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.            

     

Charlottesville: The Last Straw

Last weekend, the stench of racism that’s been simmering below the surface of the American landscape bubbled to the top for all to see and smell. The white supremacist movement that’s been building, waiting for the right time to wreak havoc, showed up in Charlottesville, Virginia with tragic consequences. Three Americans senselessly lost their lives as a result and 19 others were injured.  In the process, President Trump showed convincingly why he lacks the moral authority and statesmanship of a President and why the American people and their other leaders must find a way to remove him from office.

The loss of life in Charlottesville should sadden and concern every right thinking American.  In terms of a response to Charlottesville, we first, as we think the President should have, honor and mourn Heather Heyer, the young woman killed in an act of domestic terrorism by an apparent misfit now charged with second degree murder and other crimes for ramming a car into a crowd, and Lt. H. Jay Cullen and Trooper Berke M. M. Bates, Virginia law enforcement officers killed in the crash of a police helicopter patrolling the area.  None of them would have been where they were but for the wretched, despicable acts of hate mongers who converged on Charlottesville to protest that city’s effort to come to grips with America’s original sin by removing a monument to Confederate General Robert E. Lee.

It’s Not the Statues: After Charlottesville, no longer should anyone entertain the fiction that opposing removal of confederate monuments and statues merely reflects dedication to cultural heritage, separate from its racist underpinnings. Nor should the argument fly that removing the monuments represents a misguided attempt to rewrite history.  The white supremacists demonstrated the monuments constitute an integral part of their campaign to thwart the efforts of decent Americans of all colors to recognize slavery’s stain on our nation’s history.  The monuments aren’t recordings of history to the white supremacists. They are essential tools in conveying their message that this should remain a “white country” in which white people call the shots and out groups – blacks, Jews, Muslims, immigrants -- remain just that.      

Trump Speaks: It was the response of Donald Trump that produced the real outrage and presents the test his Republican Party must meet, along with the rest of the nation. Trump initially appeared, uncomfortably, on camera, making a statement that (1) failed to specifically and unequivocally call out the white supremacists whose presence precipitated the Charlottesville tragedy and (2) made a disappointing try at equating those who protested the white supremacists with the hate mongers themselves. Trump said he condemned “this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides, on many sides.”  This attempt at equivalency made no moral sense to us.  The fact he felt compelled to say it suggested Trump believed he had to do so to avoid alienating white supremacists, many of whom openly admit Trump’s election emboldened them and claim he’s on their side. Trump’s tepid, misguided response to Charlottesville brings the country face to face with a fundamental question:  Having elected Trump on a promise to make America great again, will America say to him, “Mr. President, you aren’t great, you aren’t even good.  In fact, you’re harmful to our national aspirations?”

To their credit, some Republicans called out their party’s leader. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch’s Tweet seemed particularly appropriate.  He said, “My brother didn’t give his life fighting Hitler for Nazi ideas to go unchallenged here at home.” That’s a good start, but the GOP has much more work to do if it’s to avoid being tarred by the brush with which Trump and his supporters in the white supremacist universe paint.  Until Republicans, both the leadership in Congress and the statehouses, and the rank and file, say out loud they will not tolerate support for or from white supremacists, we have more difficult days ahead.  We’ve already seen that. Trump, under pressure, Monday made a more Presidential sounding statement about the evils of racism, but undid it all Tuesday by equating the counter protesters with white supremacists. “There’s fault on both sides,” he claimed.      

A Perfect Storm: Charlottesville may have been inevitable,  given Trump’s election and the strength the white supremacy movement claims it gave them.  A similar event was going to happen somewhere. The city’s decision to remove the Robert E. Lee statue became an excuse for the white supremacists to gather there.  Charlottesville’s reputation as a college town (home to the University of Virginia) and a relatively liberal place (Hillary Clinton won 80% of the vote there in 2016) probably assured pushback against the intrusion by a large group of outsiders spewing an ideology at odds with the predominant community ethic.

But Charlottesville didn’t have to become the tragedy it did, not if we had a President who understands and appreciates the America so many of us long for – a place that’s imperfect, that has many sins to atone for, but one brimming with promise for becoming what it has always had the chance to become – a beacon of hope and opportunity for anyone willing to help it achieve its highest aspirations and, therefore, share in its bounty and blessings.      

Sound off in the comments below to share your thoughts.                            

