Skip to content


December 19, 2016


Today when the electoral college meets I foresee (in all likelihood) the installation of a new overseer of federalism by a know-nothing and his merry band of oligarchs, ideologues and libertarian superrich. I expect to see such interpretation of federal versus state and local “rights” under the Constitution to include favoring of the Second over the Tenth Amendment on issues surrounding state and local rights in gun control even though, like politics, all shootings are local. On the other hand, I expect to see an abandonment of federal rights over state rights where control of education, health care and other human services are involved via mini-federal appropriations and a Ryan-type voucher program run by states which, unlike shootings, is a federal problem because each state will have its own political fish to fry and will result in 50 different means of administration of such programs while the Republicans on the federal level are sitting back and boasting “problem solved” when the problem is not solved but rather exacerbated by a spread of administration and the costs necessarily involved in addition to the problem (historically) in some governors’ uses of such funds as cookie jars to prop up other shortages in their state budgets in obedience to the holy edict of “cutting taxes” in which federal funding for human services wind up as tax cuts for the rich and corporate class.

Today’s headline in my local newspaper here in Florida reads as follows: “”Trump aides: Critics are using electoral vote to de-legitimize win” as though Putin, Comey, and Trump by his conduct both past and present haven’t already de-legitimized any claim he may have had to having “won.” Note the framing (which I reject). He won geography but not the vote – counties and states don’t vote. He has de-legitimized any claim to a right to govern by the will of the people, having lost by going on 3 million votes (and counting), yet, among other things, his propaganda of diversion from what our intelligence agencies found continues unabated. He simply says that he doesn’t believe it, so when I become president, case closed, because I said so. (?)

So now we are supposed to accept policy-making by tweet or diversionary propaganda or by combination of the two and shut our mouths and muzzle our keyboards because he “said so?” Another consideration is this: If he can shut off the conversation unilaterally, then what happens when his budget director gives him bad numbers on the deficit or his defense and intelligence people tell him Putin is loading up his missiles? Does he just say “I don’t believe it” and case closed? Living under a cloud of narcissism and with a compliant media subject to his PR framing, he may not even recognize that such conduct is that of a dictator, but in the real world it is, and if we are to retain any of the blessings of our democracy, we have a duty to point that out without fear or favor today and every day.

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: