The Kerner Report Revisited

President Obama has embarked on a course of consultation and action that will hopefully bring a nearly 47-year-old report to some fruition.  It is his intention to bring the powers of the Presidency to bear on the country’s present need to face the Ferguson syndrome that plagues many parts of our nation.  That syndrome has at its base, the destructive forces of bigotry, institutional racism, discrimination and of indifference to what those forces beget, such as lack of adequate education and unemployment or menial employment.  President Obama describes it as an American problem because it affects who we are as a people and as a nation. 

 The Ferguson syndrome includes many parts and complicated issues.  One of the major issues is the role of police forces in working with minority communities and individuals.  Mr. Obama called to my mind a fundamental aspect of community policing when he made reference to the importance of communication, involvement and concern for those who live in areas of poverty and limited opportunity.  He especially pointed to young black men who are not only experiencing unemployment and underemployment but also an epidemic of harassment, arrest and incarceration, and even death at the hands of some police. He did make it plain that our first responders in police departments are generally committed public servants who do their jobs well, and protect and defend as they are called to do. But he also reminded us that we must listen to the grievances and concerns of minorities and that we must act.  He also said that what makes his efforts different than those of the past is that the President is putting the power of his office behind this effort.

As I have done before, I want to take you back to something fundamental that informs our present situation as much as it spoke to past circumstances.  I believe that the President may have had this particular Commission in mind when he spoke of the difference he expects to make with his approach as opposed to what happened in the past. 

Over 47 years ago, on July 28, 1967, a National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders was established by President Lyndon Johnson to look into the underlying causes and grievances that precipitated riots plaguing many of the large cities of this country each summer since 1964. In the summer of 1967, the worst riots occurred in Newark and in Detroit.  Each set off a chain reaction in surrounding communities.  The National Advisory Commission, informally known as the Kerner Commission “released their report on February 29, 1968 after seven months of investigation. The report became an instant best-seller, and over two million Americans bought copies of the 426-page document. Its finding was that the riots resulted from black frustration at lack of economic opportunity. Martin Luther King Jr. pronounced the report a "physician's warning of approaching death, with a prescription for life."  It could almost have been written in the present circumstances (except that the words ‘Negro’ and ‘ghetto’ would be replaced by ‘Black,’ ‘African-American’ and ‘inner-city.’).  (The summary portions of the Kerner Commission Report for this Blog are taken from a piece found on historymatters.com)   

In general, the Commission found:

1)      The civil disorders of 1967 involved Blacks acting against local symbols of white American society, authority and property in Black neighborhoods – rather than against white persons.

2)      With few exceptions, violence subsided during the day and flared rapidly again at night.  The final incident before the outbreak of disorder generally took place in the evening.
3)      Disorder generally began with rock and bottle throwing and window breaking.  Once store windows were broken, looting usually followed.
4)      Disorder did not erupt as a result of a single “triggering” incident.  Instead it was generated out of an increasingly disturbed social atmosphere, in which typically a series of tension-heightening incidents over a period of weeks or months became linked in the minds of many in the Afro-American community with a reservoir of underlying grievances.  At some point in the mounting tension, a further incident – in itself often routine or trivial – became the breaking point and the tension spilled over into violence.
5)      In almost half the cases, police actions were the ‘final’ incidents before the outbreak of violence.  No particular control tactic was successful in every situation.  The varied effectiveness of control techniques emphasizes the need for advance training, planning, adequate intelligence systems, and knowledge of the minority community.
6)      The typical rioter was a teenager or young adult, a lifelong resident of the city in which he rioted, a high school dropout and was usually unemployed or employed in a menial job.  He was proud of his race, extremely hostile to both whites and middle-class Blacks, and, although informed about politics, highly distrustful of the political system.  Most rioters were young Black males and nearly 53% of arrestees were between 15 and 24 years old.
7)      What the rioters appeared to be seeking was fuller participation in the social order and the material benefits enjoyed by the majority of American citizens.  Rather than rejecting the system, they were anxious to obtain a place in it for themselves.  Counter rioters (generally better educated and with higher income) tried to get rioters to “cool it.”  
8)      The number of Blacks represented in local government was substantially smaller than the Afro-American proportion of the population.  Only three of the 20 cities had more than one Black legislator; none had a Black Mayor or City Manager.  Although almost all cities had some sort of formal grievance mechanism for handling citizen complaints, this was typically regarded by Blacks as ineffective and generally ignored.

At least 12 deeply held grievances were identified and ranked into three levels of relative intensity, said the Commission.

First Level of Intensity:

• Police practices
• Unemployment and underemployment
• Inadequate housing

Second Level of Intensity:

• Inadequate education
• Poor recreation facilities and programs
• Ineffectiveness of the political structure and grievance mechanisms

Third Level of Intensity:

• Disrespectful white attitudes
• Discriminatory administration of justice
• Inadequacy of federal programs – the result of a three-city survey indicated that despite substantial expenditures, the number of persons assisted constituted only a fraction of those in need
• Inadequacy of municipal services
• Discriminatory consumer and credit practices
• Inadequate welfare programs

In Chapter 4 of its Report on “Why It Happened,” the Commission turned more to the national scene and to those factors within the society at large that created the mood for violence among many urban Blacks.  Despite factors varying significantly from city to city, certain fundamentals became quite clear:

• The most fundamental is the racial attitude and behavior of most White Americans toward African-Americans. Racial prejudice has shaped our history decisively and threatens our future. Racism is essentially responsible for the explosive mixture that has been accumulating in our cities since the end of WWII.  Some ingredients include:
• pervasive discrimination and segregation in employment, education and housing resulting in the exclusion of great numbers of Blacks from the benefits of economic progress
• Black in-migration and White exodus producing a massive and growing concentration of impoverished Blacks in our major cities and a growing crisis of deteriorating facilities and services and unmet human needs
• Black “ghettos” is where segregation and poverty converge on the young to destroy opportunity and enforce (and re-enforce) failure.  Crime, drug addiction, dependency on welfare, bitterness and resentment against society in general and white society in particular are the result
• At the same time, most whites and some Blacks outside the “ghettos” have prospered and through our ever-present media, this affluence has been flaunted before the eyes of the poor and jobless inner city residents
•  Social and economic conditions in the riot cities constituted a clear pattern of severe disadvantage for Blacks compared with Whites, whether the Blacks lived in the area where riots took place or outside it.  Blacks had completed fewer years of education and fewer had attended high school.  Blacks were twice as likely to be unemployed and three times as likely to be in unskilled and service jobs, and were more than twice as likely to be living in poverty.  Although housing cost Blacks relatively more, they had worse housing – three times as likely to be overcrowded and substandard.  When compared to white suburbs, the disadvantage is even more pronounced.

It is, perhaps, the next listing of more recent catalysts that had begun affecting the situation in 1967-68 that drives home the parallels with present day protests and riots, and the realities of our current situation.

