G. Thomas Eisele: Judge, Mentor, Friend

Last month, an Arkansas federal judge died at 94, saddening many in and outside that state.  He had an enormous impact on our native state and on two of us personally. We’d be remiss if we didn’t pay tribute to his remarkable life.  

Garnett Thomas Eisele served as a judge in the Eastern District of Arkansas from 1970 until his 2011 retirement.  Before taking the bench, as an old-time moderate Republican, he played a major role in Winthrop Rockefeller’s gubernatorial campaigns and served as his legal advisor at $1 a year.  Richard Nixon appointed him to the bench and he swore off politics, believing judicial office required the reality and appearance of fairness.

Tributes have poured in since his death, noting his penchant for unpopular decisions in criminal, environmental, and civil rights cases.  For the two of us who knew him, his judicial record tells only part of the story.  He seemed larger than life because of his intellect, kindness, civility, and dedication to helping people realize their potential.

Henry Writes:

My mother believed everyone encounters people who enrich lives if we open ourselves to those chance meetings.  Judge Eisele confirmed her belief.  Just out of college and working for Governor Rockefeller, I met Tom Eisele.  Although incredibly busy as the Governor’s lawyer, he took the time to talk with, advise, and encourage this young college graduate.  When it came time to move on to my career, he encouraged me to attend law school.  He thought, for some reason, I’d do well in the law.

By the time I graduated from law school he’d become a federal judge. He hired me as a law clerk. The newspaper headline read:

“Negro Named as US Law Clerk.” My hiring made him the first federal judge in Arkansas to employ an African American clerk.  He let me know that though he recognized the significance of the hire, he chose me because of my record, writing ability, and the potential he saw in me to help him do the people's business.

Working with him gave me a daily opportunity to watch and engage his unparalleled attention to detail, his total belief in fairness and justice, and his complete conviction that the cases we handled belonged not to us but the litigants whose lives depended on the energy and intellectual honesty we brought to each case.
Though I’d committed to a two year clerkship with him, I got a chance to clerk for an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals judge.  He said I couldn’t pass up such an opportunity.  He believed it significant that I’d become the first African American to clerk for a judge on that court, but he thought it just as important that the experience itself would serve me well for the rest of my career.  He believed I could make a difference. 

G. Thomas Eisele (credit: Arkansas Online)

Later, I was appointed Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Arkansas. I’m sure when the district judges chose from the lawyers presented them by a recommending committee, his strong, respected voice and his belief in me made a difference.  I became the first African American Magistrate Judge in a southern state.  I found challenge and reward in my 31 and a half years on that court, serving alongside Judge Eisele.  My mentor and wise advisor became my colleague and invaluable friend.  I treasure that friendship and the memory of our conversations.  Nothing I write could demonstrate his impact on my life.

He opened his courtroom, his mind, and his heart to all people.  I miss him.

Rob writes:
I knew Judge Eisele less well than Henry, but my experiences with him produced enormous respect and admiration.   When I lived in Little Rock in the 1970s, I often ran along Rebsamen Park Road, a straight, flat stretch that parallels the Arkansas River.  Occasionally, I’d find myself catching up to a shirtless man who never stopped smiling and who always had time to talk until I pushed ahead.  That man was Judge Eisele. 

Oh, I knew who he was.  Most of the regular runners along “the river,” as we called it, knew “the Judge,” who parked his old Mercedes on the eastern end of the route, ran west for about three miles, and returned.  I wasn’t a lawyer then, but he knew me from television.  As we plodded along, we talked sports or how I was doing with life.  Despite his position, he wasn’t dour, standoffish, or self-important.  He talked to me like a human being.

Years later, after I’d become a lawyer,  on a visit to Arkansas, I mentioned to Henry that I’d worked on a case, just decided by the Texas Supreme Court, on admissibility of scientific evidence.  He said Judge Eisele had a pending case involving that issue and he might want to know what I’d learned.  The Judge invited me to his office and we spent almost an hour talking about the ins and outs of that complex topic.  When I returned to Houston, as he’d asked, I sent his law clerks the briefs in my case.   I was astounded that he cared what I thought.

