all of those, in the end, I am uniquely ME, an individual that draws from the collective, but is not defined by it.  And, my friend, so are you.  

So the next time you catch yourself asking "how could a (woman/person of color/LGBTQ person) support her or him or THAT?" check your filters.  And so will I.  It's a start. 

Top Down: Why Democrats Aren't Winning

In the aftermath of the latest of this year's string of special elections, the Monday-morning-quarterbacking is, predictably, rolling off every opinionator's tongue.  And it's all over the place.

Why are Democrat candidates losing?  Is it money?  Is it energy?  Are they too liberal?  Too "not-liberal"?  Is it Nancy Pelosi?

In this writer's opinion: None of the Above.

Before I offer my position, let me start with a few questions.

• What legislative district do you live in?
• What is a Precinct Committeeperson?
• Name one person in your legislative district's party leadership
• When was the last time you had a discussion with someone from the party in your neighborhood?

If you don't know the answers to any of these questions, then (1) you're in good company, and (2) you are a test case to help me explain exactly why we keep losing.  That is: the party foundation is the local legislative district.  And, based on what I've seen and heard, that foundation is pretty shaky.

Every state legislator comes from a legislative district.  The electoral map of the entire country is built on these blocks.  Each legislative district is made up of precincts.  And for every 100 Democrat registered voters in a precinct, the district is assigned one Precinct Committee (PC) slot.  Together, these PC slots are filled (theoretically) with engaged people who are charged with connecting with their neighbors.  They know people directly and personally.  They provide the critical communication link between the people, the LD, and therefore the county, state, and national party.  Pretty important, right?  Right!!

I mean, think about it.  Think about all the questions and theories the pundits are offering.  Why didn't this district turn out?  Why didn't candidate X resonate?  Want the answer?  Ask a PC!  

Too many of those PC slots are sitting vacant.  People don't know about them.  People don't understand them.  People think the Party starts in Washington DC and magically trickles down.  It doesn't.  That's not how it works at all.  It's built from the bottom up.  Without the foundation, the house won't stand.  

If you don't know the answers to the questions above, odds are your LD is not running as well as it could.  But don't take my word for it, check for yourself.  Look up your legislative district (you can google it) and find out how to reach them.  The more you know, the more you realize that all politics truly is local.  

Is it okay to make fun of Donald Trump?

This week, comedian Kathy Griffin raised a huge uproar with a photo prank that fell more than flat on its face.  And it got me to thinking: where's the line?  What's the right approach in this climate?

Without a doubt, political speech is the most broadly protected form of expression in America.  And satire has a unique way of making points that straight-laced commentary can struggle to achieve.    So, yes, it's "okay" to make fun of this or any president.

But is it effective?

Truthfully, this is a larger question than satire or comedy or even snark.  Since election day, the country has been ratcheted up like everyone has been crushing Monster drinks and caffeine pills.  Town halls are raucous and borderline hostile.  I'm as frustrated as anybody, and this is our right.  But, at the end of the day, messages are meant to be received.  And from where I'm sitting, nobody's listening.  In fact, social media blocking of angry constituents is just the latest wave in a concerted effort to ignore those demanding answers.

Is it time to change tactics?

If we are simply looking for catharsis, then nothing feels better than a good, full-blown, fist-shaking vent.  Doubly good if it's laced with some pithy sarcasm.  But if we are looking to be taken seriously and to effect serious change, perhaps it's time to set a different tone.

Conservative media and cynical Republican officials are looking for ANY excuse to discount what we have to say.  And they will take any incident, no matter how isolated, and paint us all with that same brush.  As resisters, we have an obligation to represent each other and the movement in a positive light.  Because only by holding the highest standards as individuals will we be able to lift up the rest of the movement and add our credibility to theirs.

