The Democratic National Convention Was a Farce -- and so is the Impeachment

Hunter S. Thompson once said Democrats don't learn. Today, Congress apparently finished Day 2 of an impeachment trial against a president no longer in office. I say "apparently," because no one sane is voluntarily watching the trial, nor does anyone believe enough votes exist to convict. Democrats seem unable to comprehend Republicans voting for a trial did so the same way an apiarist pretends to befriend bees in order to take their honey. (The analogy isn't perfect, because unlike the Democratic Party, professional apiarists understand danger and wear protection before walking into a hive.) In any case, the Democrats, having won Congress by less than a 1% margin and the presidency only because too many people voted for the Libertarian Party, are approaching a second impeachment as if Donald Trump is Richard Nixon reincarnated. An American history lesson is warranted, and we'll start from last year.

Not until after the 2020 Democratic Convention did I realize uninvited Representative Tulsi Gabbard was, like VP pick Kamala Harris, a mixed Desi. The popular media had hit us so many times with stories of Harris's ethnic background--visions of Obama and sugar plums dancing in their heads--they ignored the fact that the Democrats' messages of unity and diversity were contradicted by a single absent person. 

As an immigrant with an American passport--I no longer call myself American, preferring a more distended designation--everything indicates I stand to reach the upper echelons of political power only if I conform and agree with one of two sides. In elevating a mismatched duo of prosecutor and public defender to the top of the Democratic Party while literally shutting out anti-war dissenters, the only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is now on the issue of abortion. Decades of unchecked military spending since Archbishop Ngô Đình Thục and Catholic Joseph McCarthy dragged Americans into Vietnam have given the military-industrial complex a holy victory: total control of America's political structure with an obedient Catholic leading the way. 

Conventions were not always this way in America, that alleged land of the free. At the 1968 Democratic Convention, reporter Dan Rather was attacked by security personnel as he attempted to question a delegate being removed, and Senator Andrew Ribicoff dared go off-script, criticizing Mayor Daley's Gestapo-like tactics. (Catholic Richard Daley responded by insulting Ribicoff's Jewish background.)

Each generation doubtless feels called upon to reform the world. Mine knows that it will not reform it, but its task is perhaps even greater. It consists in preventing the world from destroying itself. Heir to a corrupt history, in which are mingled fallen revolutions, technology gone mad, dead gods, and worn-out ideologies, where mediocre powers can destroy all yet no longer know how to convince, where intelligence has debased itself to become the servant of hatred and oppression, this generation starting from its own negations has had to re-establish, both within and without, a little of that which constitutes the dignity of life and death. -- Albert Camus (1957)

The conflict's genesis? The Vietnam War aka the American War of Aggression. One faction of the Democratic Party, led by George McGovern and Eugene McCarthy (not to be confused with pro-war Joseph McCarthy), was anti-war, and another, led by Hubert Humphrey, favored continued military action with the objective of forcing a negotiated settlement. The unpopularity--and infeasibility--of the war was underscored by VP Humphrey in 1965, who wrote, "American wars have to be politically understandable by the American public."

American wars have to be politically understandable by the American public. There has to be a cogent, convincing case if we are to have sustained public support. In World Wars I and II we had this. In Korea we were moving under UN auspices to defend South Korea against dramatic, across-the-border conventional aggression. Yet even with those advantages, we could not sustain American political support for fighting the Chinese in Korea in 1952. Today in Vietnam we lack the very advantages we had in Korea. The public is worried and confused. -- VP Hubert Humphrey, in 1965, ten years before the last USA serviceman left Vietnam

As part of the generation that grew up under multiple Iraq invasions--not just for oil, but natural gas--Humphrey's words sound quaint. It was against this conflicted backdrop and a mandatory military draft that the 1968 Democratic National Convention occurred, ensuring a volatile event. Policemen beat anti-war protesters using batons, knowing they had the full support of Chicago's leadership. Consequently, for at least one day, Americans couldn't tell the difference between the Chicago mob and their own government. How did the Democratic Party go from being so concerned about anti-war sentiment that it was willing to beat protesters in broad daylight to barring anti-war politicians from their own Convention? The answer is gerrymandering, aka political segregation. Put simply, if you divide enough factions into their own districts, you can easily govern any group not already in power by ensuring conflicting opinions never meet in a public forum, thus sputtering and stalling out. Post-WWII, though the prevailing framework internationally and domestically has been more "divide and govern" than "divide and conquer," American students are taught Western democracies promote optimal communication between conflicting groups.

[G]errymanders will only get worse (or depending on your perspective, better) as time goes on—as data becomes ever more fine-grained and data analysis techniques continue to improve. What was possible with paper and pen—or even with Windows 95—doesn’t hold a candle (or an LED bulb?) to what will become possible with developments like machine learning. And someplace along this road, “we the people” become sovereign no longer. -- Justice Kagan, dissenting, Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) 

In 1992, when Americans lacked conflicting viewpoints about the supremacy of their political system, Francis Fukuyama talked about the end of history. A mere decade later, General Colin Powell would cheerlead America into Iraq, another Vietnam, proving history was very much alive and continued to repeat itself. From that debacle arose Abu Ghraib and the destruction of America's credibility, which included the Democratic Obama/Biden administration assassinating an American citizen without due process. "The dumb are never with us for long, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that Republicans learn faster than Democrats..." 

