The Luck of the Draw
The Luck of the Draw
"We don’t teach our kids to write hate signs using four-letter words in school. Why should we allow such signs in our community?"
"To all the girls I’ve Ioved before, who traveled in and out my door. I’m glad they came along..." - Willie Nelson
But, it was my first awakening to the significance of girls. It felt good liking and being liked by them.
Jamestown Post-Journal
Political Differences As American As Apple
Pie
JAN 1, 2022
ROLLAND KIDDER
Back in
1964, when the Republicans ran Barry Goldwater for President, the Chad Mitchell
Trio came out with a song describing (somewhat cryptically) the Republican
Party. Here are a few of the lyrics:
[Let’s go] back to the silver standard and solid Goldwater…
Let’s go back to the days when men were men
and start the First World
War all over again
[Let’s
go] back to when the poor were poor, and rich were rich
and you
felt so damn secure just knowin’ which were which!
Okay,
it was a bit “over-the-top” but, nevertheless,
it highlighted the fact that, at the national level, the Republican Party was
not the Party of change. The themes of: “Let’s keep things the
way they are, or, even better, ‘go back’ to who we used to be”–were
as Republican then as they are now. It is the Democratic Party, at least since
FDR and the Great Depression, that has been the party of change in Washington.
Case in
point, the recent one-house passage, with no Republican support, of the
Biden “Build Back Better” legislation. Though
not given a large mandate in the last election and, though in control of
Congress by only the “skin of their teeth,” Democrats
pushed this through the House of Representatives. It should have been no
surprise that a fellow Democrat, Joe Manchin, Senator from a conservative state
like West Virginia, would have problems with the bill–but they passed it anyway
in the House.
The
politics going on here should not surprise anyone. ”
Radical ideas” like Social Security and Medicare (financial assistance
and health care for the elderly) were Democratic initiatives. There were
outcries at the time that such programs would bankrupt the country and drive us
into socialism. Though, in those days, there were some Republican votes for
these programs–it was the Democratic Party that proposed and largely provided
the bulk of “yes” votes to make them law.
Yet,
Republicans have correctly assessed the reality that the electorate in our
country is generally conservative in its thinking, and when people want change,
it takes place incrementally and very slowly. Harry Truman in the 1950’s and
Ted Kennedy in the 1980’s couldn’t make headway with healthcare legislation. It
wasn’t until 30 years later, under Barack Obama, that the matter really got
addressed in any meaningful way. Today, as “Obamacare” has
become more accepted in the country, you see (as with Social Security and
Medicare) fewer Republicans attacking it.
Another
reality is that every time the Democrats push for social change, they usually
suffer for it in the next election…and so this doesn’t portend well for them in
the 2022 elections. I would expect that the coming year will be a good one for
Republicans.
I will
say this though for Democrats, when they try to create new programs, they at
least are honest enough to include revenue and tax measures to help pay for it,
as reflected in this most recent bill where they proposed raising taxes on
billionaires and corporations. Republican reaction to all of this has been to
again “bang the drum” that Democrats are
the “tax and spend” Party. Democrats
counter that Republicans have become the “borrow and spend” Party.
Though
they still maintain the political “high ground” of
being resistant to change, when it comes to spending money–Republicans have
shown that they are as good at that as Democrats. And, who was the last
President to have a balanced budget? That was Bill Clinton. His political
affiliation? Let’s not get into that.
Differing
views on politics remain as American as apple pie. To everyone, no matter what
your political persuasion–thanks for reading these articles and have a Happy
New Year!
Our Most Hated Word – ‘Mandate’
December 18, 2021
ROLLAND KIDDER
It made me
think of government “mandates” in general. Should, for
example, the government mandate speed limits on highways? Why shouldn’t
everyone be able to drive at whatever speed they want to? I would imagine that
right after the automobile was invented, many people felt that way.
A similar
argument was made when I was in the state legislature that the government
should not force people to wear helmets when riding a motorcycle. “Let those who
ride decide” was the slogan of the opposition. If people want to take
on the risk of getting killed or maimed by not wearing a helmet, let them
decide that.
The government
response on both occasions was to “mandate” speed
limits and helmet-wearing on motorcycles. The nub of the government’s argument
was, of course, “public safety” which has been a part of
what governments have done since ad infinitum. In the case of the helmet law,
there was also a strong case made that unhelmeted motorcycle riders who had
accidents, substantially drove up the cost of health and hospital care–much of
which ends up in the government’s lap.