Finally, when we started this project, I needed background on Henry’s life before we met.  Henry said Judge Eisele heavily influenced his decision to attend law school.  He urged me to call him about it.  I dialed the number Henry gave me, expecting I’d have to fight my way through a palace guard of gatekeepers.  Judge Eisele answered the phone himself.  We talked for an hour, just two people discussing a mutual friend.  The world needs more people who approach life like he did.                                          

An American Political Agenda for 2018 and 2020: Six Suggestions for the Upcoming Election Cycles: Part 5

We’ve suggested four areas on which 2018 and 2020 candidates should focus for bringing America back from its current morass (Read Part 4 here).  We’ve written about restoring the dignity of the Presidency, promoting racial reconciliation, addressing income inequality, and formulating an intelligent foreign policy rooted in our values and the shared interests of the United States and its allies.

Now, we turn to the domestic agenda candidates for Congress and the White House should press if they want to improve the lives Americans lead.  We could propose an endless list of policies and programs, but we’ll limit the discussion to six areas the next few Congresses and the next President have to get right to make America truly great.

Public Education   
The three of us grew up and into the middle class through public education.  A strong America depends on a strong public education system.  Private schools, which not everyone can afford, have their place in American education, but a vibrant economy and a society in which people believe they can improve their lives depends on continuing investment in and a commitment to public education.  For America to remain a world leader the nation must produce a broadly educated citizenry. Public education remains the most proven vehicle for achieving that.  

Infrastructure   
Democrats and Republicans sort of agree on this.  At least both seem to understand the need for rebuilding crumbling roads and bridges and investing in navigation projects, airports, and other transportation facilities.  The disagreement lies in paying for it.  Candidate Trump claimed he would propose an infrastructure package.  His administration floated, but hasn’t pushed in Congress, a tax credit scheme that would mostly benefit Trump’s rich friends.  A meaningful infrastructure program requires putting significant federal dollars into the kinds of projects America once specialized in building.  Trump and Republicans often claim business tax cuts will pay for themselves by spurring economic growth. Historically, tax cut have not had that result.  They just increase the deficit.  Prior experience suggests Infrastructure spending, however, will pay for itself in jobs, lower public and private maintenance costs, and improvements in everyday life.  It’s time to quit talking about this and do something about it.

Affordable Housing   
Recent books like Richard Rothstein’s The Color of Law have emphasized the connection between housing policy and the country’s seemingly intractable economic and racial problems.  It seems important now to develop policies and programs that insure Americans of all races and ethnicities access to quality, affordable public and private housing.  This area of federal policy has stagnated in recent years under Democratic and Republican presidents.  The next group of people in charge, in Congress and in the White House, must renew the conversation about what programs and policies will give more Americans access to affordable housing while stimulating the construction industry.  The next Housing Secretary should understand and appreciate the nation’s history of socioeconomic and racial discrimination in housing and how local, state, and federal government policy, with the help of the building trades, contributed to the problem. Perhaps the next President can involve people like Professor Rothstein in selecting a HUD Secretary.

Immigration Reform   
Perhaps nothing causes as much emotional upset among Americans today as immigration policy. The issue brings to the surface the culture war over who determines domestic policy, illustrating the difference in a world in which people of color have a say in such decisions and the way the world once worked.  This issue divides the country in to red and blue.  Red America, generally, wants to punish undocumented immigrants and favors drastic measures, like a wall, to keep out immigrants from certain countries. Blue America, generally, wants a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants here and opposes draconian border security measures.  The challenge lies in finding a sensible middle ground between those poles.  We favor a more welcoming policy toward immigrants.  Any comprehensive immigration reform proposal must provide a path to citizenship and border security that controls the flow of illegal immigrants.

Energy and Emissions Policy   
They go hand-in-hand.  We need more, not less, public investment in solar, wind, and other forms of clean, renewable energy.  These industries will produce more good jobs than we can save in the coal fields.  The global movement toward such energy sources won’t stop because of the Trump administration’s obsession with coal.  The clean energy train is pulling out of the station and the United States needs to get on board.     

Tax Policy   
The “tax reform” proposals now being rushed through Congress by Republicans come nowhere near the kind of tax policy we need to move our economy forward, give relief to those who really need it, and insure everyone pays his or her fair share. The “loopholes” being closed – deductions for state and local taxes, reduced ability to deduct interest on student loans, etc. – hurt middle class people, not the wealthy.  Meantime, too many ways still exist for corporations and wealthy individuals to hide taxable income offshore and in other ways that keep the tax system unfair.  The next Congress and the next President need to correct that situation.  Involving scholars and observers like former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and journalists Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum in the process wouldn’t hurt either.   

We could talk about lots of other things.  But, we think we’ve offered a good starting point.  

What do you think?                              

