Wednesday, October 21, 2020

Almost done posting POLEMICAL JUDO! But here are some vital final features.

 I had hopes that self-publishing my book of 100+ unusual/agile political tactics a year before the 2020 elections would give time for some of the ideas to percolate to the political and punditry castes who might use a few effectively. I should have known better. There are no stronger guild-protection rackets going than the corps of political advisors surrounding every representative, senator and candidate... even the good guys. And they are pikers compared to the closed-shop enforcers who rigidly control the op-ed pages.

That complaint is orthogonal to our current crises, but it exacerbates the dullard incompetence of the democratic/moderate/liberal, scientific-ethical coalition's leadership at turning what could have been a tsunami into a nail-biter. Even if this election turns out to be a 'landslide" against the Putin-Murdoch cult... it could have been spectacularly better.

But we persevere. I'll be finishing these chapter postings and spend the last two weeks ranting and praying, along with everyone else, looking forward to the scenes of celebration November 4, when a billion people around the world spill into the streets in celebration.

Last time we finished Chapter 13... 'What would adults do?' laying out dozens of concepts for governance that could efficiently achieve reform and end the cheating, some of them both surprising and trivially easy.

 Next would be Chapter 14: Our 250 year Family Feud -  Phase 8 of the Civil War? where I explain how this recurring national fever has erupted many times, ever since 1780. (What we call the "Civil War" was only phase 4, though a bad one... as is this phase we're in.) But that topic was already covered in a blog posting, and many of you have seen it before, so let's move on.

This time let's post from the "mini-sections" I arrayed between main chapters of the book. Again remember this was published last November 2019... This one offers capsules that might yet - even this late - help in some polemical battles over the remaining supply of undecideds or sway-ables out there.

Mini-section #1 for…

One-Liners, Zingers and “tl;dr” Quick-memes

  

I. ZINGERS & ONE-LINERS: Meme grenades distilled from chapters.

 

-  “MAGA? Okay wise guy, when do you claim America was greater than today?” Hint: when they say “the 1950s….” pounce! (See Polemical Judo Chapter 3.)

 

“Fake News problem?” Why do no voices on the right offer to help moderates and professionals to set up an impartial fact-checking service? If all current ones are ‘biased,’ will you name ten eminent and widely respected conservatives to join a commission, charged with helping design acceptable and competing fact-services? What, you can’t name any? (Chapter 5.)

 

- “Fake News Fix.” If you hijackers of the right won’t propose august, respect-worthy American conservatives to serve on such panels, then we will. Retired justices, retired admirals, Nobel winners, or almost any citizen of Utah![1] Folks who may differ from us over markets and regulation – even about guns – but who agree that ‘facts are things’ and Nazis are bad… and that we need a way out of the poison fog of lies. (Chapter 5.)

 

“Deep State?” Which seems more likely? A ‘conspiracy’ by ten million scientists, journalists, teachers, doctors, civil servants, FBI agents, intel and military officers - the same folks who defeated Hitler, stymied Stalin and won the Cold War and the War on Terror? Or that just five thousand golf buddies in an incestuous CEO caste connive secretly with Wall Streeters, casino moguls, foreign despots and inheritance brats? (Chapters 8 & 10.)

 

Adam Smith, the core founder of both market economics and liberalism, would today be a flaming Democrat. (Chapters 3, 10 & 11.)

 

Who’s a commie? How many times must Donald Trump hold secret debriefing sessions with communist despots - or conveniently "ex" communist dictators who grew up reciting Marx - without any reputable U.S. officials present - before you'll admit something fishy is going on? 

 

Vladimir Putin called the fall of the USSR “history’s greatest tragedy.” All of today’s Russian oligarchs were raised reciting Leninist catechisms. The KGB transitioned without a hiccup. But you folks call them all great guys.[2] Sure, they dropped the hammers and sickles, but surely you didn’t fall for a trick of symbolism? Because nothing else changed. (Postponed for Volume 2.)

 

Wanna bet? Oh, glaciers are advancing? Would you put an actual money wager on any of your ravings, from climate change to inaugural crowds to those mighty Trumpian accomplishments? (In Chapter 15 we’ll see that demanding wagers, rather than being an immature stunt, actually works ferociously well.)[3]

 

-  Wrong, almost always. "Tobacco is harmless,” “Cars don't cause smog,” “No seat belts in cars!” and “Keep lead in gasoline!” then McCarthyism, Burning Rivers, the insane War on Drugs, mass incarceration and Supply Side voodoo... the list of wrong, wrong, wrong is endless. Can you offer times when the GOP was provably/decisively right? Actually, I can! A couple of times. But there’s been so much more wrong. (Chapter 6.)

 

Conspiracy Theories: show us any of the ones you keep changing and then dropping, that ever proved decisively true? There are conspiracies that pass half a dozen “sniff tests.” But not many. (Chapter 7.) 