We have serious issues to address.  Social justice, battling corruption, protecting and supporting minorities and marginalized groups, a healthy and educated population for the future.  These issues demand serious people, smart on the facts, making an unassailable case.  These issues demand a resistance movement that cannot be ignored.  As Thomas Jefferson said about the purpose of the Declaration of Independence, "to put the matter before the world, in terms so plain and firm, as to command their assent."

Keep resisting, my friends; command their assent!

Can't We All Just Get Fiscally Conservative?

I confess.  This article isn't about what it's about.  Okay - it's a little bit about that.  I mean, yes, liberals should be (and I think we are) every bit as fiscally conservative as our conservative counterparts.  But that's just one example of what I'm really getting at.

I'm talking about "inverseness." The idea that being one thing automatically makes it the polar opposite from a complimentary thing.

The nod to Rodney King in the title is intentional.  His brutal beating following a high-speed chase by LAPD officers led to the 1992 LA riots.  It felt for a while like the whole city was at war.  Then Rodney King himself went on television and issued his now-famous "Can't we all get along" speech.  He recognized that, in all of that anger, everyone loses.  Here is a little more of what he said:

"We've got to quit - we've got to quit; I mean after-all, I could understand the first - upset for the first two hours after the verdict, but to go on, to keep going on like this and to see the security guard shot on the ground - it's just not right; it's just not right, because those people will never go home to their families again."

The division in our political world today is almost entirely artificial.  And it all stems from the idea of inverseness.  If I'm a conservative and I say I believe in, say, school choice, then my automatic assumption is that a liberal does not.  I also believe that, naturally, I am right and, therefore, the inverse view is wrong.  If I say #blacklivesmatter, then the automatic assumption of a conservative audience is #bluelivesdont.  This is patently ridiculous, but I think most of us recognize the truth in this observation.

The problem with inverseness is two-fold.  First of all, it assumes the there are only two answers to any question.  Heck, even most multiple choice tests give you four!  And those just tell you to pick the "best" answer, not the right one.  Secondly, inverseness totally absolves us of having to listen to anybody, or even ask, because we assume we already know.  If I'm for it, you MUST be against it.  We couldn't possibly have something in common; that's not how political views work.

I've got news for you: yes it is.  We've just been doing it wrong for a very long time.  If you want to know what somebody actually believes, the dumbest possible way to figure that out is to assume based on their ballot selections.  Ask the open question.  And listen to the answer.  I might just surprise you.  Oh - and stop calling me a "tax-and-spend liberal."  That's a bumper sticker, not an actual thing.

Can Liberals Become the Voice of Reason?

People are fired up.  Since the day after the inauguration, people have taken to the streets and social media, creating a wave of civil dissidence across the nation.  Now that we are into Town Hall season, the evening news is filled with clips of chippy constituents pointing fingers and booing their elected officials.  In Arizona, they are actually working right now to pass legislation to prosecute "rioters" under the RICO act, basically equating protest to organized crime.

While I get the frustration (and share it), are we in danger of this wave of energy backfiring in our faces?  I don't pretend to have the answers.  But I do know one thing: the decline of civil discourse didn't begin in 2016.  In fact, we've all been watching it first-hand for several years now.

During George W. Bush's administration, there were protests about his electoral win and then sustained protests against the invasion of Iraq.  When the Tea Party movement began in 2009, there were several allegations of racist and homophobic themes, remarks, and verbal assaults at a number of their events.  Occupy Wall Street, in 2011 and 2012, though successfully peaceful, created enough concern that the Department of Homeland Security issued memos about the potential for violence.  Black Lives Matter, beginning in 2014, have inspired protests across the nation in response to police violence against African Americans.  Several of those have been co-opted and corrupted by elements that just wanted to rage.  Whatever you think about any of these movements, their objectives, or their tactics, it's important to note the larger pattern:  we've been in a recurring cycle of social unrest across the political spectrum for the last seventeen years.  It has become the norm and it doesn't show any signs of slowing.

Closer to home, I've been actively engaged in utility policy matters for the last several years.  Now you can't imagine anything less exciting than utility rate design, trust me.  But in town halls across the city (I personally attended at least six of those), the same lack of civility dominated the events.  People felt perfectly within their rights to shout, point, defame, and just generally spout verifiably untrue things because it made them feel good.  It was universal. And it was embarrassing.  Is this who we are now?

The political divide is sharper and nastier now, as our current President has taken the rhetoric to new lows.  And, this time, we don't have a Dr King or Mahatma  Gandhi to galvanize a morally-based civil disobedience movement.  But we still have their lessons.  The question is, are we up to it?  Can we elevate ourselves, not to simply be the loyal opposition, but the dignified opposition?  In today's climate, would that even work?

I'm an idealist.  I never stop striving to put things in their best possible state.  But I'm not an optimist. It has been my experience that ignorance and incompetence are far more common qualities than reason and excellence.  Which will win, I wonder?

Taking Back the Kitchen Table

By now, you've heard me assert in more than one way that old saw, "all politics is local."  And in previous articles, I've discussed how the Democrat Party has abandoned local politics for the national stage.  That's caused us to lose sight of the reality on the ground.

Conservative media paints a much darker picture than reality, deftly coupling financial concerns with fear-baiting tactics aimed at immigrants and terrorism, and that's energized their base in some ways that don't necessarily fit the facts.  But it ain't all rosy either.

In a nutshell: liberals need to get back to the kitchen table, the heart of American life.  It's ground zero for financial issues, healthcare issues, education issues, and the all-around quality of life that families are dealing with.  It's where things get discussed and decided.  And it looks nothing at all like the DCCC's national platform.  Let's look at the lay of the land.

46% of Americans say that a $500 hit to their monthly budget would be financially disastrous.  Over 70% of Americans have less than $1000 in the bank.  The average American has over $130k in debt, $16,000 of it in credit cards and $28,000 in a vehicle loan.  They are upside-down on their cars and homes, and perpetuating it through refinancing and extended-term loans that keep them there.  (Ask me later about the damage that decades of unrestrained lifestyle marketing has done to our society.)

Meanwhile, the average American between 55-64 years old has just $100k in retirement savings (about a third have NO retirement account at all).  In a post-pension economy, people haven't adapted their spending and savings practices to prepare for retirement.  As a result, people have to just keep on working longer and longer.  Besides being a personal strain, that stagnates the job market, too.

Two thirds of Americans are clinically overweight, the precursor for a host of long-term medical conditions and a major factor toward productivity in the workplace.  A third are clinically obese and are in immediate jeopardy of significant medical issues.  Almost two thirds of adults are on some kind of prescription medication.  Two-income families have become the norm just to stay afloat.  People are tired, stressed, and feeling increasingly helpless in managing their own destinies.

If you want to be relevant in the political spectrum, you have to recognize this.  You have to get back to the kitchen table.  That's what our 45th President did.  For whatever else you may think, he got this one right.  The Republican Party OWNS the kitchen table.  The big money Super PACs and think tanks don't actually care about these folks; they are simply tapping into their circumstances to further a larger pro-corporate agenda.  And that's the awful irony of the whole thing.

The good news is, we are all experts!  We don't need focus groups or polls.  This is OUR reality.  The bad news is, the Party is completely focused on Washington.  We are going to drag them along with us or, potentially, leave them behind.

This is also where outreach begins.  Before you ask for a vote or to post a sign or support a rally, or - heaven forbid - ask for money, offer a hand.  Find out the core issues in your community and start looking at how to tackle them together.  If you believe in the core liberal values of Equal Opportunity, Equal Dignity, and Equal Justice, as I do, then this is where our attention is needed most.

Liberalism and Morality

Conservative propaganda loves to paint liberals as "moral relativists" and hostile to Christian values.  It's the pretext for a lot of the uglier, more hateful sentiments harbored by people on the deep hard-right.  If you claim a superior morality, then everything you disagree with becomes "wrong" in the eyes of God.  (Sharia much?)

So let me just say it now: the idea that my morality is inferior to yours - is - horrifically - offensive.  In fact, it's hard for me to even continue writing with that sentiment in my head.  But this is important.  So, onward!

I'm not going to comment much about what the Liberal version of morality is.  Not least of which, because I don't presume to speak for anybody beyond myself, let alone a vast wedge of political and social ideology.  Instead, I'm going to examine morality itself and its role in government and society.

Point One: You can't legislate morality; only societal norms.
Human nature is a kooky thing.  If you want to get people to do or think something, pretty much all you have to do is tell them they can't.  And, if you try telling everyone that they must believe a certain set of things as "right" they'll work awfully hard at proving you wrong.  That's why, more than anything, the whole concept of a "Christian-based nation" is critically flawed.  You just can't tell human beings what to believe with the force of law.

Furthermore, there's this little issue of picking which version of religious morality you're going to use. Because, as much as some would refute it, religious doctrine is pretty malleable.  According to the Hartford Institute of Religion Research, there are 217 Christian denominations in the US alone.  Some are strict interpretationists, while others are more broadly open to ideas.  Which one would you pick?  Think about divorce.  In the mid-20th century, divorce was considered essentially invalid across most mainstream faiths.  People were not allowed to re-marry.  Even the Princess Margaret of Great Britain was prevented from marrying a divorced man.  Where is that hard and fast doctrine today?  See, laws are a bit more rigid.  Would you jail someone simply because they remarried outside the church?  Would you punish people who dispute the age of the earth?  Because that seems to be open to some debate, even among Christians.

Point Two: Everyone has got a little "relativism" in them
Take something as prosaic as traffic violations.  It's the law, right?  Yet, here in Phoenix, the common joke on the loop around the city is that "101" is the speed limit, not the name of the freeway.  People take liberties where they feel comfortable and safe doing so.  Good people, bad hombres.  All of us. So why do we get super-sanctimonious on some things and not others?  Remember, if you want the law based on "Christian principles" that means you plan to obey them fully and without exception.

The binary idea of "right" and "wrong" is a child-like approach to the world.  Sure, there are some things we can all agree are pretty universally wrong: killing or hurting someone who isn't threatening you; taking things that don't belong to you.  We can all get behind those.  But, for most of life, a mature thinking person recognizes that there's a spectrum of "better" and "worse" and that context is everything.  And anybody that refuses to acknowledge that is simply not being honest with themselves.

Point Three: A lot of this is about "the yucky sex stuff"
This country was founded by Puritans.  And we've retained a lot of that puritanical streak in the American nature.  It's important to acknowledge that we are straight-up prudish about sexuality as a society, and that much of the anti-liberal "moral-cesspool" stuff can be traced straight back to S-E-X.  I don't know when we, as a society, are going to finally graduate the 8th grade, but if this is your hang-up and basis for rejecting me as a person, then we're just going to have to continue to disagree.  How about this?  I promise not to flaunt my sexuality in your living room if you promise not to flaunt yours in mine.

Point Four:  Religion can be an easy cover for hatred
From slavery to segregation through to the AIDS epidemic and today, being able to declare an entire class of people as inferior or deviant gave cover to countless atrocities.  Prominent mainstream figures, citing religious mandates have condemned people to death and damnation and excused those fearful, hateful practitioners that dealt out God's wrath on earth.  So what is to say that somebody's moral imperative tomorrow won't deliver some similar atrocity?  Nothing, actually.  Nothing at all.

So, where does that leave us.
The Constitution is truly an amazing document.  Virtually all laws are designed to limit.  But the Constitution is a set of laws designed solely to preserve.  Our nation is founded in Liberty.  And the principles of liberty dictate that I have a fundamental right to believe and live whatever way I choose as long as I don't use those beliefs to directly prevent you from doing the same thing.  You don't have to like my choices; I don't have to like yours.  But as long as we can conduct our lives in the same society without one trampling the other, we're good.  If we all spent a lot less time grading other people's lives than focusing on our own, we'd be a much happier place.