An American Political Agenda for 2018 and 2020: Six Suggestions for the Upcoming Election Cycles: Part 4

In putting forth an agenda for the 2018 and 2020 elections (read Part 3 here), we’ve focused on domestic matters – restoring the dignity of the Presidency, ending Trump’s harsh, divisive race and ethnicity baiting, and addressing income inequality.  We’ll get back to domestic concerns but, for now, we turn to foreign policy, Trump’s failing that potentially poses the gravest danger.  His shortcomings in this arena could get the country into a war. 

Pointing out Trump’s foreign policy flaws isn’t difficult.  His Secretary of State did, after all, reportedly call him a “moron.”  Trump has estranged the United States from many of its European and Asian allies with bellicose rhetoric, threats to withdraw American support from those allies, and general uncertainty about our intentions on long settled questions.  Many countries now doubt they can count on American military and economic assistance.  Trump has sent mixed signals about his support for U.S. treaty commitments and whether he adheres to basic premises undergirding American policy since World War II.  Most of all, Trump’s flirtation with Vladimir Putin’s Russia gives European countries heartburn and needlessly raises international tensions.  That flirtation encourages these nations to doubt where we stand in the battle of ideas between authoritarian Russia and Western democratic ideals.  We hope any candidate seeking office in 2018 or 2020 will advance a foreign policy agenda that includes three basic policy imperatives and commits to addressing foreign affairs in a language recognizing the complexity of the enterprise and that eschews simplistic nationalism.  We didn’t even mention North Korea.   

Allied Commitments   
No doubt should ever exist about the American commitment to NATO, our other treaty obligations, and bilateral mutual defense pacts we have with various nations.  If the country wants to debate continuing those agreements as matters of policy or economic imperative, fine.  That’s why we have a Congress.  But as long as those obligations remain in place, the American President must support them.  Throwing out threats to eliminate or reduce U.S. support for this or that country or this or that treaty serves no one except our enemies.  Already, nations like Japan and South Korea have started thinking they should acquire nuclear weapons because they doubt the United States will protect them.  Those agreements helped stem nuclear proliferation.  Backing off from them makes such proliferation more likely and further destabilizes an already dangerous world.

Restore the State Department   
In the post war era, American foreign policy has depended on a strong military consisting of conventional and nuclear arsenals and an expertise-based diplomatic corps.  Our State Department has served the nation well, staffed as it has been by distinguished secretaries (from General George C. Marshall, through Henry Kissinger and James Baker, to Hillary Clinton and John Kerry) and their deputies, as well as career foreign policy professionals who understand the cultural, political, and economic terrain of the countries to which they’re assigned.  Trump and his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, are in the process of tearing that down.  They’ve left countless political positions unfilled and demoralized many career people, some of whom have left.

Revitalizing American foreign policy requires restoring the State Department.  First, the White House must rebuild trust with career foreign service professionals and candidates should make an explicit promise to do so as part of a foreign policy reset.  Second, we urge anyone running for President to pledge to scour the think tanks, international law firms, universities, and the journalistic community to fill the political slots with smart, thoughtful, competent deputy secretaries and under secretaries who can resume the American diplomatic role in the world.  This may seem like “inside baseball” no one except political junkies cares about, but the Trump-Tillerson strip down of the State Department has done America serious harm by robbing the nation of an experienced, expert diplomatic corps that can talk to the rest of the world in its cultural, political, and economic languages.  The voters need to know the next President will tackle this problem. 

Repair our Relationship with Mexico   
Mexico is our third largest trading partner, behind only China and Canada.  It accounts for about 16% of our exports and over 13% of our imports.  With his ridiculous proposal to build a border wall – and suggest Mexico pay for it – Trump alienated the Mexican government and damaged the U.S. relationship with the Mexican people.  The next President and the next Congress need a different approach to Mexico.  Despite the immigration issue that so agitates Trump’s base, Mexico stands as a critical trading partner we should cultivate and with which we should maintain a respectful relationship based on mutual and shared interests, not hostility stemming from biases and ethnic distrust.

We could talk about a lot more – a saner approach to North Korea, assigning someone to work on mid-east peace with more foreign policy gravitas than the President’s 36-year old son-in-law, climate change as part of the foreign policy-national security matrix – the list extends on and on.  We’ve focused on things that go to the root causes of our foreign policy challenges – language, relationships, alliances, and governmental infrastructure.  Solve some of these problems and many of the others will take care of themselves.  Isn’t that the task we really face?               