When you think
about it, there are a lot of “mandates” out there.
What about the requirement that kids attend school? What about the requirement
that when they do, they must be vaccinated for diseases like small pox, measles
and polio?
There is
another mandate that we don’t hear about any more–the draft. Yet, last I knew
all young men reaching the age of 18 are still required to register for the
draft. If our country ever did get into a major war again, should we continue
the draft mandate or let people opt out of it? Opting out is another way of
avoiding a mandate.
Perhaps the
greatest government mandate of all, is the requirement that we pay our taxes.
Should people be allowed to say “No” when
their tax bill comes in the mail?
It is true that
sometimes mandates are hard to enforce. Not so many years ago, the County
passed a law limiting smoking in indoor spaces. Initially, it was hard to
enforce, but today most people have accepted it as a way to improve health
outcomes by limiting exposure to second-hand smoke.
Maybe it would
be best to get away altogether from the word “mandate” and find
another word. What about the words “common enterprise?” When
society finds itself with a real problem that needs to be addressed, maybe we
should have a discussion on whether or not a “common
enterprise” which applies to all citizens is an appropriate response.
However you
approach it, the issue revolves around government being a vehicle to provide
common, civic engagement on matters that need to be resolved. “Mandate” is a very
negative word. Maybe we need to rethink things in a more positive way.
There is a new buzz-word being foisted upon us by the far right called “Critical Race Theory.” The underlying assumption is that there is some kind of conspiracy to brain-wash our kids as to how race is taught in the schools.
In that regard, I found helpful a recent article written by Michael Gerson. Gerson is someone I would call an “old-school” Republican. He served in the White House (pre-Trump) during the Presidency of George W. Bush. What also links me to Gerson a bit, is that we both went to small, Christian liberal arts colleges. He graduated from Wheaton College in Illinois, and I went to Houghton College here in western New York.
I am not sure what Gerson studied in college, but I majored in history. The school I attended was founded by the Wesleyan Methodist Church, an off-shoot of Methodism which had advocated the abolishment of slavery in the United States. The matter of race being part of our federal Constitution, I don’t believe, has ever been questioned. The 3/5ths compromise where black slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person for apportioning representation in the House of Representatives, was in the original Constitution. It was a “compromise” which legitimized slavery and without which a consensus would probably never have been reached between North and South to form a United States in the first place. Ultimately, it would take a Civil War to settle the question, emancipate the slaves and eliminate the 3/5ths policy of counting citizens.
Gerson’s recent article focused on the debate and thinking of two men very involved in the abolitionist cause back then: William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass. Both men started out believing that the 3/5ths clause legitimizing slavery in the country made the Constitution an evil instrument “dripping in blood.”
“Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted,” he said, “the Constitution is a glorious liberty document.”
However, as the Civil War went on, Douglass changed his mind. “Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted,” he said, “the Constitution is a glorious liberty document.”
Gerson ended his article with these words: “Douglass remains the model for dealing with racism—in his righteous anger at systematic corruption in the American experiment, and in his belief in the redeeming power of American ideals and institutions. A sound education will cultivate both.”
The only thing I might add to Gerson’s analysis is to remember again a methodology I was taught in college—study history and listen to the facts and lessons it teaches. The inequities which were written into the original Constitution brought the country ultimately into Civil War—an estimated 600,000 Americans died in the fighting, the forces in the North prevailed, the Union was saved, and President Lincoln got the 13th Amendment passed abolishing slavery.
The residue and legacy of slavery lingers on, and Americans continue to struggle with it. “Racism” is a word that is harsh and divides, so is a term I don’t like using. Nevertheless, a discussion of race, how it defined slavery, and the history of how all of this has played out in the American experience is part of who we are. It is not a “theory” to be taught but a history to be studied and understood.
Rolland Kidder
Remembering
Thanksgiving
In the old days, one could pretty much predict and describe the national Republican Party as that political force in America which opposed deficit spending, promoted smaller government and was pro-business.
Today, describing the Grand Old Party (GOP) it is not that easy. The party has coalesced around a new person and a new philosophy–Donald Trump and “Trumpism.”
