NYT - Comment on Brooks' Opinion piece. "Donald Trump's Magical Fantasy World"

Brooks concludes his essay with "The more time we spend on the Trumpian soap opera, the less likely we are to know where we are or what we should do." It seems Brooks has identified the power of Trump.

When egg beaters are swirling and the eggs are churning, the only thing that seems stable are the beaters themselves. There are so many overwhelming and contradictory facts on every subject, from which foods to eat to who has the right to marry to which style sink to install in the new bathroom to which politician is trustworthy, that every aspect of life is a decision. "Give me a simple answer," says anyone just trying to get on with his life. Add to the cascade of facts an entire new world of false stories, and the average guy says, "I can't figure it out. You're my leader. I believe in you. You tell me what to do."

Run for Office 4

Less than three months after launching what was absolutely guaranteed to be a spectacular political career, I was smacked upside the head by Goliath and sent back into the lowly ranks of ‘citizen’. The final score in my race for the U.S. House was humiliatingly lopsided: 53,745 votes for Representative Schrader and 8,161 for me.

In order to preserve my dignity, I spun the stats. My total expenditures - registration, cards, meals and gasoline – came to less than $200, or 2.5 cents per vote. The incumbent’s expenditures during this period included $2500 for the Voter’s Pamphlet, $2810 for printing and postage, $19,658 for consulting, $2877 for wages, $1674 for lodging, $1580 for catering, $5300 for taxes, plus dozens of incidentals. His expenditures specific to the Primary probably exceeded $40,000. That’s 74 cents per vote!

Still, all said and done, I lost. But so what? Nine of the ten candidates in the Oregon’s Primary for Republican Governor also lost. Losing is part of the game. There are always other races, other ways to win. We losers pick ourselves up and move on.

But what if there weren’t other ways to win? What if the winners rigged the system so that we always lost?

For many people, that’s how America works.

Examples:

1.         A bright kid learns in Business School how to export jobs. He and the corporation that hires him make immense profits sending jobs to low-wage nations. None of the profits go to the laid-off workers or their towns.

2.         Kids in disadvantaged neighborhoods train hard at basketball, but only a few have the chops to make pro. They get not only the glory but also the money. Lots of money. Shouldn’t some of it go back to other hard-training kids, their schools and their neighborhoods?

3.         A schoolboy wants to succeed, to be somebody, to win - just once. He tries, but he’s academically and athletically average. Artistic talent and social charm? Mediocre. He’s just a run-of-the-mill kid in high school. Except, in America, if you are not a winner, then you are a loser. And in America, he can do something about that. He can buy a gun. Bang, bang. "I win. You lose."

The American I-win-you-lose culture starts at the top. 1% owns 40% of America’s wealth, and that 1% tells Congressional Republicans to protect their fortunes forever with massive tax break. Republicans then go a step further and order Congress to cut food and health benefits for the bottom 20%, presumably so the poor will be too hungry and sick to vote for change.

The culture of win/lose goes all the way down to the Second Amendment devotees who scream, “I’m right; you’re wrong,” and brandish their AR-15s like the top 1% brandish money. “We want our guns, and to hell with anybody else.”

An I-win-you-lose Administration runs an I-win-you-lose economic system. Citizens are held hostage by an I-win-you-lose Congress and an I-win-you-lose gun lobby. Can a ‘loser’ citizen make any difference?

I tried. I ran for the U.S House to protest Schrader’s support for lax gun laws. 15% of voters seemed to agree with me. But had Schrader even noticed? Did my campaign have any effect? Or am I still insignificant, a mere citizen?

The day after the election, as the numbers settled, but before I could call him, Schrader called me. Yes, a one-percenter called his defeated opponent. Maybe there was change afoot. Maybe I’d won after all.

My Decision to Run

My decision to run for Kurt Schrader’s U.S. House seat was a spontaneous burst of outrage, and yet not totally illogical. In December, he signed HR-38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act which would force Oregon to recognize the concealed carry standards of every other state, even those with the weakest standards - even those that require no permit at all. Then in February, Nikolas Cruz killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. I’d had enough. Guns and gun control needed to be on the ballot. Schrader, with a 73% approval rating from the NRA, was out of step with the majority of his constituents. I signed up with the Secretary of State to challenge this Democratic turncoat.

As I looked more closely at my opponent, I discovered a smart, competent, dedicated, scandal-free man who loves Oregon and works across the aisle for healthy, national solutions. He’s what I think everyone would want in a Congressman. A member of Problem Solvers (a caucus in the House which a Member can join if he brings someone from the opposite party with him), he was able to unite enough members of Congress around a bill to designate forest fires as federal disasters, thus saving the limited funds of the Forest Service. This was a big win for western states.