America's Most Pressing Infrastructure Problem

And, no, it ain't potholes.

As a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona, I have the dubious honor of living in the only major metropolitan county in America that went for Donald Trump.  That puts me in a unique position to explore the dynamics that led up to where we are today.  And, from what I've seen so far, we have a major infrastructure problem.

During the campaign, I was surprised that our home didn't get a single call.  There were no flyers, nobody offering lawn signs.  Nothing.  After the election, I tried to get in touch with my local Democratic Party folks.  It was kind of like trying to spot a coyote.  There were signs that they existed, but making contact was damn near impossible.  We just. Had. An. Election!  The party should have been at its peak.

When I did make contact, I was disappointed to learn that, in my district, ten of the twelve precinct committee seats were vacant.  I attended a party meeting and found four regular attendees. (there were a LOT of first-timers, though).  I was a little bit heartbroken to see it.  According to the news, Clinton has this legendary machine and vaunted "ground game." And Arizona was considered "in play."  Where the hell was everyone?

That was when I knew: things are not as they seem.  What's more: it was all my fault.

Federalism:  The Liberal's New "Shovel-Ready Project"

Tip O'Niell famously said "all politics is local."  It's been interpreted and applied many different ways, but here's how I take it: we are the party, and we aren't showing up for work.  The National  Democratic party hasn't been putting any money into local races.  That's disappointing, but, honestly, who would they mail the check to?

The Democrat Party is rightly associated with the Civil Rights Movement and Women's Equal Rights.  These became national issues, because certain regions of the country simply wouldn't get on board on their own.  We needed the Federal Government to weigh in and draw the line.  But those are extreme examples that have become the default solution.  We are a federal republic.  The more decisions are made locally, the more relevant they are to the people who have to live with (and pay for) them.  And besides, how do you groom talent for national office if you don't have a so-called 'minor league' team to pull from?

It's not enough to vote.  It's not enough to send a check.  It's not even enough to protest.  We have to roll up our sleeves, dig in, and participate.  I challenge you to find your local legislative district TODAY and contact the party representatives.  Not the elected officials, the worker bees!  Find out when the next meeting is scheduled and GO. If what you see scares you, then it's your job to help fix it.

Let's Talk about the "P-word"

No, not THAT "P-word"!  Although, given the way the national dialog has gone, I totally understand a more salacious assumption.  No, the "P-word" I'm talking about is PRIVILEGE.  And my friend, we're all wallowing in it.

Let me start by saying that this is intensely personal, not just for me, but for every one of us.  You may not come at it the same way I do, but I hope I convey myself in a way that helps you better understand me and maybe yourself too.

As a middle-aged, white, heterosexual male, I've found myself wondering what my place is in a liberal/progressive activist movement and culture.  How do I contribute to a cause where I look like the other team?  It's because of privilege that I know I HAVE to.

I have wrestled with this word a little bit.  I've never thought of myself as "privileged" in particular.  I come from very humble roots, couldn't afford college, served in the military, and have ground my way to the position I am in.  But then I got over the semantics of it and decided to examine the intent.

Privilege, the way I see it, is the state that exists for any person for whom, upon turning off the television or shutting their front door, a problem simply ceases to be.  It's not limited to "white privilege" or "male privilege"; it can apply to anything.  Folks that have never served in the military (or have family that do) but are advocating for foreign policy that might take us to war could be said to have "civilian privilege" because the sacrifice will not be theirs.  They can turn off their TV, close their front doors and the war doesn't impact them.

I was raised in a diverse military community.  I was raised to be color-blind and gender-neutral.  I thought that was the right thing.  But it's not enough.  Not nearly.  It took a lot for me to unwind the core beliefs planted as a child.  It wasn't until I started reading and challenging my beliefs with works like "Lies My Teacher Told Me".  These things started to open my eyes to just how our identity has been skewed by a Euro-centric, patriarchal dominant world view.

Don't believe me?  Okay, try this.  Close your eyes and think of that nice man who lived 2100 or so years ago and was crucified  by the Romans.  Go ahead - I'll wait.

Did you envision a caucasian man with noble features and reddish hair?  Yup, that's what I thought.  Now picture ANY famous Middle Eastern figure you can think of.  Any resemblance?  Our entire picture of the world has been filtered to fit a Euro-superior viewpoint.

Liberals, at the heart of it all, believe in and support three values above all else:  Equal Opportunity, Equal Dignity, and Equal Justice.  And liberals are the most open-eyed about recognizing where those values are in jeopardy.  It is those of us who are NOT impacted by a miscarriage of Opportunity, Dignity, or Justice who are privileged.  And we are the ones who must commit to standing side by side with the marginalized and oppressed until those conditions are erased for good.

We (white, hetero males) are the descendants of the architects of privilege.  We own it.  And we cannot rest until EVERYONE can close their doors, turn off the TV and rest easy in the same reality our privilege has granted us.  And, if that statement sounds like a hopeless cause and a heavy burden, then good!  That's the sound of privilege being challenged within ourselves.  And it's nothing - NOTHING - compared to what marginalized people of all types have had to endure in this great nation.

Why aren't Liberals more Patriotic?

Apparently, I'm a bit of an American contradiction.  If you know me first as a veteran, then you're surprised to learn that I'm liberal, socially and politically.  If you know me first as an activist, then you're surprised to learn I spent two decades in the military.  Why is that?

If you listen to conservative outlets, you'd believe that they have a special hold on patriotic sentiment, support of the military, and our founding principles.  They certainly think so.  And they proudly lay out the flags and bunting, yellow ribbons, and blast Lee Greenwood to prove it is so.

While not presuming to speak for any of my military sisters and brothers, I will say that we're a pretty diverse group.  Many are indeed highly conservative in their views, but just as many are liberals.  And quite a few lean libertarian.  Does serving in the military make one uniquely patriotic?  Of course not.  But the modern conversation of what "Patriotism" is can't seem to help but entangle the two.

It raises the question: what does American Patriotism mean today?  Can you love your country and still acknowledge that it has a lot of problems that need to be fixed?  Can you be a patriot and disagree with the direction the national government is taking?  Can you treasure the values upon which our nation is based while still acknowledging that we have fallen disastrously short of those aspirations time and again?

Yeah, I think so.

I think of the conservative brand of patriotism, as it is currently constructed and portrayed, as somewhat childlike.  The word comes from the Greek "patris" which means "fatherland".  And when you're young, you look up to your father as a pillar of virtue and excellence.  You want to emulate him.  You want to BE him.  It's only as we get older that we learn (often to our disappointment) that nobody's perfect.  Fathers come off the pedestal and down into the real world with the rest of us.  Hopefully, that new insight gives us new respect and love for our fathers.  This crap is HARD and they did their best, regardless of their imperfections.  It's that quiet respect that grows and endures for the rest of our lives.

And this is the heart of liberal patriotism.  I love my country.  But I also know it is deeply flawed.  And yet, I see in it the greatness, growth, improvement, and potential for so much more.  We've failed time and time again.  Yet, we have also gotten SO MUCH BETTER too.  So my liberal patriotism has grown into that quiet, open-eyed respect.  Bunting be damned.

On the Eve of this Inauguration

I originally wrote this as an off-the-cuff post on Facebook, trying to express the range of conflicting emotions I'm struggling with.  The response was much stronger than I thought.  I guess it resonated.  Hopefully this is helpful to you as we all look to this most strange January 20th.

Let me see if I can explain how I feel about things right now...
Donald Trump will be President, in accordance with the laws and processes that have kept the government functioning for nearly 250 years. He will have all the power and authority bestowed on the holder of that office.

While it is extremely gratifying for people to resist, protest, and deride, none of it will change the fact above.