I say that because I think that something more than Donald Trump is involved. “Trumpism” is a new form of grievance politics. It describes the angst of people being left behind, feeling left out of American society and afraid of the changes that lie ahead. As we now know, a lot of people feel that way.
Though I don’t like the divisiveness of “Trumpism,” what concerns me more is the hero worship associated with Trump himself.Though I don’t like the divisiveness of “Trumpism,” what concerns me more is the hero worship associated with Trump himself. America has been down the road of fear and division politics before–namely, the nativist and fear politics of the old Whig Party of the 1850s which became known as the “Know Nothing” Party. But, that time around, there was no hero worship. There were experienced politicians involved, like Millard Fillmore who became President — but nothing like a charismatic leader demanding absolute loyalty and obedience.
A sore loser is one thing. A truculent, bellicose, paranoid loser is another — and that is what we now have in Donald Trump.A sore loser is one thing. A truculent, bellicose, paranoid loser is another — and that is what we now have in Donald Trump. I hope that the Republican Party can find another candidate in 2024. We have seen the threats to our democracy that come when total focus on a personality supplants the common ideals and purposes which should motivate those running for high political office. It is a dangerous road which I hope we do not go down again.
Biden’s Upcoming “Waterloo” with Democrats
Relearning the
Lessons of History
With Kathy Hochul becoming Governor, New York State is “turning over a new leaf” in its halls of governance.
The first difference I believe we will notice is one of style and tone—there will be no threats or defiant statements. We got used to that with Andrew Cuomo and, in my view, it was that arrogant side of him that finally brought him down. Kathy Hochul, Governor, will be the kind of down-to-earth, empathetic and articulate person that made her a good Congresswoman and a respected local elected official here in western New York.
The other aspect of governing that I hope she brings to Albany is a return to allowing the departments and agencies of state government do their work without continual interference from the Governor’s office. In Andrew Cuomo’s world, virtually all announcements whether they dealt with transportation, health care or the weather, had to first be politically cleared by the Governor’s office.
When you are Governor, the public expects you to name good, qualified people to head up major departments and agencies of the government. Then they expect that you will give these individuals the ability to implement government policy in the fields to which they are assigned.
Why should nearly every press release dealing with state government action have to be cleared by the Governor’s office? Why do we need to wait for political vetting when it comes to letting state contracts or fighting a snow storm along the Thruway? Hopefully, the Hochul Administration will restore some autonomy to state departments and agencies.
I would also hope that her administration will try and return to some sense of sharing governmental initiatives with the legislature. The Cuomo administration used to “cram-in” all kinds of policy decisions into the state budget so that the legislature would have no time to hold hearings or conduct serious deliberations on them. It is time to get back to a more deliberative type of government where the legislative representatives of the people can interact with the state’s chief executive.
The new Governor Hochul fortunately has a lot of political experience, and she will also have time to put together a campaign for Governor in 2022. It won’t be easy because she is from western New York and the politics of the state is always tilted toward downstate. (The presumptive Republican candidate running for Governor, who has already announced, is from downstate and lives on Long Island.) However, Kathy Hochul in the past won a statewide primary election for Lieutenant Governor—and I would guess that she is ready to engage New York City Democrats in a race for Governor if she wants to.
I think the next few months will be "fun," if you can call watching state government fun.
I think the next few months will be “fun,” if you can call watching state government fun. At least it will be interesting—the first western New Yorker as Governor since Grover Cleveland, the first woman Governor of New York ever. The politics of it all and how it plays out will at least be “captivating.” Maybe that is a better word.
Finally, I think we need to give her a chance at stepping up
to the job of being Chief Executive of this very diverse and often divisive
state. There is nothing wrong, no
matter what your politics, of wishing this fellow western New Yorker “good luck” as she starts her new duties!
Rolland Kidder
Holding people accountable for their actions is important, especially in politics.
Holding people accountable for their actions is important, especially in politics. Today there are two “inquiries” going on which are focused on accountability—one in Washington and the other in Albany.
The Washington inquiry relates to what happened on January 6, 2021. The leadership of the Republican Party has, more-or-less, trashed this effort. They still fear the power of Donald Trump and are afraid to endorse anything that might lead to his door. They seem to have forgotten his speech at the Ellipse on the Mall that day firing up the crowd and encouraging them to assault the Capitol.