 

IGUS. The recent Whistleblower Crises revealed weakness in one of our major bulwarks of clean government, as the seventy-four Inspectors General of federal departments and agencies endure unprecedented meddling and bullying – or else mal-appointment – by Republican politicians. In Chapters 5 and 10 we’ll see how to restore autonomous oversight by bringing them all under an independent office of the Inspector General of the United States[4] (IGUS), along with other reforms including the Fact Act.[5]

 

- Obamacare was the Republicans’ own damn plan! Cooked up by the Heritage Foundation,[6]it was on GOP platforms through the 90s and enacted in Massachusetts by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney.[7] Now Republicans call their own plan satanic. Which is worse? That hypocrisy? Or failure of any Democrats to mention it?

 

And by the way… where’s the alternative health insurance plan that Republicans have promised for … what now? Eleven years? Any day now.

 

Judges and taxes? Millions of U.S. conservatives who are ashamed of all the rest – Trumpism, bigotry, climate denialism, cheating, lies, trashing our alliances and blatant cozying with tyrants – justify their hold-my-nose loyalty to the GOP in one incantation: “judges and taxes.” But if every other fruit is poisonous, might the whole tree?

 

Aren’t you curious… even a little… about those tax returns? Or Deutsche Bank funneling Trump loans from Russian oligarchs? The contents of David Pecker’s National Enquirer safe ought to fill any American with flaming, nonpartisan curiosity, along with the scores of Non Disclosure Agreements (NDA) that Donald Trump openly brags about.[8] What happened to “We deserve to know!”

 

II. TACTICS DEMOCRATS COULD TRY… TOMORROW:

 

- Some congressional committee could unleash a tsunami of revelations just by offering full protection and immunity for testimony from anyone who has an NDA - or Non-Disclosure Agreement - with Donald TrumpTrump has bragged about his Great Wall of punitive-protective NDAs. Shatter it and let the revelations spill. (Michael Cohen will tell you whom to approach.)

 

- Assume Chief Justice John Roberts will use the Court’s right wing majority to uphold his clever new Roberts Doctrine of "no-interference between the legislative and executive," or non-justiciability, thus allowing GOP henchmen to passively refuse House subpoenas on lame and unprecedented excuses. They think fait accompli resistance will stymie investigation and oversight. But there's a judo move that Schiff and Nadler and Pelosi can try. It means appealing to the Fourth Branch of government. It would work.[9]

 

- Immaturity alert! This one is almost… Trumpian. But imagine if one mid level Democratic politician were to hold a news conference denouncing fellow Democrats for their unsympathetic pestering of an addled-volatile old man who clearly qualifies for extra care and kindness under the Americans with Disabilities Act... I mean it. Paul Krugman and Nancy Pelosi have come close. But go all the way.[10] Close your eyes and imagine that being drawn out, again and again. Even those who don't 'get it' at first will catch on when Trump responds with volcanic fury, ironically proving it's true! What a tweet-storm that would trigger, hysteria that undermines his one pillar of support – the superficial appearance of “strength.” (Chapter 15.)

 

- More immaturity: Bush and Trump and others on that side love to hurl nicknames. And yes, as grownups we avoid schoolyard bully ploys. Still, if you go there, I recommend using “Old Two Scoops.” It’s not overtly sneering or mean or obscene. But it mocks the pompous preening of a narcissistic character trait – emblematic of aristocracy – that even the reddest booster can’t defend.

 

III. WAGER DARES FOR TRUMP: Hey you major public figures or late night hosts: instead of reacting every week to the next distraction outrage, then the next, try openly and repeatedly challenging Donald Trump to:

 

- accept a medical exam by skilled doctors he can’t control, 

 

- prove his “stable genius IQ” with a panel of simple tests applied by professionals chosen randomly,

 

- waive IRS privacy rules enough for them to at least say publicly whether or not there’s an audit

 

- roll dice and randomly pick any week’s top five accusations of “fake news” for a jury of respected Americans to audit in detail (see Chapter 5). Or even randomly chosen Americans. 

 

- prove the birther thing, at long last. That Obama’s parents planted – all the way from Kenya – birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers, or to  golf less than Obama.  Or to pay the money he owes every city where he held a rally.[11] Make that a money bet, right now, 

 

- or swear never again to be alone with foreign despots without trusted American witnesses present.

 

It’s not that any one such demand will be transformative, or even become an actual wager – none of them will (for reasons given in Chapter 15). Alas, no Democratic politician or pundit seems to understand the power of repetition and persistent hammering, despite having witnessed Trump use that method to great effect. 

 

 

IV. WAGER-DARES FOR OTHER REPUBLICANS: A bit different, these in-yer-face challenges are for your confederate cousins. Demands for real-money bets will send most of them backpedaling. Or else (rarely) persuade one to resume viewing at facts as real things. (See Chapters 5, 11, 13, and especially 15). And yes, some of these will be repeated, later in the book.