We now arrive at 2021, when the Democratic Party is impeaching a president already out of office, repeating the same highfalutin bullying that made Trump so popular in the first place. I've heard of security theater, in which the government takes actions that "make people feel more secure without doing anything to actually improve their security," so perhaps this impeachment falls under the category of "political theater." Why, then, does it seem so much more pernicious than any Shakespearean tragedy? 

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (February 2021)

If it weren't for this constant struggle on the part of the few creative types to expand the sense of reality in man, the world would literally die out. We are not kept alive by legislators and militarists, that's fairly obvious. We are kept alive by men of faith, men of vision. They are like vital germs in the endless process of becoming. -- Arthur Miller (USA)

Chuck Grassley (IA) vs. Dianne Feinstein (CA): the Peacock & the Self-Restrained

Many Californians--plagued by party conformity across political offices and two Senators in office for decades (Boxer: 1993 to 2017; Feinstein: 1992 to the present)--seem unable to understand issues that ought to be simple. I happen to like Dianne Feinstein, will vote for her again if given the chance, 

and know tenured Senators are not unique to liberal states. For example, Iowa's Charles "Chuck" Grassley, in office since 1981, plays the part of cranky old man very convincingly. 

And get off my lawn!

Would Senator Feinstein ever publicly criticize a female college basketball for insufficient patriotism? Probably not. Feinstein's tenure as one of the longest-serving female Senators in American history has been marked by class, dignity, and the kind of intelligence one wishes Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren had. 

Notably, unlike Warren and Clinton, Senator Feinstein's job is secure, and such security allows the taking of difficult, controversial positions; in contrast, jostling for higher public office requires more secrecy and more PR, which favors image curators over truth. We are lucky Senator Feinstein has, more often than not, restrained herself and her staff from using her power to target private citizens--including but not limited to college basketball players--and decided the title of "Senator" was a comfortable enough perch for her ambition. 

Senator Grassley also enjoys a secure Senatorial seat. (America's two major political parties utilized data mining and analysis--the foundation of gerrymandering--long before hackers decided to enter politics.) Because of his political security, Grassley can use his power to go after private citizens who disagree with his views--including female college basketball players in a different state. I am not as old as Senator Grassley, but I come from a time when a powerful man inciting hatred against young female college athletes in any jurisdiction would be considered disrespectful and impolite. Perhaps Iowans--who also elected Steve King aka "Trump before President Trump"--have different views on Midwestern hospitality. 

Regardless of one's political views, it should be plain the problem isn't tenure or even gerrymandering, but the concept of power itself. I do not know Senator Feinstein, but I imagine growing up during a time when women were not respected as equals to men professionally gave her ballast and a sense of justice not easily replicated by the kind of man who would go after a college athlete in a different state merely because some Iowans sent him emails after a basketball game. (Clinton and Warren show that environment matters, but not decisively.) At the same time, there is no doubt the same security that allows Senator Feinstein to take substantive, difficult positions without suffering Russ Feingoldian consequences is the same phenomenon that allows Senator Grassley and Representative Steve King to act recklessly. A system that does not actually constrain power will always be at risk of violating the very principles the system was designed to promote. This is true in any time period and under any system, whether it is Thomas Jefferson using the law to own slaves, FDR authorizing Japanese internment camps with the express approval of the Supreme Court, or Senator McCarthy doing one better than Senator Grassley on the issue of insufficient patriotism. 

But why have politics at the ground level become so heated, so divisive? The power of television and images, magnified by greater technological access, plays a part, but the issue is simpler. Politicians who act as political peacocks, flaunting their colors rather than their principles to get elected, eventually need brighter feathers and louder calls to accomplish the same result. Senator Feinstein, a woman of substance, need not raise her voice at the podium--her experience and record speak for themselves. Only a man frightened that opponents may offer better siren songs bellows without thinking, and we can infer from Senator Grassley's behavior that Iowans may be looking for alternatives. Indeed, Senator Grassley's share of votes has been steadily declining: he was elected by a 70% share in 2004; a 64% share in 2010; and a 60% share in 2016. 

I started this article trying to educate liberal-minded readers but ended up scolding Senator Grassley and praising Senator Feinstein, even though Feinstein also voted for the war in Iraq. (See here for journalist Glenn Greenwald's numerous counterarguments against Feinstein.) My original intent was to share a thought experiment showing why American communities have become fractured. I will end with it below, though the main lesson I had hoped to impart should now be clear: in politics, the exercise of power is key, not the system or party itself. The thought experiment below may impart other lessons, and I leave it to you to determine the content of those lessons.

City 1 has 100 people, including 5 police officers and 5 firefighters. It is 100% white and Christian. 