An American Political Agenda for 2018 and 2020: Six Suggestions for the Upcoming Election Cycles: Part 3

In the first two parts of our series of six suggestions for a political message for the coming election cycles—restoring the dignity of the Presidency compromised by Trump’s bad behavior and healing the racial and cultural fractures Trump created or exacerbated.  Our third suggestion – addressing income inequality and economic dislocation caused by globalization, inequitable tax policy, and other factors – requires more detailed policy exploration and development than we could ever do in a thousand words (the usual length of our posts).  But we can lay out a skeleton, to which we and others can attach meat in the coming months.

First, we must explode a myth. Trump’s campaign didn’t address income inequality. His government, staffed as it is by millionaires from business, hasn’t attacked the structurally created problem of the top one per cent of income earners getting 40% more in one week than the bottom fifth gets in a year.  His tax plan will likely give wealthy Americans most of the breaks.  Trump made a lot of noise about bringing back manufacturing and coal mining jobs.  The media spun the fact working class people attracted to that message also suffered the effects of income inequality into a narrative that made Trump appear the income inequality candidate.  That wasn’t true in the campaign and it’s not true now.

Income inequality results from a myriad of factors, including failures of the educational system, the inability of some groups to adapt to globalization, government tax and wage policies, and what economists call “rent seeking” by individuals at the top.  Rent seeking occurs when those at the top use their wealth and influence to promote governmental policies that keep the largest share of economic assets in their hands and prevent others from getting a bigger slice, in part by keeping the overall pie smaller.  Attacking income inequality requires action on at least three broad fronts.

Education   
America needs a vibrant, effective public school system.  Trump’s Education Department promotes so-called charter schools to the detriment of public schools, a shortsighted and immoral policy.  Promoting charter schools drains student and faculty talent from public schools, leaving low-income communities most dependent on a robust public education system with fewer educational resources when they need more.  Improved economic opportunity and, therefore, less income inequality, also requires strong technical schools and community colleges that prepare people for jobs that exist now and will exist in coming years.  Finally, the federal government must address student debt for traditional college students.  Americans will still need college educations; the difference in income over time for college and non-college graduates remains undeniable.  Reasonable minds can differ about the wisdom of free college, as Bernie Sanders proposed in 2016, but we can’t differ about needing to make college affordable for low income and middle class families.   

Tax and Wage Policies   
Trump’s tax reform proposal remains murky.  The details that have emerged suggest wealthy tax payers will benefit unfairly.  Republicans spin the proposal as a cut in corporate taxes that will spur business creation and, therefore, job growth.  Early indications, however, suggest tax payers in higher brackets and business owners will get large breaks.  We don’t think that will reduce income inequality and amounts to no more than the trickledown theory discredited by our experiences in the Reagan and George W. Bush years.  A tax plan aimed at alleviating income inequality would raise taxes in upper income brackets and reduce or eliminate taxes on middle and low-income individuals.

Attacking income inequality also requires a minimum wage increase to $15 an hour in the quest for a “livable wage” that helps working people get off public assistance.  The current system subsidizes corporate interests by forcing tax payers to make up wages corporations won’t pay in the form of public assistance for which low wage earners remain eligible.

Rent-Seeking   
We’ve heard stories about how, following the 2007-08 recession, Wall Street bankers, hedge fund managers, and other corporate executives continued raking in huge bonuses, even after banks got government bailouts.  This happened for a reason. Economists call it “rent-seeking” – rigging the system for a favored few. Rent-seeking, for example, includes making large campaign contributions so lobbyists employed to influence legislators will find a receptive audience.  Why isn’t the tax system fairer?  In part because special interests have so much influence in writing tax laws.  Campaign contributions from rent seekers eager to keep tax laws in their favor grease the skids for lobbyists.  Why does the federal minimum wage remain at $7.25?  In part because rent seeking business executives successfully advance their argument that raising it will cost jobs.  Despite flimsy evidence for that proposition, legislators – especially Republicans – accept it, in part, because of campaign contributions from individuals and corporations wanting to keep their incomes and profits up.

We’ve only scratched the surface of what it will take to fix income inequality in America.  It won’t happen by promising to bring back jobs to sectors of the economy that saw their peak in the 1950s and may never reach such heights again.  Eradicating income inequality requires rolling up our sleeves and getting our hands dirty on policy questions many don’t want to face.  We have to face them.  If we don’t, those at the bottom, as in other countries, will take their complaints to the streets.  It won’t be pleasant.  We don’t really want that, do we?       