• Frustrated hopes are the residue of unfulfilled expectations that were aroused by great legislative and judicial victories of the Civil Rights Movement, and other struggles for Rights that have characterized those times right up to the present.  Whites often point to the “strides that have been made” in race relations.  The reality is that the small “strides” are offset by the enormous disadvantages and built-in prejudices that Whites do not experience in their daily lives.  The unfulfilled expectations for Blacks are very real to them, and generally hidden or ignored or unknown to Whites. 
• There is a climate that tends toward approval and encouragement of violence as a legitimate form of protest created by white militarism and terrorism directed against nonviolent protests.  My Comment:  Violence is a tricky matter.  The violence we see occur out of non-violent protests is usually the only violence considered as such, and is the most condemned.  What is ignored by the White community in general is the accumulation of violence created by white-imposed systemic systems and techniques of control and discrimination in the form of harassment of young Black men and others by the police (“stop & frisk” for no reason other than racial profiling); a lack of, or insufficient protection and aid from authorities when they are called to assist in the “Black community;  the excessive incarceration of people of color; exclusion from white power bases like unions or business guilds and organizations, and local legislative bodies; exclusion from suburban housing; from good schools, from holding municipal or state office whether elected or appointed;  the lack of adequate transportation, health care, adequate and nutritious foods – the list goes on and on.  This pervasive form of white power structure violence goes on every day, all day in most of the Black sections of our cities and towns.  Instead of addressing the causes of such violence, whites see a boiling pan of water and put a lid over it to hide it, wondering why the lid explodes when the boiling water has reached a certain point.  
• The frustration of powerlessness leads some in the Black communities to a strong conviction that there is no way to move the white power “system” except through violent protest.  The inability to find an effective means by which to voice grievances and basic needs is often reflected in an alienation from and hostility toward institutions of law and government.  In contrast, when whites have a grievance or problem, they expect to be heard and that the underlying problem will be acted upon and resolved satisfactorily by our governing representatives and officials.    
• To some Blacks, the police and justice systems have come to symbolize white power, white racism and white repression.  When Blacks are treated unfairly and unjustly – remember actions speak louder than words – by the police and the justice system, it serves only to reinforce the widespread belief amongst the Black community that there is a double standard of justice and protection – one for Blacks and another for Whites.  The grand jury decisions not to indict in Ferguson and Staten Island are visible symbols of that double standard to the Black community.

There will be those who say that we have come a long way since 1967-68 in race relations, and that comparing the starkness of the conclusions of the Kerner Commission to present-day is not a reasonable comparison – almost like comparing apples to oranges.  They will say that many more African-Americans hold public office.  They will remind us that young people of today are apt to be less tolerant of racial prejudice and less bound or influenced by the prejudices of the past.  They are apt to point to the mixture of people in the protests as signs of greater integration and support for a culture of tolerance and fairness.  They might point to the increase of graduations of Blacks from high schools and colleges as signs of change and progress in race relations.  All of these protestations and claims have some factual truth within them, but they are still inadequate indicators of fundamental change in our institutions and our systems of administering equal justice.  Ferguson, Staten Island and Cleveland are living symbols of the fact that we have not moved much beyond the realities of 1967-68. Actions to eliminate racism and bigotry have been sporadic and limited, although individuals may have progressed in their attitudes, they are still supporters and users of systems that discriminate and repress a segment of our society, and they are still ignoring the consequences for people of color. 

It is interesting to note, as does the piece on which my writing is based, that in 1998, 30 years after the issuance of the Kerner Report, former Senator and Commission member, Fred R. Harris co-authored a study that found that the racial divide had grown in ensuing years with inner-city unemployment at crisis levels.  Harris reported, “Today, thirty years after the Kerner Report, there is more poverty in America, it is deeper, blacker and browner than before, and it is more concentrated in the cities, which have become America’s poorhouses.”  Opposing voices to this idea cited a marked increase in the number of African Americans now living in suburbs!  However, in those urban areas where the vast majority of Blacks are living, increasing polarization is evident with a continuing breakdown of inter-racial communications evident.  However, in our own recent past, we are seeing a burgeoning growth of white segregationist militias and groups.  But those extremes are not the norm, any more than the norm is blacks moving to the suburbs.

The norm is that we have not, as a nation, made great strides in overcoming our racial inequities, because those inequities are perpetuated by forces we have not recognized as being part of the causes of racial divisiveness in this country. 

Certain corporations perpetuate racism – not only because of their hiring practices, but because they tend to locate far enough from inner cities to be immune to the problems of unemployment and lack of access and difficulty using transportation. 

And what about those small businesses that keep getting looted and burned by rioters – are they part of the problem?  Ever heard of monopolies?  What do monopolies tend to do but raise prices, carry only the products from which they realize large profit margins, and charge more for them than is reasonable; plus, they carry inferior or lesser brands because who cares if they don’t last

The flight of big chain stores and large food chains discriminates against those who live far from such resources.  Try buying your food supplies and other sundries from Nice ‘N Easy or other such stores.  Know what?  Your food budget is going to be higher.

Absentee landlords – charging higher rents but letting properties deteriorate so renters end up paying more for less and getting all those little ‘extras’ as well – bugs, termites, mice and rats.  What a bargain!

How about the fact that a homeowner can’t afford maintenance because contractors from outside the area charge more to come in to their house?  Or how about the fact that a homeowner can’t get anyone to come over to fix the problem, whatever it is?  Try to find a minority contractor within the area – there are none?  Wonder how that happened…

Got to go to the bank to take care of some extra charge?  You get there and the bank associate says sorry we have to put a lien on your paycheck because you also owe this or that, or because they don’t have assurance that you can pay your loan or mortgage...  Before you can leave that bank, you have to overspend your paycheck(s) and then can’t even buy the food you need for your children. 

“The sentence for a minority person is longer than a sentence for a white person going to prison. Minorities are more likely to get the death sentence than white. The sentences for crack cocaine, used disproportionately by minorities, are longer than the sentences for powdered cocaine, used disproportionately by whites. And so, there is still this endemic, institutional racism in America that people forget about (Alan Curtis in an interview with Bill Moyers).

These are just some of the ways that institutional racism, ignored and perpetuated by the white power structure, continues to harass and repress the aspirations and the normal life everyone, regardless of race, tries to live.  The problem with racial prejudice and racism is not just that individual whites are practicing it. The basic problem is that racism is being carried out by institutions and structures and systems that whites don’t protest because they get along most of the time real well with those same institutions.  But when Whites sense they are being taken advantage of by such entities, they will protest and even sue to bring those entities to a reasonable settlement.  That’s the thing about racism – if you don’t experience it, you think it isn’t there.  It’s there.