Parenting 102: More Advice on Parenting or The Legacy We Can Leave Our Children

We wrote last time about leaving a “legacy” for our children and grandchildren, a capstone on our look at parenting.  Woodson detailed his desire to bequeath to his offspring a legacy of “character” and “financial freedom.”  Now, Rob and Henry weigh in.  Both view the issue differently from Woodson and from each other.  Still, we see commonality in our three approaches to this concept.  Judge for yourself the particulars.

Rob’s Thoughts  Woodson’s insistence on leaving a “legacy” for his children forced me to think about what I will leave mine.  I find his “character” and “financial freedom” objectives laudable goals.  I don’t use the same words, but I see similarities in what I want to leave my children and what he seeks to leave his.

I look at this issue along an intangibles-to-tangibles continuum. What intangible qualities and attributes did I try to instill and what real assets can I leave?  I’ve tried to give my children a lengthy list of intangibles, but much work remains on the tangible part.

I have five children from two marriages.  At the intangible end of the spectrum, my wives and I sought to provide our children experiences and education that promoted good judgment, developed analytical and  problem solving capacity, taught writing, speaking, and computational skills permitting high level professional performance, and inspired intellectual curiosity leading to freedom of thought. We also tried to inculcate moral, ethical, and spiritual values that enhance justice and equality in a free society.

My wives and I devoted substantial time and treasure to these objectives. We spent significantly on travel, sports experiences, books, cultural activities, and, of course, formal education.  Each child earned a degree from a reputable university.  With considerable evidence now in, it appears we succeeded.  All five demonstrate, at some level of competence, the listed skills and generally adhere to the values we promoted.  It seems I am leaving my children a meaningful legacy of intangibles.

The tangible side of the ledger is another matter. Given where I started in life economically – no real wealth, just an ability to earn a good income – leaving a financial legacy of real assets required a level of saving and investment success I never achieved. In truth, I have little wealth to leave my children. The money got spent giving them the experiences and education needed to acquire the intangibles.  I sometimes regret spending, saving, and investment decisions I made that, if decided differently, would likely have changed this situation.

Woodson reminded me the fat lady hasn’t sung yet.  He’s pointed out that I retain an ability to acquire financial assets I can leave my children.  Time will tell if he’s correct, but his assessment offers hope and a reason to keep working.  I have, in fact, heard many stories of people achieving late life economic success. Because opportunity remains, I get up every day and keep trying.   

Henry’s Thoughts  The consideration of a gift to leave my children and grandchildren leads to an intense examination of what I value most.

I believe I have moved toward recognizing the beauty and glory of existence in this world and the beauty and glory of this world accompanied by an appreciation and gratefulness for this recognition.

Because we perceive life as so short and fleeting we seem to look toward what lies ahead and spend time preparing for where we wish we were. We always seek a better place--we crave what we do not have.

I believe we can push and plan for a better world while appreciating and enjoying the present--valuing each breath and what it brings. I believe this leads to appreciating each life on earth and working every day in whatever big or small way to enhance the lives of others, even if only to make one individual smile.

Overwhelmingly wonderful peace can come from these realizations. I would like to leave my children a path toward this peace.

It may lead to an "ordinary" life as some see it, or to fame and fortune, but to exist without regret and at peace with that existence could represent the ultimate life can offer. I wish to leave my offspring a legacy of daily life that causes them to examine this path. I suppose I want to leave them balance.

COLLECTIVELY SPEAKING   Our three approaches to legacy offer a window into the practical and the ideal on parenting.  All of us want to leave our children something practical (i.e., “financial freedom”) and something that addresses higher ordered needs and dreams (i.e., “intellectual curiosity”).  But, because we see the value in both, Henry’s concept of “balance” ultimately could serve as a touchstone for what we want to leave our children.  They will lead better lives if we can leave them both the practical and the ideal.

YOUR TURN!                     

Parenting Advice 101: Know When to Hold 'Em, Know When to Fold 'Em

Earlier we discussed our attitudes on corporal punishment in parenting.  That issue arises most often with younger children.  Now, we want to address our interaction with children becoming young adults.  Our experiences helped teach us the need for flexibility in parenting.  No one best way to parent exists and what works one time may not at others.  Parents need rules and principles, but they also need situational awareness.  Sometimes rigidity and preconceived notions must give way to understanding a child’s personality and predisposition.  In the words of the old Kenny Rogers hit about gambling, a parent must know when to hold ‘em and know when to fold ‘em.