Dear Willamette Women Democrats

When I was born, the population of Earth was 2 billion people. Now, seventy-four years later, it exceeds 7 billion. Humans have multiplied and increased just as our genes and culture told us to. We occupy every piece of habitable land. Our products, wastes, chemical compounds and medicines have found their way into the deepest crevices, down to the bottom of the sea and up through the atmosphere to outer space. The Earth is ours. It is one domain, one territory. We rule.

But now that we've filled the Earth, where do we put the energy and innovation that went into expansion? Sure, a very small number of us might be able to leave Earth to colonize distant planets. But we're talking dozens, maybe a few hundred. The vast majority of us are permanent residents of a planet in environmental decline. Every time the space cadets launch another rocket in search of a potential home, the air, water, soil and atmosphere that our kids rely on take another hit. Expansion must no longer be the guiding principle of our society if we are to survive in peace. We need to learn to live with what we have.

A major obstacle is that our economy is dependent on expansion - constructing new homes, paving meadows, producing cars, harvesting more fish, designing weapons, enlarging the military, etc. These activities create the jobs, for sure, but mostly those jobs are for men. What would men do if, by some miracle, we were able to stop those activities? What would men, whose livelihoods depend on perpetual growth, do with their time? Even though it is obvious that an economy based on 'growth' is unsustainable, we have not yet come up with an alternative.

That's where women come in.

We live on a filled the Earth. For the first time in our long history, we have reached the physical limits. We are all in this together. We have a choice as to the kind of future we want.

If we continue to support the male-dominated model, then the alpha males will continue to fight for dominance and territory. We will be like rats in a pen, or like gangs in a ghetto. The leaders will secure for themselves and their families a monopoly on the resources, and the rest of us will be forever scrambling for scraps. Already we see this as the dominant males hoard wealth, give themselves massive tax cuts, and propose cutting food subsidies to the poor.

There is an alternative. A filled-up Earth could become a global village. Women have always set the tone of the village. They could set the tone globally. They could demand that the economy be oriented to life, that is, to women, children and Nature. If during the last 2,000 years we had spent as much money on education, healthcare, child care, environmental protection and community as we've spent on weapons, armies and wars, we would not need weapons, armies and war. We really could be a global village.

Statesman Journal Article

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/politics/opponents-line-up-to-face-kurt-schraders-reelection-bid/283-547287508

LO Review - Front Page

"Peter versus Goliath"

https://portlandtribune.com/lor/48-news/394348-286857-peter-versus-goliath

Oregonian Article

Kurt Schrader is the kind of Congressman most people want. Smart, competent, accomplished and scandal-free, he’s forever working across-the-aisle for Oregon. A member of Problem Solvers, a politically balanced caucus in the House, Schrader and his colleagues added to the spending bill a reclassification of forest fires as federal disasters, thus saving the limited funds of the Forest Service. A big win for all western states.

In December, though, his need to please both sides took a sickening turn when he bowed to his rural constituents by signing HR-38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. If passed by the Senate, this law would force Oregon to recognize the concealed carry standards of every other state, even those with the weakest standards - even those that require no permit at all. Most of his constituents cringed, knowing that more men carrying more guns in more places was not a solution! I decided to challenge his seat.

I studied his record. Basically, he is a bureaucrat who navigates the complex legislative process looking for short-term fixes. Like the Democratic Party itself, he is reactive. He has no vision for our future. Thus, his only options are to resist Republicans’ demands, or to half-heartedly cooperate with them. In either case, the legislation worsens inequality.

By contrast, the Republicans have a vision. Reagan proclaimed, in 1984, that America would be a ‘Shining City on a Hill’. The path forward was through massive tax cuts for corporations and the rich. Wealth would trickle down. The rising tide of prosperity would lift all boats.

34 years later, the vision of a “Shining City” has come true . . . but only for the rich. The living standards and incomes of the bottom 90% have remained flat. The traditional protector of the 90% – the government - has been so weakened by tax cuts that it is nearly powerless to prevent the richest from financially exploiting the masses and decimating the environment.

What both Parties fail to acknowledge is the new reality, which is, humans have filled the globe. There are no new lands to explore, and no enemies to defeat. We are one people on one planet. Which means, the male-dominated hierarchies that had been essential for expansion and conquest become superfluous. Greedy, desperate execs turn their obsessive drive to conquer against the public and Nature. The alpha males carve out ever larger territories for themselves, and Republicans protect them with massive tax cuts.

If we are to thrive far into the future, Democrats must make it clear that humans are also genetically wired for cooperative social structures. Those who sense this can’t articulate it, but they speak with their bodies. The people rise. Minorities rally behind banners like “Black Lives Matter.” Youth declare “Enough” and march for their lives. Women, who make up more than half the population, and who comprise more than half the graduates from law schools and medical schools, join arms one to another and say,” Time’s Up. Hierarchical dominance on a filled-up planet destroys society and decimates Nature. Women have always ruled the village. We’ll bring about a sustainable society. It’s our time.” 

LO Review