The Kerner Commission Report reminds us that it is there and is not going away without concerted action.  Ferguson and Staten Island remind us it is there and it’s not going away.  In fact, with the attack of the Congressional Republican right wing against welfare, the working poor and the continuation of the war on drugs (the war on drugs equals minority incarceration), affirmative action, and the outright display of contempt and hatred for our first Black President, we are reminded almost daily that the will to change and reform our institutional, entrenched racism and repression is not going to be addressed in any positive way.  And, by the way, what was the number one response of some cities to the protests of 1967 and to those of late—to increase militarization, aggressive actions and control techniques in preparation for future protests.  That is the #1 reason why we haven’t made progress against poverty or racism – we keep choosing the wrong solutions, the wrong techniques, the wrong targets.  Progress toward peace and good will is not made by turning up the heat under an already boiling and roiling pan of water.

The Kerner report probably had it about right:  their basic conclusion was that “Our nation is moving toward two different societies: one white, one black – separate and unequal.”  But that report also suggested some solutions, or at least steps toward solutions.  They echo down the years to the present day.  Most have not been instituted, practiced or even recognized.  You be the judge as to their viability.

 The Kerner Commission report recognized that the black/white race divide was largely an economic divide and proposed mainly economic policies to meet this social problem. Their policy prescription included:

·         creating two million jobs, in both the public and private sector;

·         fully  subsidizing on-the-job training for the chronically unemployed;
·         providing federal assistance to all schools that worked to end de facto segregation;
·         offering federal funding for year-round compensatory education programs serving disadvantaged children;
·         developing a uniform national welfare standard to bring everyone's income up to the poverty line; and
·         building six million new and renovated units of housing for low and moderate income families.

What happened?  First, because of the expense of the Viet Nam War, President Johnson rejected their recommendations.  Second, "Congress passed anti-riot legislation rather than the kinds of social programs advocated in the Kerner Report." (Blackagendareport.com)

Congress is still rejecting the recommendations and going a step further by attempting to eliminate and de-fund most governmental attempts at economic or social welfare programs aimed at alleviating the root causes of poverty and the lack of opportunities for minority communities.  The question remains: will President Obama’s strong support be enough to bring about the changes and reforms now being called for in many cities in this country, or will a Right-wing Congress act to preserve those powerful forces that are keeping Blacks contained in segregated areas, walled off from good-paying jobs, a first class education, and having a voice in the larger community.  In 1968 there was at least an understanding that ending the black/white race divide was an important challenge to the nation as a whole and that it would require massive federal investment. Today that very premise is rejected in the Halls of Congress and in many of the state legislatures.  If the President is to accomplish anything toward equal justice, voting rights, equality of opportunity, alleviating joblessness, and improving education for inner city schools, he is going to need the backing and support of more than the protestors in the streets.  We all must “get on-board” this particular train.  

A PLAN and some STRATEGIES for DEMOCRATS

Last Sunday, I posted a somewhat delayed Blog (because of illness) about the Mid-term Election and its aftermath.  I noted some of the reasons cited for Democratic losses, and I also started a discussion of what may need to be addressed by the Democratic Party as we move forward.  Since last week, I have come across two important thoughts and comments that need to be integrated into this piece about Goals and Strategies for the Democratic Party.
First, it seems important to put the Mid-term Election into a reasonable perspective.  It is far too easy to broad-brush this result, to spread blame across the broad spectrum of the Party, but to forget both hard-wired demographics and the wide-spread support of voters for certain popular and progressive ideas.  Let me explain:
In an article titled “The Disunited States of America”, Slate writer, Jamelle Bouie, makes a point not so prevalent in the mainstream (more conservative) press: 
“The people who just elected a Republican majority in the Senate are a narrow, unrepresentative slice of voting-age Americans.  They’re older, whiter, wealthier, and much more conservative than the public at large.”  Put another way, the “midterm electorate that chose the Republican Congress is itself a Republican electorate drawn from a subset of Republican voters.”  However, it’s just as likely, he contends, that “two years from now, we’ll have a Democratic electorate – voters that are younger, less affluent, and more diverse – choosing a democratic president.”   It’s currently hardwired into the divide that exists between the young and the old, and is reflected in early exit polling:  37% of voters in this year’s election were 60 and older, compared to 12% who were under the age of 30.”  Democrats won 54% of the youngest voters (not much help) while 57% of senior voters went to Republicans.  In 2016, if the younger cohort turns out as in 2008 and 2012, and Democrats again capture 55-60% of that vote, Democrats could again win the Presidency.
Secondly, William Saletan of SLATE reminds us that although Republicans won big this year, it was not based entirely on Republican ideology and policy (although I must say that ‘dark money’ from their favorite super PACs didn’t hurt!).
In fact, many of the Republican candidates who needed desperately to win used liberal or progressive policies with clearly “populist” themes.  These Republicans, who have voted against, or voiced opposition to, some of the issues they then touted, actually used such issues as upward mobility, income inequality, raise in the minimum wage, and even the injustice of cutting Medicare, to successfully steal the thunder of Democratic candidates.  Saletan makes the important point for consideration that while Republicans may have won the Senate, the country is still concerned with traditional progressive populist ideas, and will vote Democratic if Democrats can find the right inspirational message.  “Public Citizen” even claims that “NOW is Our Time!
It is my opinion that there are some things we need to do right away in response to the election and to the fact that Republicans hold the majority, both in the House and now in the Senate. I do not claim to have all the answers, nor will I attempt at this point to present a great many details, but I want to at least outline a Plan.  Unfortunately, the Democrats of the lame duck Congress have not acted boldly to begin essential parts of such a Plan.  One thing seems clear, there must be a unified Plan, and hopefully the Dems will get their act together between now and when Republicans take over in Jan. 2015 as the majority Party!