                     

An American Political Agenda for 2018 and 2020: Six Suggestions for the Upcoming Election Cycles: Part 2

We recently fleshed out our proposals for a preferred message for candidates in the 2018 and 2020 elections.  This post concerns our second suggestion – that those seeking office offer ideas and a demeanor that can begin healing the racial and cultural fractures of the Trump era.  We know many believe campaigns should focus on economic issues and we agree.  We’ll get to economics in due course, but anyone who wants to serve as President (or in Congress) must offer the nation moral leadership that can bring us together as a people.  Jesus’s reported statement to Satan comes to mind. “Man does not live by bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

Writing on a Dirty Slate   
Reciting Trump’s parade of horribles doesn’t take long.  He has picked a fight with professional football players, most of them African- American.  We believe he did so largely to provoke racial animosity toward them, and by extension African-Americans generally, by his base supporters.  He equated people protesting discrimination with white supremacists and neo-Nazis.  Trump’s attitude toward African-American protesters borders on contempt. Before a national television audience that undoubtedly included many children, he called the players “sons of bitches,” though he’d earlier excused white supremacist protesters as “fine people.”  He targeted Muslim countries with a travel ban several lower federal courts found unconstitutional.  He disrespected Gold Star Families.  The list seems endless and grows daily.

Trump’s conduct goes far beyond possible illegality and crassness.  His behavior has inflamed racial passions in the nation and the body politic.  His followers now find free reign to act immorally and irresponsibly on racial matters.  White evangelicals remain loyal to him, despite his public vulgarity and racial dog whistling, perhaps because of it.  No political restraint exists on Trump and nothing compels him to hide his racism.  Trump shows no sign of a moral compass on racial division, making him either immoral or the ultimate cynic.  Regardless, the country suffers from having a man in the White House who further divides an already fractured nation.

Doing Better   
Nothing ordains this circumstance.  American political leaders have exhibited leadership that heals racial divisions.  On the tense night of April 4, 1968, Robert Kennedy stood on a flatbed truck in the heart of the ghetto in Indianapolis and announced Martin Luther King’s murder.  In what some see as one of the great political speeches ever, Kennedy asked blacks who might seek revenge against whites for King‘s murder to remember that his brother also had been killed “by a white man.”  Kennedy ended his six minute speech by telling the crowd that what America needed at the time was “love and understanding and compassion toward one another.”  Significantly, while many cities burned that night, Indianapolis remained calm.

During the 2008 general election, a woman at a town hall meeting in Minnesota said to Republican Presidential nominee John McCain she couldn’t trust Democratic nominee Barak Obama because he was “an Arab.”  McCain took the microphone and told the woman Obama wasn’t an “Arab,” but “a decent family man, citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that’s what this campaign is all about.”  Trump didn’t take his cue from the nominee of his party.  He instead embarked on a shameful, multi-year campaign questioning Obama’s legitimacy as a native born American citizen eligible to serve as President.

As Kennedy and McCain demonstrated, American politicians do not always live in a cesspool fouled by the stench of racial and cultural bigotry and grievance.  They can rise to the occasion. Some get it right, at least some of the time.  We see this as another time for national statesmanship.

A Blueprint   Men and women seeking office in 2018, in response to the bankrupt racial and cultural politics of the Trump era, should at least pledge the following:

1.   Never equate any group or individual claiming racial supremacy with those protesting injustice and discrimination. That distinguishes America from so many other countries and truly would make America great.

2.   Recognize that peaceful protest represents the highest form of patriotism.  After all, unlike many other rights Americans exercise, the constitution specifically and unequivocally spells out that one.

3.   Express and exhibit a willingness to confront racial, ethnic, and religious differences with frank, respectful dialogue that neither patronizes people nor sugarcoats differences.

4.   Understand that civility and respect for people demonstrate strength and character, not weakness or timidity (and not what’s derisively called “political correctness”). 

5.   Study the history of racism and racial discord in America for enlightenment, recognizing that such inquiry need not breed guilt or resentment.

6.   Treat anyone who has lost a loved one, especially in service to the nation, with the utmost respect and dignity and not as a political weapon.

7.   Remember that what’s past is prologue and those who fail to learn from history’s mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

We could (and perhaps should) put other things on this list.  The comprehensiveness of the list, however, is not the point.  If the next President and other national leaders work at the items on this list, or one like it, America will become a better place and wake up from its current nightmare. 

Don’t you think so?     

           

          

        

An American Political Agenda for 2018 and 2020: Six Suggestions for the Upcoming Election Cycles: Part 1

Recently we proposed six topics we’d like to see candidates in 2018 and 2020 emphasize. We disagreed about who might sign on to our ideas, a disagreement we explored in a follow-up post.  Leaving aside who was right or wrong about that, we recognize we must complete the job.  We now begin developing the details of our agenda.  To make our platform mean more than platitudes and slogans, we have to describe it in depth.