I know that some look upon Nancy Pelosi as some kind of “ogre” who has only partisan interests at heart. However, I give her credit for “sticking to her guns” and convening an official inquiry into what happened on that infamous day which occurred last January in our nation’s capital. In normal times, like after the Watergate break-in, there would have been full bi-partisan support for a special investigative committee. This time, the Senate Republican leadership said “No” and only two Republican members of the House apparently had the courage to serve on such a panel.
It is too early to tell, but I am hopeful that this Committee can still get to the bottom of what happened that day so that it is forever remembered as a blight on the democratic foundations of our government. Perhaps the former President will be found to be only one of many responsible for what happened. But, anyone listening to his speech that day would be hard-pressed to conclude that it had no effect on the mob.
The other inquiry we need to keep our eye on is the one in Albany investigating the Governor’s actions in allegedly withholding information related to how the pandemic affected nursing homes and the recent conclusions of a formal investigation by the Attorney General that he sexually harassed several women. This kind of thing cannot just be “swept under the rug.”
At the state level, most of the Republicans (unlike in Washington) are more than ready to investigate and impeach Governor Cuomo. However, since they are now out of power with a diminished minority in the legislature, it will be up to Democrats to deal with and make a judgment on these serious accusations of misconduct. Early reactions by the Majority Leader of the Senate and Speaker of the Assembly indicate that the Attorney General’s Report is being taken seriously. It is also possible that the Governor could resign rather than face impeachment.
Whether at the national or state level, the public will not look kindly on inaction on these matters. The people are demanding an honest and impartial assessment of what happened. It so happens that leadership on these issues at both the state and federal level is now in the hands of Democrats. If they run an unbiased and thorough investigation into what has happened, the public will support the outcome. If they conduct something else, they will pay for it politically.
The Republicans also face the “Scylla and Charybdis” of public opinion. If they strive only to investigate a Democrat in Albany, and not one of their own in Washington—public opinion will turn against them. The public does not want a “white-wash” in either case—just the truth.
Requiring accountability from our elected officials is one of the “checks and balances” of our constitutional form of government.
Rolland Kidder
Friends of ours have children and grandchildren who live in the New York City area and they often drive there. They can make it in about 7 hours in their SUV.
Now that everyone is talking about electric cars, I was wondering how long it would take them to make that drive in an electric-driven vehicle (EV)?
Though EV batteries are getting bigger and better, it is currently best to only count on them for 250-300 miles between recharges. New York City is 360 miles away. So, it is probably best to think about driving to New York in an EV over two days and not trying to make it a one-day trip. You wouldn’t want to run out of juice in the Lincoln Tunnel right at the end of your trip.
Currently it takes 8-10 hours using conventional sources of power to “fill-up” an EV. So that would mean driving east to Binghamton, staying over-night, recharging the car and then heading on into New York the next day. Who wants to do that?
I bring this up because sometimes people want you to think that the conversion away from gasoline- driven cars will be an easy thing. It may be easy around a big city where you never drive more than 100 miles per day. But, around here, things get more complicated.
There are a lot of differences between electrically driven cars and those with internal combustion engines. An electric car has no big engine or transmission. It has no exhaust system. Yet, it does have a battery that weighs 1200 pounds that needs to be constantly refilled, and you could be left stranded.
Someday they might make a battery that will go 1,000 miles between “fill-ups,” or perhaps they will develop a technology to fill a battery in a matter of minutes instead of hours. But, for the foreseeable future, it looks like long distance trips by electrically-driven cars may be problematic.
Another option might be to have electric cars rented instead of owned. You could then drive a car to Binghamton, trade it in for a fully charged car and then head on into New York. It would sort of be like a modern day “Pony Express” where every so many miles you get on a fresh horse in order to keep the mail moving. But, would people actually adapt to that? We are used to having our own car.
When you think about it, our gasoline driven cars are really quite efficient. Where else can you put 90 lbs. of fuel into a 14-gallon tank and have the energy to propel you down a road for about 300 miles?
I don’t know about you, but I think that it is going to be awhile before people start driving electric cars from here to New York City or beyond. I wouldn’t give up your gasoline car quite yet.
Rolland Kidder
It made me realize again just how beautiful the drive is along I-86, the Southern Tier Expressway.