1)    GO BIG & BOLD!  The President is leading the way on this with the announcement of a pollution reduction agreement with China; temporary suspension of deportments for millions of undocumented immigrants; his continued opposition to the Keystone pipeline, now backed up by talk of a possible veto next time around.  And, of course, we must mention his straightforward approach to the second major enrollment period for Obamacare!  His leadership has proven to be inspirational, but where are the Democrats who should be praising his action.  Some are making noise on MSNBC, but it’s limited. 
2)    FIGHT BACK!  The Democratic Party must finally stand up and defend its policies.  We must have a Speaker’s Group, Strategy Group, Answer Back group, and the Payback Group that gives Republicans a taste of their own medicine.  Nothing offered by Republicans should be allowed a free pass, whether it is lies, unfounded accusations, or legislation!  We must speak Truth & Facts to all of their fiction! No such thing as compromise; there is no compromise, only trade-offs that keep our side intact.
Here are some of the trade-offs we might offer to the Reps.: 
=Leave Obamacare alone or lose options on healthcare for Congress; plus lose your special gym, free care at clinics on site, and free surgery at Walter Reed and Bethesda (and whatever goodies it takes to make the point!)
=Pass CIR or face loss of transportation; staff; furnishings
3)    ORGANIZE Democrats in Congress who need to jump on-board to strongly support the President; and he them.  Support the President loudly and forthrightly, but now it’s also time to put forward a crafted barrage of legislation to counteract and challenge a Republican plan to do this during the first 100 days of their majority rule in Congress.  For instance, The Keystone XL pipeline:  offer an alternate fuels bill in its place, and offer amendments to the Keystone pipeline bill to gut it (Repeal Keystone; not Obamacare!). 
All of this must be part of a planned response, not simply the work of individual Congress members.  We have to be unified in the presentation of a planned response to Republican rhetoric, false claims, and special interest pandering.  But, we must also be unified in the New Deal we are trying to present to the American citizen.  This legislative barrage must send the clear message that we are seeking to aid those very segments of our society who are being ignored and castigated by the Right-wing Republicans (which is 98-99% of us!).
3)      CREATE A POPULIST NEW DEAL FOR AMERICA!  Establish a Command Center to communicate New Deal unified message; blunt GOP criticism; blame GOP for everything, and develop our own populist word and action symbols and rhetoric.   A New Deal must include at least: increase Social Security benefits; expand Medicare and Medicaid; raising the minimum wage beyond the poverty level as an annual salary total; voting rights expanded, not restricted; women’s equality, health care and rights enhanced; investment in a world-class public education system; tax reform; and restrictions on Wall Street excesses. 
4)    PROMOTE CITIZEN GRASS-ROOTS GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT!  See former Blogs for an explanation:  8/5/14; 7/21/14; 1/18/12.  Support and increase leadership of local college students – their activism is imperative. 
5)    RE-FORM PARTY STRUCTURES to exemplify a populist agenda and bottom-up organization.  We need right now an Eleanor Roosevelt-type who can meet with different groups, hear their concerns and then communicate them forcefully to Democratic leaders, Progressive groups and organizations.  That woman appears right now to be Senator Elizabeth Warren.  Her recent appointment to the Senate Leadership group enables her to be the catalyst for Party re-structure and message rejuvenation. 
6)    TURN REPUBLICAN STRATEGIES BACK UPON THEM: introduce legislation that makes voter registration and voting the most liberal it can possibly be; send AG civil rights personnel to every voter suppression state to audit their voter rolls and procedures; in fact, increase audits of all kinds in Republican states; use all means at disposal of the federal government to protect citizens.  As to the ACA, if the SCOTUS rules that federal subsidies cannot be applied to states who operated their own healthcare phone lines, determine if such a ruling can be applied to any other federal subsidies and threaten to withdraw them from all states who joined the lawsuit or any lawsuit against ACA, or that refused to extend Medicaid eligibility or acted in any way to limit health care to their citizens.  This is WAR – so find ways to blunt the enemy’s strength.  We can no longer be passive – we must threaten the Republican Party wherever it has gained control.
Beat Charles Krauthammer to the punch – a bill a week; allow “amnesty” with restrictions for repatriating untaxed profits earned by international corporations: if they don’t pay within a set deadline, issue charges against CEOs and Board members for non-payment of taxes; introduce sweeping reform of the tax code and wipe out all breaks, loopholes and subsidies for corporations (use as a threat against those who pay no taxes and those who escape taxes by moving overseas – remind them Republicans will not always be there to save their “corporate welfare”); set a minimum corporate tax that must be paid.
7)    EDUCATE THE PUBLIC AS TO THE DEMOCRAT & REPUBLICAN ‘BRANDS’.  Begin at the local level running candidates for local offices.  Use every possible opportunity and method to put forth the ‘differences” in philosophy, attitude and legislative initiatives toward people and governance. 
8)    BECOME LITIGIOUS (even a NUISANCE!).  Where federal laws are being ignored or disobeyed, investigate, publicize and punish violations;  bring charges,  impose fines or sue for wrongs whenever possible; empower departments, offices & commissions to carry out such examinations and lawsuits; empower FEC to enforce  election laws, and limit money in political campaigns; make giving transparent; fill all judicial vacancies during lame duck session; stop all sales and gifts of military hardware to local police forces; unmercifully use the filibuster; make 60 votes to pass major legislation the norm;  initiate legal proceedings against every major piece of flawed Republican; call out every Republican who denigrates the poor, working poor, women, gays, or minorities – get them in court on hate speech if possible; find children & families directly affected by Republican cuts in social programs and bring  Republican leadership (state and federal) up on child abuse charges; withdraw every special privilege and budgetary extravagance possible from Congresspersons to help them understand austerity.
Again, this is not definitive, it’s not even agreeable to every Democrat or Progressive.  What it is meant to be is one set of suggestions for proceeding to advance a progressive Democratic agenda.  It is clear that not all of those with a liberal bent would buy into this, or any other set of suggestions.  However, that does not mean we must eschew a unified message and proceed with individual Democrats constructing their own agendas and campaigns in their own areas of the country.  We have to find a basic “platform” that presents the Democrat brand in a way that most of our citizenry will find compelling for themselves.  To not attempt such a program, plan or platform is to admit we cannot compete, that we have an inadequate approach to presenting solutions to major problems or we are failing as a Party to mobilize our forces in the battle for our form of governance and freedoms.  Why then, have we not heard from the Democratic Party about this significant movement?  Why is there such silence from the DNC or the DCCC, or the DSCC?  Is the Party incapable of polling its members to determine their thoughts, opinions, and policy suggestions?  Perhaps we are so concentrated on organizing from the top down that we have forgotten HOW to solicit grassroots input.
Putting that assessment aside, let me say that it may be incumbent upon local, state,  regional or national private organizations dedicated to progressive liberal causes and policies to take the lead and to feed their own thoughts up the chain to the Democratic powers-that-be. In that vein, let me turn to the attempt of one small core team in one small community in central New York State, to make their own attempt at using a survey instrument to lead them toward answers to: What happened in this election? What responses are needed? How should we organize to present our Plan?   That group of (10 people), met a week ago and after going through a survey where they answered questions individually and then pooled their answers to reflect a weighting of answers, came up with some interesting findings.  I will not reveal here the entire instrument, but will give you their results so far.
Their answers characterized the off-year election in this way:  this election showed that Democrats running away from their President and the issues and policies he expounds is not a winning strategy.  For instance, the long-term attack against the Affordable Care Act produced a narrowly focused view of “government” as incompetent and unhelpful enabling Republicans to prevail in a contest about government’s role and its accomplishments, or lack thereof.  On the other hand, more than policy matters worked against Democrats.  Demographics worked against Democrats and for Republicans (to put it simply: more senior citizens showed up to vote for Republicans than young people showed up to vote for Democrats).  Finally, unlimited undocumented funds from billionaires and super PACs for highly damaging negative ad campaigns helped to determine the outcome.  While there were sympathies expressed for other causes (like: voters not feeling a “recovery”; a series of international crises; a unified Plan of Attack from Republicans), this scenario represents one picture and informs their thinking of what to do about the election.
Next, the group looked at various aspects of what a responsive Plan might contain, essentially covering four areas:  Jobs Now; Build Stronger Communities; Make Democracy Work for the People; Everyone Pays Their Fair Share.  The rankings were weighted; that is, a first place vote got three points, second place two points and third place earned 1 point.  Then the values were added up to give a weighted score on the various elements of each section.  What happened?  Well, these ten Progressives called for the following to be part of a responsive Plan:
End All Tax Breaks for Companies that ship jobs and profits overseas;
Invest in America’s Infrastructure to create jobs;
Put Americans to Work NOW – create temporary jobs immediately especially for the long-term unemployed;
Stop the War on Workers and Labor Rights
Invest in Public Education
Strengthen Corporate Commitment to the Communities in which they operate;
End the War on Drugs
(3 more tied in rating included: Medicare for All, Protect Women’s Rights and Equality; Focus on Reducing Poverty among Children and their Families).
Election Reform
Overturn Citizens United decision
Support permanent Comprehensive Immigration Reform
A third area on what to do in response as an organization was not able to be completed, but the group decided to ask its members to do so in a somewhat unique way:  to answer the final section as a survey on the website surveymonkey.com.  In that regard, it is perhaps a fitting ending to this piece to invite readers to take a look on surveymonkey.com where you will find the entire survey at this link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JS2J8D2
Take it if you wish.  Your own scores and choices should be available to you when you finish.  It may be helpful to you as it has been to the referenced small group as to their concerns and commitments.  Check it out.  You may even want to use it within your organization, or to promote it to others.  Maybe your own version might produce better results... 
The point of it all is: as Progressive Democrats, we cannot sit by because the status quo is not acceptable.  We need to be asking ourselves why we lost.  What can we do about it?  How do we proceed as an organization to implement a responsive Plan?  Let’s Get Busy!