We started with restoring Presidential dignity.  The current occupant of the White House has disgraced the Presidency in innumerable ways, large and small.  Any candidate seeking to replace him must assure the citizenry he or she will discontinue the deplorable behavior now on display at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

An Early Start With No End   
Donald Trump’s trashing of the Presidency began with his 2016 campaign.  He mocked disabled persons, claimed an Indiana-born federal judge couldn’t fairly judge his case because of the judge’s Mexican heritage, insulted a Gold Star family, and urged supporters at his rallies to commit violent acts.  A few weeks before the election came the ultimate disgrace – his statements on the Access Hollywood tape in which he promoted sexual assault on women.  This litany tops his greatest hits list, but it’s not the whole story.

Worse than what happened in the campaign, Trump’s behavior has degenerated since he took office.  He equated white supremacists with those protesting bigotry.  He regularly attacks people he doesn’t like or who don’t buy into his world view. We find fighting social media wars with television hosts, athletes, and other private citizens unbecoming the President of the United States.  His targets usually have done nothing more than express their disagreement with Trump’s conduct or his policies.  His name calling ill serves the nation and promotes disrespect for the office he holds. The idea an American parent might need to restrict their child’s access to Presidential communication should dismay us all.  It also should say to anyone seeking the Presidency that, if elected, restoring the decorum of the office represents a high, pressing priority.

Why He Does It   
Trump’s behavior likely springs from his own apparent crassness and from political motives.  No one can do anything about the personal crassness; the fact he carried his uncivil behavior from the campaign into office should make that clear.  Not one piece of evidence exists that the man can change.  The idea taking office would mitigate his behavior was wishful thinking, fantasy, or both.

The political calculation, however, requires more nuanced consideration.  Trump also does what he does because he knows people in his base like it.  Support for this proposition rests in the consistent favorable approval rating he gets from about 35% of the electorate.  These voters see the same conduct we see, but it does not dissuade them from his side.

To the extent Trump’s fellow Republicans encourage his behavior by tolerating it, they bear responsibility for the damage he’s doing to the office.  The time has come for Republican office holders and the Republican rank and file to renounce his bad behavior because it disserves the country and their party.  One day a Republican unlike Trump will seek and win the office.  If current-day Republicans want that President to enjoy the respect the office should command, they need to stand up now and denounce Trump’s uncivil conduct, regardless of political consequences.  In other words, Republicans should understand that having the office won’t mean much if they don’t protect it now. Woodson’s admonition that Republicans should run on this principle rings true.  The President they save may be their own. 

A Pledge   
We think 2020 candidates for President (and Congressional candidates in 2018) should pledge to adhere to a code of conduct if elected.  This code would include:

·      A commitment against launching personal attacks on non-politician public figures and private citizens, including from social media platforms. 

·      Agreement not to insult people based on race, ethnicity, sex, religion, national origin, disability, or other characteristics unrelated to political and policy differences.

·      A commitment to call out bigotry, race-baiting, and religious intolerance without attempting to equate such behavior with anything or anybody. 

·      An absolute prohibition on inciting violence.

Some may regard our code as “political correctness” run amok.  We see this straw man argument as mainly an excuse for uncivilized, uncouth excess.  Treating citizens with dignity and respect does not deserve such derision.  In fact, none of these ideas strike us as particularly provocative.  It seems self-evident a President would, without hesitation, adhere to such norms.  But, right now, the President regularly violates each one and appears to relish doing so.  Since the current President won’t behave, before giving someone else the job, we need a pledge from candidates that he or she will.

Other ideas?             

      

 

     

                 

       

An American Political Agenda for 2018 and 2020: Six Suggestions for the Upcoming Election Cycles

Recently we revealed a fissure between us we promised we’d explore further.  We offered six ideas we’d hope congressional and presidential candidates emphasize during the 2018 and 2020 election cycles, what we called an “American Message of Democracy.”  Rob and Henry contend our ideas should form the core of the Democratic Party’s campaign to regain control of Congress and take back the White House.  Woodson argued for challenging Republicans to carry the same message. Today, we make good on our pledge to examine this disagreement in more depth.