City 2 has 100 people, including 5 police officers, 5 firefighters, and 5 grant-receiving non-profit organization officers to handle language translation, parks and recreation, and other social issues promoting assimilation and harmony. Its residents are a perfect mix of diversity, and I leave it to the reader to render his or her own demographic utopia. 

City 1 responds to each police call with an investigation. If an investigation does not occur or is not done to the citizen's satisfaction, citizens feel comfortable going to the mayor's office to ask for intervention or greater oversight. 

City 2 investigates only major crimes. Theft under 500 USD is recorded but not investigated due to allegedly insufficient resources. Complaints to the mayor go nowhere at first, but as petty thefts increase, the mayor is forced to take action. She cancels one of the nonprofit's grants and transfers the funds to a specialized unit investigating petty crime. The nonprofit lays off 5 people and criticizes the mayor for canceling the grant as well as the police department for not utilizing existing resources efficiently. The police criticize the nonprofit and hire a media manager to defend their conduct. Slogans ("All Thefts Matter") are chanted by both sides, and the city's readers and viewers see angry complaints on television and in print. After the backlog of petty thefts is finally resolved, the mayor reinstates the nonprofit's grant and unemployment returns to 1%. The mayor decides to issue a bond and raise taxes in the future to prevent similar conflict. Unbeknownst to her, some of the city's residents have left to City 1, citing less tension there. 

Even with its new entrants, City 1 realizes many of its young residents are leaving and decides to hire a consultant to create more "culture" to convince them to stay. The consultant recommends issuing grants to nonprofits to promote arts and culture and laying off a police officer to free up funding for the consultant's recommendations. The council, in a divided vote, accepts the consultant's recommendations. 

To handle the increased workload while maintaining morale, the police department decides it will not investigate thefts under 500 USD. Residents soon complain that outsiders have corrupted the city and say they no longer feel safe. The young and new employees hired by the nonprofits realize their funding may be pulled and criticize the police department's productivity, demanding the mayor look into police officers' schedules and use of time. Soon, residents who experienced petty theft refuse to listen to anyone who supports arts and culture projects and respond to criticism of police productivity with unwavering allegiance to law and order. There is even talk of supporting a new media channel dedicated to conservative values. 

The nonprofits continue to push forward with projects that provide the town with options other than big box stores and strip malls. The mayor wonders why he didn't just issue a bond or raise taxes, but he realizes his city is more conservative and disfavors debt. He asks the police department to change its policy but the police department, encouraged by national police unions, sues him, claiming the mayor's requests violate state law. City 1's lawyers now spend less time responding to day-to-day matters and more time on litigation. Soon, the lawyers request additional headcount, leaving the mayor looking into outside law firms and promising residents such fees will be temporary.

Will the mayor keep his job in the next election? What values other than self-restraint appear necessary for sustainable growth? 

Gerrymandering Killed the Political Process

Dan Walters, SJ Merc, 9/18/10: "Just one of California's 53 congressional districts has changed partisan hands since they were redrawn in a bipartisan gerrymander by the Legislature after the 2000 census."

I guess it's not how you vote or who you vote for, but where you live...

Union Arbitration = No Transparency

Most of the time, when our politicians make decisions, the process is open and transparent. That openness allows voters and residents to oppose shady or unreasonable deals. In contrast to the normal principle of transparency, most of California's government unions negotiated compensation packages behind closed doors (via arbitration). About two years ago, the California Supreme Court issued a decision (mostly) rejecting the government unions' claims to privacy protection, finally forcing the unions to disclose their generous compensation packages. Since then, most Californians have been shocked to see union workers receiving benefits far above the norm in the private sector. Consider the following scenario:

Blackwater operatives come to San Jose, call for a private meeting, and tell the Council that they have information about a possible impending attack. Blackwater then demands, in private, $2,000/yr from each resident and his or her child for the next 60 years to help the city avoid the attack. The Council, behind closed doors, agrees. Later, someone becomes upset with his increasing taxes and sues the City to figure out what is going on with the budget. Two years later, after much litigation, the state Supreme Court forces the Council to reveal the Blackwater deal to the public.

Should voters be able to revoke or modify the private deal because they may have received some benefit from Blackwater and because Blackwater employees may have relied on expected future income? Keep in mind that the the deal affects the voters' children (i.e., like government pension promises, the private deal forces our children to pay higher taxes in the future).

The union arbitration system--under which the unions received their generous pay packages--is similar to the scenario above. The pay was privately negotiated and not subject to any real checks and balances. In fact, the hypothetical scenario above is generous to the unions and their enabling city council members, because the gun-to-your-head factor mitigates the government's acquiescence. Sadly, at this time, cities and counties cannot do much legally about the private promises they've made to unions except for declaring bankruptcy.

The union arbitration system is terrible for taxpayers. The only other political issue that boils my blood more is gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is where the two major political parties carve up voting districts to avoid competition. It's like Microsoft and Google got together one day and said, "You get these areas on the West Coast, and we'll get these areas on the East Coast, and we both agree not to sell our products in each other's areas." If that actually happened, we would be outraged. Why aren't we more outraged about gerrymandering?