What Happened?

What can I say?  Much too much, if the length of this piece is any indication! The People have spoken and the Party of NO, the Big Lie and of not-so-subtle Hate has been put in power.  As I have said for the last few weeks:  elections have consequences, and we are about to experience those consequences first-hand.  The next two years are about to unfold the very essence of the Republican brand, and it won’t be pretty.  Unless the President uses his veto power to reject every piece of Radical Republican legislation presented to him, we are about to experience two of the worst years ever seen in our modern era. 

What did we learn from this debacle?

1)  When Democrats run away from their President, and from progressive Democratic values, they get walloped at the polls.  Some say they got walloped anyway.  I disagree.  They got inundated because they did not stand strong for progressive Democratic principles and values. They tried to sound like Republicans so they could draw the independent and moderate middle votes.  It didn’t work.  It rarely works. Instead of standing strong for health care reform, minimum wage increase, jobs legislation, raise in social security and Medicare benefits, and so on – what amounts to a populist agenda – some chose to “protect women’s access” to contraception and abortion as their main item in their campaign.  Others chose to go soft on fossil fuels, others faltered on the rest of the President’s agenda, like immigration reform.  Ms. Grimes in Kentucky would not even acknowledge her voting support for the President in the last election.      

 

2)  When the Leaders of the Democrats in Congress protect their caucus members from taking difficult stands and difficult votes, Democrats tend to lose.  Harry Reid is the epitome of a Leader who is past his time; he needs to give up his new position of Minority Leader, and to be replaced by the likes of Chuck Schumer of New York who has already demonstrated his leadership abilities.  As to Nancy Pelosi, it pains me to say that her leadership may also be passe`, although I venture to say she should probably remain through the lame duck term.  Politico.com’s exclusive interview of Pelosi on Nov 12th spells out some reasons why she should stay: she is unrelenting on Democratic principles, policies and strategies; she is a strong leader; she possesses incredible fund-raising prowess having just demonstrated again this cycle that she can outraise all other House Democrats.  But, Pelosi also acknowledges that fresh leadership is important to cultivate, but she will stay as long as the members keep wanting her to be their leader, and there is little indication of opposition. Although there are reported “grumblings” from younger members, there is no real movement yet to get her to retire.  No one doubts that she has the accumulated power to make that decision on her own!

 

Beyond that, it appears from the most recent action to place Senator Elizabeth Warren on the inside of Democratic Party Leadership with the title of strategic policy adviser to the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, helping to craft the party's policy positions and priorities, is a step that is much needed. She will also serve as a liaison to progressive groups to ensure they have a voice – which is exactly what is needed!

3)  Money rules – not values, not policies, not principles, not even accomplishments.  Whether we like it or not, the wealthy have taken over our elections, with the help of a conservative SCOTUS.  Democrats are caught in the middle, espousing a long-desired election campaign reform package, and yet needing more money to fight the forces of the Koch brothers and their ilk who now spend enormous sums through third party PACs to boost “their” candidates. The answer is quite simple: until we can gain control of Congress, and advance the cause of thorough election reform, we must adopt the premise that money-raising and targeted spending is a necessary evil/goal and must be a top priority.  We have to face the fact that we have to pry money from the big spenders and the big corporations – from all those who at least have some values in common with us.  (By the way, where are George Soros and Nick Hanauer and other rich progressives like them? We need their backing).  And, we probably cannot afford to be too choosy about every donor either so here’s one thought:  why not require all major donors to sign an affidavit declaring their understanding that the money is a donation freely given that does not entitle them to any special treatment or access. Or, perhaps we could simply promise them the Moon and deliver an inconsequential Pluto!

 

4)  The People do not have enough understanding of the way government operates: that Congress is responsible for legislating, and when legislation is not written to solve real problems, the President cannot be blamed for that omission.  The blaming of the President for the failures of the Senate and the House is ignorance writ large.  Added to that ignorance is the delusion that a divided government will somehow make people work together.  It’s not going to happen.  We have reaped the harvest of a national education system that removed civics and political science from its curriculum, except in some cases where they remain as electives.  If you have ever watched “Jay Walking” on the former “Tonight Show with Jay Leno”, you can understand perfectly what is being said here.  The people picked off the streets by Jay and shown a picture of the Vice President, for instance, were at a loss as to who was pictured.

 

What’s worse, we are at a loss to explain how anyone can vote against their best interests in an election.  2014 will ever stand as the epitome of that kind of voting.  In spite of all kinds of austerity programming in proposed Republican budgets and legislation; in spite of seeing millionaires prosper while average wages went down; in spite of health care reform that benefits millions of consumers threatened with repeal, the voters still chose the very people who promote those concepts and ideas.   Apparently, self-flagellation and self-abuse are alive and well in our country.  Even scientists have vague reasons for such behavior.  All we can say is that education is one very important answer, and we must put civics lessons back into the public schools and into community forums.  It is not enough to emphasize math and science as a way to prosperity.