Rob believes zero chance exists today’s Republican Party will adopt our ideas.  He thinks cultivating Republicans amounts to a pipe dream, with the time better spent on framing and refining the Democratic message.  Henry essentially sides with Rob but sees merit in Woodson’s aspirations.  He willingly leaves Woodson’s hope lingering as an appeal to the better nature of men and women in the major political parties

The Six 
We offered six suggestions we hope candidates will emphasize in the upcoming election cycles:  (1) restoring Presidential dignity, (2) healing the racial and cultural fractures of the Trump era, (3) addressing income inequality, (4) promoting a common sense foreign policy, (5) pushing a vibrant domestic agenda, and (6) advocating social justice.  When Rob and Henry look at The Six, they see little chance the current-day Republican Party will sign on. Woodson acknowledges Republican hostility, but points to individual Republicans who might change the party’s direction. He cites the three GOP Senators - John McCain of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska - who voted with Democrats to prevent repeal of the Affordable Care Act as examples of  Republican willingness to put national well-being above party doctrine.  Arizona Senator Jeff Flake, in his book Conscience of a Conservative, spoke out against the Trump administration’s erratic behavior.  Ohio Governor John Kasich’s work with Colorado’s Democratic Governor, John Hickenlooper, merits high praise.  These signs, Woodson argues, offer hope Republicans aren’t hopeless.

Presidential Dignity 
At first blush this seems easy. Of course Republicans want a President committed to dignity and civility.  But, Trump’s first eight months in office demonstrate they do not want it enough to risk giving up power.  Instead of calling out his bad behavior, some of it likely illegal, most Republicans have enabled Trump by offering excuses or remaining silent. Woodson argues that Lindsey Graham, McCain, and Flake have spoken out forcefully against some of Trump’s excesses.  He also reminds us that Democrats excused Bill Clinton’s bad acts in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Healing Fractures/Fighting for Social Justice 
These go together because they involve similar concerns. Republicans have stood by, sometimes silently, sometimes in only tepid opposition, while Trump attacked racial and ethnic groups and equated those protesting racial injustice with neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Republicans are not leading the charge for reforming the criminal justice system.  Meanwhile Trump’s Attorney General re-militarizes police forces and reduces civil rights enforcement.  If Republicans wanted a social justice agenda, wouldn’t their state and congressional leaders offer and fight for legislation that would reduce mass incarceration and lead the court battle against Trump’s Muslim ban?  Woodson also calls out Trump’s Attorney General, but reminds that Democrats went along with the Clinton-era “get tough on crime” legislation that first produced mass incarceration of African American men and corresponding damage to the black family.

Income Inequality 
America’s income inequality problem stems from globalization, loss of manufacturing jobs, the tax code, and other things.  Rob and Henry argue Republican policies exaggerate the problem, not solve it. Republicans oppose many training programs that would help workers better cope with globalization.  They fight increasing the federal minimum wage and enact state laws against minimum wage increases mandated by municipalities. They back corporate tax policies that encourage U.S. companies to outsource jobs overseas.  Republican support for tax cuts for the rich has been virtually unanimous.  Woodson, however, notes that income inequality worsened during Obama years, so Democrats must also bear some of the blame for the rigged economy.

Consistent, Common Sense Foreign Policy   
As with Presidential dignity this seems a no-brainer. Of course, Republicans want a consistent, common sense foreign policy. The Republican foreign policy establishment certainly does.  The GOP has, however, allowed the nut faction to take over the party and done precious little to take it back.  Rob and Henry will believe Republicans want such a foreign policy when they ditch the people now in Trump’s ear telling him to reduce the America’s commitment to NATO, saber rattling represents the most effective way of dealing with North Korea, and Russia is our new best buddy. Woodson offers no quarrel with Rob and Henry on this point.

Vibrant Domestic Agenda  
Other than the three GOP senators who voted not to throw 20 million Americans off the health insurance rolls, Rob and Henry ask what evidence exists Republicans will help improve health care?  What evidence demonstrates Republicans will support environmental policies that fight climate change when so many deny the scientific consensus on climate change?  What evidence exists Congressional Republicans will resist the nationalist howls in their base for deporting millions of undocumented immigrants and their children, many of whom have no connection to any country other than the United States? Woodson does not take issue on this point, only reminding Rob and Henry that Democrats bear some blame for many domestic ills the country faces.

Rob sees no chance Republicans will join our agenda.  Henry hopes he’s wrong, but sees no movement by Republicans that supports his longing.  Woodson trusts neither party to act responsibly, absent watchdog monitoring by people who care more about the country than party. What do you think?