Rob’s refereeing assignment.  Having a second family as he did with children born in the 80s and 90s, Rob faced modern issues his parents didn’t see − drug use, weak commitment to education, aggressive insistence on reasons for every rule and decision.  One of Rob’s daughters forced him to mediate between her and her mother.  The daughter demonstrated little interest in adhering to many of her mother’s expectations about academic performance and general demeanor.   They frequently ended up in shouting matches and the daughter absented herself from home for long periods, spending many nights with friends.

Old school parenting mandated requiring that the daughter conform to her mother’s wishes about grades, homework, partying, and boys.  Rob surmised that such an approach would fail with this daughter, given her personality, and trying it might produce more turmoil and, potentially, risked permanently losing her to bad behavior.  He opted to let the daughter “punch herself out” by ignoring her rages against her mother and settling for adherence to minimum standards of conduct.

The strategy worked.  Gradually, the daughter’s bluster subsided.  She cleaned up her act enough to finish high school with a credible academic record, graduated from a major state university, and now works in her chosen field.  Trying to make her conform wasted energy and insufficiently credited her creativity, resourcefulness, and entrepreneurial potential.  This more flexible approach recognized the value in finding a way to get the daughter to do the things she needed to do to set herself up for a successful life, not just make her conform.

Woodson calms down. The Walker family reports a not dissimilar experience. Uncompromising disciplinarians about academics, Woodson and his wife saw academic excellence as the best avenue for African American children to escape the limitations imposed by a racist society. Being subjected themselves to segregated education, in largely inferior schools, then required to compete with white counterparts unhindered by such drawbacks, forged an enduring belief in education as a pathway to success.

One son, as early as eighth grade, expressed a desire to attend Howard University, one of the nation’s top historically black colleges. Upon graduation from high school he applied to Howard, but hedged his bets by also applying to Atlanta’s Morehouse College and Hampton University in Virginia. When Howard did not initially accept him, he said, “I guess it’s not God’s will that I go to Howard.  It must be His will that I go to Hampton.”

Woodson took the comment as violating the family commitment to academic excellence, which he thought Howard offered above the others, and a commitment to making no excuses. Woodson went ballistic.  He admonished the son about making excuses and reminded him, forcefully, that if he wanted something as badly as he professed to wanting to go to Howard, quitting at the first sign of resistance was not an option. 

Upon further review, Woodson realized the fallacy in responding as he did.  This son always showed a thoughtful and sensible side.  He reacted well to reason and exhibited perseverance in most of his endeavors.  No reason existed for getting in his face to convince him he need not give up on his Howard dream.  Careful reasoning and encouragement that he exhaust every possible avenue should have been, and ultimately was, the way to reach him.

Through persistence, the son eventually got into Howard and succeeded there.  In hindsight, Woodson recognized that the screaming was not necessary.  A better approach would have been a calm explanation of the virtues of never giving up on a dream.

Henry’s contract.  At one point Henry’s older son's interest in girls and in having fun exceeded his interest in school. The son had been an exemplary student until this funfest behavior appeared.  The situation presented a parenting dilemma because it brought Henry face to face with a challenge to the norms he’d learned himself as a child and had always enforced as a parent.  Instinct, training, and tradition dictated coming down hard on the son to force him to change his ways.  Henry opted not to do that.  He and his wife proposed a contract with the son.  That agreement included precise behavior requirements, goals, and penalties. Instead of imposing rules from on high, the parents engaged the son on a rational level.  By knowing when to back off and find a solution that really could solve the problem, Henry diffused the situation and kept his son engaged and interested in his education.  The son understood both the purpose and necessity of this approach and within a year was back on track.

So, we’ve learned from our experiences. We present these stories, not as templates but as examples of how we diffused volatile and troublesome situations in ways that produced positive outcomes. Parents should have principles, but good results depend on multiple factors. We’ve come to believe flexibility counts for a lot.  Give us your story.

The Politics of Impeaching Donald Trump: How It Might Happen

As they say in radio, “The Hits Just Keep On Coming.”  That’s been American politics since May 15, when President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.  Space doesn’t permit listing all the blockbuster stories absorbed in news cycles since then. Increasingly, the media and the public speculate whether the end game to all this is the “I” word – potential impeachment of the 45^th President of the United States.