5)  Progressive citizens who did not vote have made this result inevitable.  Where were the students, the minorities, the working poor?  Home?  At work?  They certainly were not at the polls in the numbers needed.  In fact, the many student leaders in the 22nd NY Congressional district did not even respond to a call for their participation in a district-wide write-in campaign.  Perhaps they voted at their homes, but if so, they missed an opportunity to make waves in one particular upstate NY district.  There are some who say that voter suppression laws had something to do with the lack of voter turnout, but that is yet to be proven.  The evidence is not convincing.  What is perhaps more convincing is the Gallup Poll that was taken shortly after the mid-term election and published by Politico.com on Nov. 12. 

 

“Only 36 percent had a favorable view of the Democratic party, a 6-percentage-point drop from before the midterms, the Gallup poll released Wednesday found. With the GOP standing with 42 percent favorability, it is the first time since 2011 the GOP has had a higher rating than the Democrats.  The favorability rating for Democrats is the party’s lowest since Gallup began asking the question in 1992.” 

So, perhaps it is less voter suppression than voter depression that kept Democrats from the polls.

6)  Finally, you cannot win elections when you do not stand up for difficult issues like healthcare reform, tax reform, job creation, or regulation of Wall Street financiers or bank CEOs.  According to a study by the Brookings Institution, “only 36 percent of 2014 Democratic candidates mentioned support of the Affordable Care Act in their platform.”  You cannot pretend to be a Populist Democrat while acting Republican-lite.  A certain amount of discipline is required within a political Party, usually administered by Party Leaders, and that discipline must extend to those who side once too often with the opposition.  In this particular case, the discipline was handed out by the voters.  Here are the names of some who got voted out perhaps because they did not strongly espouse populist Democrat Party accomplishments:  Mark Udall (SD); Mark Warren (VA), Mark Begich (WA), Mark Pryor (AR) (“Mark” well what happens to democrat Senators when they abandon democratic principles). 

Democrats should have run on their principles, not away from them. Because they allowed the President to be demonized and denounced by Republican con men and women, and because they did not stand up for him and did not run on the accomplishments of the last 6 years --some accomplishments that were made despite Republican obstructionism -- many people had no reason to vote for them and probably did not even show up at the polls on Election Day.

We apparently lost this election because many Democrat office-holders refused to face a multi-faceted reality.  We can’t win with a passive strategy.  We can’t win just talking about progressive issues, values and policies.  We can’t even win with a good ground game!  We need to recognize first and foremost that the Republicans have bested us in using language and symbols to utterly devastate our candidates.  And who answered back?  No one because everyone was hiding from the same reality.  All the gimmicks, organizations, data gathering and data entry, plus good old fashioned GOTV, did not work because Republicans have stolen the ground out from under us, and tilted the playing field.  Some call it a game.  Not Republicans: they know it’s a WAR.  And since Democrats are not war-prone, we have a very hard time dealing with that reality (and in fact have failed to deal with it).  Here are some of the reactions I found, none of which speak on their own to the multi-faceted reality:

1)  Some say we must support and elect Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.  Apparently, that is not necessarily a widely held view.   First, Mary Landrieu needs to get her priorities straightened out, then she might deserve that support.  She seems too anxious to support a Republican agenda, which has worked for her in the past, but this year may not be enough as we shall see in December.   On the other hand, she voted 96% of the time with her Party, so maybe she needs some slack, but here’s the part of her record that raises questions about her candidacy:

 

--on controlling gun violence, more often sided with GOP to expand gun rights, voted against ban of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, voted to expand concealed gun carry laws, voted in favor of Republican rhetoric on enforcing laws on the books.

--as to Oil interests:  approved Keystone pipeline being instituted and against more study with a decision 30 days after report issued; currently trying to get something passed in the Senate so she can use it in her run-off.

--wanted to see expansion of eavesdropping by CIA, etc.

--on 2007 CIR, voted with Republicans to defeat cloture on debate and thus wreaked chances of passing bill with special worker visas

--voted against authorization of withdrawal from Iraq

--voted for military tribunals to try terrorists and for enhanced interrogation techniques, such as ‘water-boarding’

 

2)  Veto plans—there is much talk about the President’s power to veto any legislation written by Republicans (who knows if they remember how to craft legislation?).  Problem is, he has to consider a few questions:  are there some areas where signing Republican legislation would at least provide something of worth and value to the general public?  Should he allow some measures to pass into law without his signature just to show what Republicans will do when given the chance? Should he work for compromise (I prefer “trade-offs”) on major issues?  And what about a veto override: are there some issues where enough Democrats would join with Republicans to overturn a veto (2/3s vote)?  Veto power is not a simple concept.  It’s a difficult way to govern, and it tempts the Party in the majority to blame the President for everything he blocks – such would be a continuation of the false charge that he is prone to abuse of power by governing by Executive Order!

 

3)  New leadership – there are critics who claim that our leadership in the Dem Party is inadequate.  Most of this falls on Harry Reid, but the President comes in for some criticism of his management of the Executive bureaucracy as well.  According to some, Harry Reid allowed too many Democrats, especially from southern and western states, to stray from the Democratic agenda.  Most of those Democrats lost and one hangs in the balance – Mary Landrieu.

 

4)  Get behind Hillary – many seem to think we should get behind Hillary right now and push her all the way to victory in 2016.  Unfortunately, she does not seem to be ready to declare her candidacy right now (if ever), and there is that nagging feeling out there that by 2016 she will not be the candidate we need or want!  Democracy for America has even put out a missive that calls for a competitive democratic primary battle to show Americans “who we really are, our ideas, our diversity, our vision for the future of America.”  DFA even presents an alphabetical list of possible candidates who have at least expressed an interest in running.  They are asking members and readers to vote as to who they want to run for President in 2016.  That should prove interesting.  What is more interesting is that almost every time the Democratic Party gets involved in primaries to such an extent, we tend to lose momentum and the general election!

 

5)  Work on saving Obama’s legacy – there are those who say keep fighting for the President’s agenda although it has been rejected by voters and by the Republican majority.  We will take a terrible risk if we do not use the next two years to resurrect and support his many accomplishments.  Hiding from his legacy will threaten the winning of the Presidency in 2016.  A group of Democrat office-holders should take the initiative to make this a top priority by tying his accomplishments into a new New Deal for America.

 

6)  Too many simply say “donate money”.  Simplicity itself will not help Democrats no matter how much is raised.  In essence, the number of dunning letters coming into private homes from Democratic organizations is way out of line and off the mark.  They fabricate the polls and true situations of every race; they capitalize on every news event; they accuse those who don’t respond of being disloyal; they don’t provide a spirited vision or any inspirational way forward. 