Our elected officials have all taken oaths to execute the responsibilities of their respective offices. When I was serving in the military, I didn't have a choice to execute the decisions with which I disagreed; I did my job. I feel that our elected officials must do the same or risk failing in their duty to their constituents.

The Russian interference is problematic, but it's not exactly novel. Between the Koch Brothers and George Soros, we have our own 'shadow influencers' pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into influencing the electoral process at every level of government. Is one better or worse? Is one more or less of a reason to question the legitimacy of the process or the outcome? I'd like to say yes, but objectively I can't find a reason to. Russia no more de-legitimized the election than our own shadowy Mega-PACs do with their piles of disinformation and propaganda. Its our own process that has made us vulnerable to such interference.

To our elected officials: DO YOUR JOB. I need you more than at any time I can remember to get serious. Leave the protests and civil disobedience to us. Figure out what the HELL is going on at the FBI and sort it. Fix campaign finance laws once and for all. Trump proved you can run an entire campaign off Twitter on a relative shoestring. Sanders proved you can run a campaign funded by the citizens who support you. Crush big money donors once and for all.

To our media: DO YOUR JOB. I need you more than at any time I can remember to get serious. Truth is the side you're on. You're the goddamned 5th Estate; act like it.
To my friends and neighbors: Get involved, starting at the most granular local level possible. Get informed, and don't trust what you're fed by someone with an agenda. Talk to each other, and for heaven's sake, LISTEN to each other. Shed the propaganda and just TALK. You agree on more than you think.

To our intelligence community: get this right. Prove or disprove the allegations that Trump is a puppet of Putin so we as elected officials, citizens, and the media can decide what to do from there.
Make no mistake, our nation is being tested right now, not just by our adversaries, but by the weight of our own culture. Do we dig in and become the next "Greatest Generation" by putting us on a better course for the next 100 years, or do we set the stage for decline?

Liberals: The New Values Voters

You hear it over and over again: "Values Voters".  And, as of this writing, the term is associated with conservative evangelicals.  And that, frankly, makes me bat-shit crazy.  The conservative machine has done a fabulous job of casting liberals as "moral relativists" on a sliding scale of morality.  And we have passively let them do it.  It's time to change that tune.  It's time to declare, loudly and unassailably, that liberals are the true Values Voters in America.

American Values Redefined?

Conservatives, in their co-opting of everything "good" about America, have also tried to claim a unique affinity for our founding documents.  But what could be more liberal than founding a new nation based on principles never before sewn into the fabric of government?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident.  That all men [people] are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.  That among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Those are liberal values!  Equality, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are at the core of practically every platform of the democratic party.  And, at every turn in the history of this nation, it has been the conservative party (under whatever name) who fought to restrict the ability of people in this country to achieve those inalienable rights.  From opposing Abolition to opposing Suffrage to opposing Voting Rights to opposing the Freedom to Marry, conservative so-called "traditional American values" have been throwing themselves in front of the train of progress, in spite of their actions being in stark contradiction to the ideals laid out in the Declaration.  

So, I say to you, we, as liberals, are not redefining American Values, but reclaiming them from those who would opportunistically twist a liberal term to the purpose of restricting aspects of liberty that don't conform to their personal sensibilities.  Great evil has been wrought throughout American history because we have allowed this to happen.  Don't ever give up this high ground again.

Claiming American Values

When you are speaking to people about political and social issues, and the state of our nation, be clear about what you see as truly "American Values" and where you stand in ensuring they are defended, protected, and advanced.  I offer you these:

• Equal Opportunity - to live, to work, to earn, to marry, to flourish, to decide
• Equal Justice - regardless of status, background, history
• Equal Respect - for individuals, for groups, for rights, for ideas, for choices

And for those of us who have, albeit unwittingly, grown up in the shelter and shadow of privilege, do not take for granted that we have all the greater role in speaking up and not backing down on behalf of those who may rightly be fearful of doing so themselves and what it may cost.