One of us, Woodson, already is on record in suggesting Congress will impeach Trump this year.  The other two of us, as much as we’d like to see that, argue it won’t happen, if at all, until after the 2018 elections when Democrats could recapture the House of Representatives and control of the impeachment process. We realize impeachment implicates legal and political concerns and we ignore either at our peril. Now, we focus on politics. 

Some History   Three American presidents -- Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton – have faced impeachment proceedings.  No U.S. President has been removed from office by conviction following impeachment, though Nixon resigned in anticipation of certain impeachment and conviction. 

“High Crimes and Misdemeanors” represents the constitutional standard for impeaching a president.  Historically, a debate has raged among the political class and legal scholars over whether the term means an indictable criminal offense or merely political or practical misconduct.  The record in the three cases shows a combination of the two.  In reality, “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” means whatever Congress says it means.

The House impeached Johnson in 1868 over his violation of a likely unconstitutional statue -- the Tenure of Office Act.  Johnson tried to replace Secretary of War Edwin Stanton with General Lorenzo Thomas.  Congress passed that law to protect Stanton and when Johnson wouldn’t follow it, the House approved 11 articles of impeachment. Three conviction votes in the Senate each fell one vote short of the required two-thirds majority.  The Johnson impeachment, therefore, was blatantly political and Congressional Republicans, angry with Johnson over dealing with the defeated Confederacy after the Civil War, didn’t worry about finding a criminal charge against him.

The House Judiciary Committee adopted three articles of impeachment against Nixon in 1974, two of them essentially political – abuse of power and contempt of Congress.  But, the June 23, 1972, “smoking gun” tape in which Nixon and his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, plotted how to use the CIA as a cover for stopping the FBI investigation into the Watergate break-in, would have resulted in a conviction on the third article, obstruction of justice, had Nixon not resigned.

The impeachment articles against Clinton that passed the House in 1998 involved criminal charges -- perjury and obstruction of justice related to lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.  Because the charges against Clinton concerned sex, the Senate was never going to convict.

It’s Politics   So, the impeachment record shows it’s as much about politics as about criminal wrongdoing.  Impeaching Trump would constitute a political act as much as a legal one, with wide ranging consequences, making considering the politics of impeachment necessary.  Republicans control both chambers, so Congress wouldn’t likely impeach Trump until GOP members believe it in their political interest to do so or think they can’t afford to resist.  Assembling evidence against Trump and his associates remains important, but we must at least partly view that evidence through a political lens.

 For Republicans to desert Trump, must Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller develop an airtight criminal case against him?  Nixon’s political support didn’t collapse until his criminal culpability became clear. Since Trump’s sins, and those of his colleagues, involve national security and foreign policy matters, what will it take for enough of the public to support impeachment that Republicans get on board or get out of the way? The public saw the Johnson and Clinton impeachments as mostly political.  Americans didn’t think Congress should impeach Johnson over a personnel matter and they didn’t want to run Clinton out of office over sex. Nixon’s overt criminality, however, sufficed and he resigned in the face of the inevitable. What will the public require for getting rid of Trump?

Afterwards   Then there’s the fallout from impeachment.  What happens if enough shoes drop this summer that Congress does impeach Trump, making Mike Pence President by early 2018?  We see two possible scenarios.  Republicans could, of course, suffer a similar fate as in the aftermath of Watergate and Nixon’s resignation.  Democrats cleaned up in the 1974 mid-terms, picking up 49 seats in the House and four in the Senate. Jimmy Carter arguably won the White House in 1976 because of Watergate and Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon.

But, for those who oppose the Republican agenda, there’s also a nightmare scenario.  Suppose Pence puts the GOP back on track by doing things like picking a woman, say former South Carolina Governor and current UN Ambassador Nikki Haley or Iowa Senator and hog farmer Joni Ernst, as the new Vice President?  Suppose Pence cajoles his majorities into passing a big tax cut, makes Democrats a deal on infrastructure spending they can’t refuse, and cobbles together a health care deal that mollifies the firebrands in the House and blunts moderate Senate opposition to repeal of the Affordable Care Act?  Such a political resurrection might hold Republican losses in the House in 2018 to the norm for the party holding the White House and make Pence a formidable incumbent in 2020.

When thinking about impeachment, a chilling phrase for this scenario comes to mind: Be careful what you wish for.