 

7)  One interesting progressive group claims that pushing Harry Reid to take action on judgeship appointments between now and Jan 20th is of extreme importance. Again I have sympathy with this concept, but it is not going to win elections for Democrats (although it may win some progressive decisions in the lower courts).

 

8)  Some, like Robert Reich and Senator Elizabeth Warren, declare that we must stick with certain “popular” or “populist” issues and push them constantly.  Reich says we need “an agenda for shared prosperity’ including a raising of the minimum wage, investment in education and infrastructure; lift the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, resurrect Glass-Steagall and limit the size of banks, make it easier for low-wage workers to unionize, raise taxes on corporations with high ratios of CEO pay to average worker pay, and much more.”  Senator Warren speaks along the same lines, but also emphasizes the need to control Wall Street and CEOs. 

 

DigitalJournal talks about a new New Deal being needed, both in terms of saving the middle class and in order to win elections around a unified core of values.  The U.S. economy is out of the recession, but many voters do not feel that way.  “Yes, the message is still as pertinent as in 1992: “It's the economy, stupid.” Voters are annoyed with the White House because the economy still sucks. And, while many pundits are blaming Democrats' mid-term woes on refusing to tack to the political right and become more conservative, I agree with those who say that the Dems are suffering for failing to stick to the socioeconomic left.”

 

9)  Sometimes it is important to see what our foes have to say.  Charles Krauthammer, writing in the NY Times, expresses some thoughts that need to be taken seriously.  “He explained on Wednesday the 5th that the Republicans “didn’t win on Tuesday – the Democrats lost.  “It was a repudiation of Obama, but it wasn’t an endorsement of Republicanism yet. It was a way to say we endorse you, we give you the gavel, we give you the opportunity.”  He also said that the GOP must show that it’s a party of ideas and actions by developing an agenda to pass legislation and dare the president to exercise a veto.  “That will show you who the party of ‘no’ really is,” he said.

Krauthammer then lists five big items for a Republican agenda that he says must be urgent, determined and relentless:

1. a bill a week for the first 10 weeks. Start with obvious measures with significant Democratic support, like the Keystone XL pipeline

2. fast-track trade negotiation authority that Harry Reid killed and that Obama, like all presidents, wants. Republicans should propose and pass it, thereby giving Obama a victory and demonstrating both bipartisanship and magnanimity (as well as economic good sense).

3. a simple, targeted bill to repatriate the $2 trillion of assets being held by U.S. corporations overseas, a bill to authorize and expedite the export of liquid natural gas and crude oil (the latter banned by an obsolete 1975 law) and a strong border security bill.

4. symbolic abolition of Obamacare that Obama will immediately veto is less important than multiple rapid fire measures to kill it with a thousand cuts. Repeal of the medical device tax. Repeal of the individual mandate. Repeal of the employer mandate. Repeal of the coverage mandate thereby reinstating Obama's broken promise that "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it." And repeal the federal bailout for insurers on the Obamacare exchanges

5. sweeping reform of the tax system, both corporate and individual, abolishing loopholes and lowering rates, like the historic Reagan-O'Neill 1986 reform or Obama's own abandoned Simpson-Bowles commission. And go large: Invite the other side into immediate negotiations with the aim of producing a tax bill by spring

 

His final message to the GOP consists of a caution:  “an Executive order on immigration would be naked impeachment bait. Don't take it. Use the power of the purse to defund it. Pledge immediate repeal if Republicans take the White House in 2017. Denounce it as both unconstitutional and bad policy. But don't let it overwhelm and overtake the GOP agenda. That's exactly what Obama wants. It is his only way to regain the initiative.”

 

 10)   Finally, we may have lost this election so badly because there was too little attention paid to the major problem of voter suppression and vote stealing.  According to Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman on smirkingchimp.com, “since the Bush-Cheney-Rove theft of the 2000 election in Florida, the right of millions of American citizens to vote and have that vote counted has been under constant assault.”  The authors point to the GOP-led purge that has denied the vote to students, the elderly, those living in poverty and to citizens of color.  “Our voting system, to put it mildly, is bought and rigged, further feeding the deadening sense of public futility and frustration.”  One example they cite, unknown to many, is that Republican Secretaries of State in 28 states use a ‘cross-check’ method that allowed them to eliminate several million registered potential Democrat voters  “Deliberate (and often illegal) disinformation campaigns, destruction of voter registration forms, outright voter intimidation, and other suppression techniques” (such as manipulation of un-trackable electronic voting machines) are all examples of an electoral system that is rigged to favor those elected overwhelmingly on Nov. 4th, 2014.  It’s by design, not accident, that the voter turnout in America is ranked 120th in the world!  In this election, barely 1/3rd of those eligible actually voted. 

So: where do we go from here?  First, we have to set out some goals and strategies for the longer term, because we Democrats have dug a hole so deep that it may take a generation to dig out, and that means having some long-range plans.  More next time…

FOUR Horsemen of the Political Apocalypse: Gridlock, Nullification, Veto & Impeachment

Last week we spoke about election consequences. Just so we don't misunderstand each other:  the posting presented last week concentrated on what the Radical Republicans have in store for us; their plans and intentions for legislation and change. It was not intended to cover the political question of what will happen if there is a Republican-dominated House and Senate and a Democrat as President. This week's post is related to that political question.

The answer is easy: GRIDLOCK! Our constitution is set up to provide checks and balances, and sometimes those c's & b's can be used politically to either score political points, or to block the intentions of one of the parties in the equation. It is highly likely that the Republicans will produce a flurry of legislation that is intentionally an affront to the Democratic Party and particularly to the President. After all, it has been the intention of the GOP from the beginning of Barack Obama's presidency to tarnish his character, his qualifications, his background, his racial origins and his many actions as the Executive and Commander-in-chief. Their motive in this case of particular legislation will be to force the President to use his veto power to block the destructive and deleterious legislation that will come forth. And, in my opinion, the President will not hesitate to do so. Hopefully, the Democrats who remain in the Senate will be able to save him from having to use his veto too often. That is, the Senate minority always has the ability to force a cloture vote on a filibuster requiring 60 votes. That tactic has been used by the Republicans all through Obama's two-term presidency. There is no reason why the Democrats, if they are in the minority after Tuesday, should hesitate to use the same tactic against the legislative initiatives certain to come from the Republican majority.

Thus, gridlock is available in terms of two very strong procedures: the constitutionally guaranteed check on the Legislature in the form of the Executive veto, and the constitutionally-sanctioned procedural rule of cloture (rules of both Houses are at least allowed and somewhat protected as to their viability by the Constitution) that requires a 3/5's vote of the Senate to close a filibuster (meaning, in essence, that it takes 60 votes to pass the legislation being filibustered).