       

                                       

An American Message in Democracy

This post should remove all doubt. The three of us do not think alike.  It showcases an intense argument about how the American political system should respond to the Trump presidency.  One of us, Woodson, hopes for a bipartisan approach that brings back agreement between men and women of good will in both major political parties on broad national goals and objectives.  Despite disagreements over strategies and approaches, they worked together on things like civil rights, building the Interstate Highway System, and post-World War II foreign policy.  Two of us, Rob most vehemently and Henry with a more restrained and gentlemanly tip of his cap to his notion of “reality,” argue that only revival of the Democratic Party can return the nation to sanity.  This piece begins our exploration of that divide.            

Since well before the 2016 election, we’ve made clear our misgivings about Donald Trump.  Our concerns have grown into an urgent cry for his removal from office.  We aren’t alone, but we understand ridding America of Trump requires more than doubling down on his pathology.  Despite possibilities Trump will (a) resign, (b) get impeached, or (c) lose to a Republican primary challenger, the best way to get rid of him most likely resides in a Democratic win in 2020.

We’re not sure who the parties will nominate for President in three years and we aren’t preoccupied with that now.  We are, however, very much interested in changing the political discourse and setting America on a different path. Whoever participates in that endeavor must develop an effective political message.  We don’t see enough effort being made toward that now. 

Given the difficulty, we understand one blog piece won’t state an effective American message for the coming election cycles.  That’s a process requiring many minds and much discussion.  We do, however, think we know the central issues such a message must address.  The work of the next 8-10 months resides in packaging and refining these concerns into a coherent message that speaks to voters who want an America that creates opportunities for all its citizens.  Trump’s rock bottom approval ratings indicate the presence of a receptive audience, but meaningless platitudes aren’t enough.

So, what must the message speak to? Six distinct, but sometimes interrelated concerns, we think:

(1) Restoring the Dignity of the Office of President of the United States 
George W. Bush won in 2000 on this theme.  His issue was Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades and it wasn’t fair to tar the strait-laced Al Gore with that brush, but it worked.  Trump’s indignities are much more serious, but the point is the same.  We need a president who conducts himself or herself with dignity, civility, and competence.

(2) Healing the Fractures Caused by Trump’s Attempts to Legitimize Some and Delegitimize Others  
The next President needs to revisit and reaffirm the idea of the American “melting pot” with an emphasis on the legitimacy of all cultures, religions, languages, and nationalities.  We remain a nation of immigrants and we should celebrate, not curse, our differences.

(3) Addressing Income Inequality and Economic Dislocation Caused by Globalization
No President can change economic trends that favor the better educated, but America can train people for new, plentiful jobs.  Instead of trying to bring back an economy that’s not coming back, we can implement policies and create incentives that give people a chance in the existing economy and the emerging economy.  Tax policy should neither dramatically cut taxes for the wealthy (as Trump apparently wants to) nor soak the rich. 

(4) Implementing a Consistent Foreign Policy Based on Democratic Ideals and Common Sense, not Bluster  
Our foreign policy must emphasize cooperation with and support for our allies, not narrow-minded nationalism.  America didn’t become the leader of the free world by doing that and we can’t keep that position this way.  We need a fully staffed State Department that advances our diplomatic interests, while our robust military backs it up, not the reverse.   

(5) Offering a Vibrant, Responsible Domestic Agenda  
The debate over proposed repeal of the Affordable Care Act demonstrated Americans want government supported health care. The nation’s leadership should build on that momentum with concrete plans to improve the ACA by covering more people and lowering costs.  Similarly, resistance to Trump’s immigration and environmental policies shows a constituency exists for progressive ideas in those areas.

(6) Fighting for an Inclusive Social Justice Agenda 
Trump’s race baiting and blatant appeals to white nationalism create an opportunity to involve decent minded white moderates and conservatives not normally attracted to social justice campaigns. This means dialog with liberal and conservative voices on achieving criminal justice reform and ending mass incarceration for trivial drug offenses.  Needless to say, America should retain its commitment to women’s reproductive rights and its concern for children, while expanding educational opportunity at all levels of the system.   

All of us believe this represents a starting place for a sober discussion.  We disagree, however, that one side will ever engage in trying to achieve these objectives.  Woodson argues that we have presented American goals both parties should buy into and promote.  Rob, especially, and Henry see that as fantasy. They argue the present day Republican Party has become institutionally incapable of adopting the agenda we’ve laid out.  Enacting and implementing such an agenda, or anything like it, requires electing Democrats at all levels of government.  That may represent a sad state of affairs, but everyone has to be somewhere, and that’s where Rob and Henry think we are.

We’re going to dig into this in the coming weeks and months. Please join us. We’d love to know what you think.