It is conceivable, therefore, that all legislation will be stymied in the next two years - an outlook that is disquieting if not alarming because it threatens the functionality of our legislative and executive branches of the federal government. However, the Radical Republicans will rejoice in this prospect, because it will enable them to further advance their notion that the federal government is in need of diminution, and that States should be given more and more responsibility for governing and for initiating change. But please remember that "change" for Republicans is regressive not progressive. That is, they will expect the states (at least those controlled by their Party) to initiate changes that return us to a time when government was also fairly ineffectual. They will want the states to continue to:

-- restrict voting
-- restrict health care and bring to bear all the privatization possible of that system
-- promote Business and demote Labor
-- de-regulate in every area that restricts capitalism
-- encourage more privatization of governing functions to the private sector; including education
-- reduce taxes wherever possible on the already wealthy, i.e. corporations and small businesses
-- give banks and other financial institutions every break possible
-- promote business by waiving state and local taxes on them for a number of years and giving them other financial breaks to coddle them into establishing their enterprises in those states
-- become the proving grounds for Republican ideology: make contraception and abortion illegal; promote the Christian religion in public life and in schools; continue to make it difficult for women to pursue careers outside the home; build prisons, nursing homes, mental hospitals, orphanages to promote business under the guise of "taking care" of the less fortunate (in other words use re-institutionalization as a means toward capitalistic profiteering, as all of these institutions can easily be contracted out for operation by for-profit businesses right along with the boon to the construction business). 

Let's not forget the other social upheavals that Republican ideology will bring to states: pollution so bad you can taste it; unmitigated climate change so prevalent you can't escape it; law enforcement so militarized you can't stand it; public education so denuded and tainted you can't use it; taxes so high you can't afford it; class warfare and wage inequality so prevalent you can't live with it; racial segregation and separation so stringent you won't believe it; the right to privacy denuded so thoroughly that you must wall yourself off from much of the outside world.

 And, that doesn't even begin to portray the many invisible ploys that the rich and their "bought" representatives in the state legislatures and judicial systems will bring to bear: no more gay marriage or rights as "couples;" more blacks and Hispanics incarcerated for long terms and never free from their felonies even when they have served their time; more juveniles tried as adults and incarcerated for longer terms in adult prisons; restrictions on internet use and availability with the best services reserved to those who can afford them; the growth of private militias, some of which will be contracted to provide "law enforcement;" the lack of anywhere to turn when local, county or state government overrides or denies your civil rights because federal government laws, along with consumer protections, will have been nullified.

We can't possibly cover all that is waiting to happen if Republican Radicals seize control. But we can say that their Right-wing philosophy dictates their responses and their actions. That is why the Republican incumbents and challengers in upstate New York districts must all be rejected in Tuesday's Election. They demonstrate by their records - not by campaign rhetoric - that they are captives of the Radical Right and have already managed to vote with them numerous times. The consequences of electing Richard Hanna, Tom Reed, John Katco, Chris Gibson and Elise Stefanik will be exactly as I have described. Those candidates are committed to the very concepts and actions that have already been laid out above.

No wonder, then, that President Obama will have no other choice than to use his veto pen as often as he can. There will be times when some "bought" Democrats will defect to Republican thinking (gun control, immigration, and fossil fuel business promotion are a few examples), and there may then be an override of a veto, either in negotiations or by a 2/3s vote in each House of Congress. However, the evolving of state power and takeover may not always require national legislation, but may start with state legislation that could be protected by conservative justices in state courts, and the final arbiter, the Supreme Court.

That brings up another major consequence of the split in party control between the Legislative and Executive branches: Supreme Court nominations. If the President gets a chance to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in his final two years in office, whoever he nominates will run into a Senate that will most likely vote along party lines. If the Radical Republicans control the Senate, there will be no liberal nominees approved for the Supreme Court. President Obama will be forced to find a moderate judge or nominee who can win support across party lines. I dare say I cannot see that happening; I simply cannot envision a Republican Senate approving anyone nominated by President Obama. That would leave us with what might be called the ultimate gridlock: a Supreme Court reduced in size to 8 Justices with 4-4 votes on many cases, meaning they would remain undecided.

Let us bring up one more major consequence of a possible decision by the electorate to split the parties in power into a Republican Congress and Democrat Executive: impeachment of the President. The House under Republicans can come up with all the charges it has previously leveled and more. They can easily use their majority to resolve to impeach the President on those charges. The trial portion then goes to the Senate, where the conservative Chief Justice of the United States presides. Even if the Republicans hold the slim majority of 51-49, and if all Republican Senators join in an affirmative vote to even a few of the charges, the vote will be insufficient to force the President from office, because a two-thirds favorable vote of those present is required for actual conviction by the Senate. Knowing this is the case, I still would not put it past the House Republicans to at least have it on the record that Articles of Impeachment were presented and that a Resolution that impeachment was warranted was brought and passed by the House, even though it would most likely fail to be upheld in the Senate. This is what happened to President Bill Clinton, and in spite of not being upheld in the Senate, it is on the record that President Clinton was impeached (read as "indicted") by the House. Here's a summary presented by a writer for AboutNews.com:

"No American President has ever been forced from office due to impeachment.
In fact, only four times in our history, has Congress held serious discussions of impeachment:

Andrew Johnson was actually impeached when Congress became unhappy with the way he was dealing with some post-Civil War matters, but Johnson was acquitted in the Senate by one vote and remained in office.

Congress introduced a resolution to impeach John Tyler over state's rights issues, but the resolution failed.
Congress was debating his impeachment over the Watergate break-in when President Richard Nixon resigned.
William J. Clinton was impeached by the House on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in relationship to his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was eventually acquitted by the Senate.
The Impeachment Process In the House of Representatives The House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment. If they do...
The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a Resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.
Based on their inquiry, the Judiciary Committee will send another Resolution to the full House stating that impeachment is warranted, or that impeachment is not called for.
The Full House (probably operating under special floor rules set by the House Rules Committee) will debate and vote on each Article of Impeachment.
Should any one of the Articles of Impeachment be approved by a simple majority vote, the President will be "impeached." However, being impeached is sort of like being indicted for a crime. There still has to be a trial, which is where the US Senate comes in." (explained above)
It is, once again, in the hands of the Electorate as to whether these dire consequences shall become a reality. If the electorate decides to put Republicans in charge in both Houses of the Congress, we can expect more than simple dysfunction or disarray. We can expect a battle between White House and the Congress, with the Supreme Court lurking in the background. Unfortunately, the consequences of this election will spread far and wide, and will not affect only those who voted for this outcome. We shall all bear the brunt of an uninformed electorate making uninformed decisions based on ideology rather than critical examination. (Didn't I say somewhere that we desperately need political science and civic education in our schools?) This off-year, critical watershed election is almost upon us. Not only must YOU vote; it is incumbent on each of us to get others of like mind to cast a ballot for progressive reform thinkers, and not for radically conservative and regressive ideologues who intend to turn our government upside down.