 

- How many Trump appointees and associates started out described by him as 'great guys,' who later 'betrayed' him? I bet it’s more than any ten other presidents. Whatever the anecdotal merits or turpitudes of any particular case, will you admit it proves he's a lousy judge of character?

 

- Put money on military readiness. Which political party generally leaves U.S. defenses, alliances and resilience in better shape than how they found them? Which party nearly always leaves the American military worse off than before they took over? (And yes, it is the GOP. See pause#10.)

 

- Quick, name a Republican top leader between Reagan and Ryan who was mentioned at the 2016 Republican National Convention. Neither Bush president, nor Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Hastert, DeLay, Romney, McCain… not even mentioned. All “ancient history.” But if you disavow those past Republican administrations, then where is your party’s credibility?

 

- I bet you can’t name a fact-profession not being warred upon by Fox & Accomplices. Even one. (Chapter 5.)

 

- Name one Supply Side “economics” prediction that ever came true. That tax cuts for the rich would be invested in R&D and new factories? That they result in increased revenue and reduced deficits? That they achieve anything other than asset bubbles, collapsed money velocity and skyrocketing wealth disparities? Name one reason we should trust a supply sider with a wet match? (Chapter 11.)

 

- The rate of change of the rate of change of debt was positive (toward reckless acceleration) during almost every year of every Republican administration (post Eisenhower). It was negative (braking the rate of deficit growth gradually toward prudence) in every year of every Democratic administration (post Johnson). How does that fit the GOP’s last ditch justification… that they are the prudent, pragmatic ones?  (Chapter 11.)

 

- Across the last 25 years, the GOP either controlled Congress, or else could thwart it, for all but two. Care to name any positive accomplishments? Not wars or tax gifts to the rich, but major adjustments to law or even major de-regulations? (Chapter 10.)

 

- And again and again. Put money on Trumpian lies for any given day. Pick at random day in the near future.

 

 

V. SLIGHTLY LONGER MEME BOMBS: Also in chapters, with longer summaries.

 

- What if Obama did it? “WODI” can be effective. Every day, your “ostrich” Republican shrugs aside some antic that would have sent them ballistic, if done by Clinton or Obama. A decent bar bet would be to say in advance “Next Thursday let’s try out WODI on that day’s Trump travesty.” It only works on a gal or guy who has a shred of remaining honesty or honor.

 

Clinton or Obama-related “investigations” – after a quarter of a century and half a billion dollars – and never a stonewalled refusal of testimony – congrats. You proved a husband fibbed about some adult-consensual (while still inappropriate) infidelity and the wife was caught using the same sort of somewhat improper email system as Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Mike Pence, George Bush, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. That’s it. After 25 years without proof, where’s your cred?

 

Answer both right and left critics of Pax Americana. If the U.S. had behaved like all other empires and imposed mercantilist trade patterns after WWII, then America would have no debt today. Its cities would gleam and factories hum. The country would swim in gold...but hope and prosperity in the larger world would be ruined by the same short-sighted greed that brought down Babylon, Persia, Rome, Pax Sinica, Pax Britannia etc. And when we finally fell, it would be in a tumult of well-deserved wrath. But we didn’t do what all those empires did. We did something very different. (Chapter 9.)

 

- Mitch McConnell’s declaration that no judges should be appointed or confirmed in an election year, then chortling he’ll pass anyone nominated by Trump in 2020… a perfect example of how one complaint – or a few – can be shrugged off as whining. But a concerted campaign of mockery….[12]

 

- Offer an amnesty for Americans now enslaved by blackmail.  It’s speculative! Perhaps no one will step up… or perhaps too many to count… in which case it’s unlikely, amid a tsunami of revelation, that our scheming enemies will survive. As we’ll see in Chapter 8, the long range victory condition for our kind of civilization is a future world that’s filled with open-fair competition, calm negotiation, but above all… light.

 

 

 

* DON’T FOR A MINUTE THINK WE’VE FORGOTTEN…

 

That’s but a sampler list, offered for those who find an actual book “TLDR.” 

 

For the rest of you, hang in there. Chapter 15 will dive into the effectiveness of wager-demands, even – especially - when the other side weasels and refuses to bet! The tactic corners them anyway, by their own macho standards.  It destroys the illusion of macho “strength.” And there will be other distilled “meme bomb” collections, especially near the end of the book.

 

Finally… here’s a challenge that I’ll reiterate many times – in chapters 6 and 12 and 13 – aimed at every dogmatic purist out there:

 

Are you actually asserting that you are absolutely 100% right, with no margin of error?

 

And yes, this question can bedevil purists of the left as well as the right. Dig it (and this is good news!) Your enemies are likely no more than 99% wrong! Possibly as little as 90%. Moreover, have you the character strength to sift through your opponents’ maelstrom of “wrongness” for those slivers where they actually have a point? 

 

We’ll come back to this. It’s not just about being the mature person. Entering and understanding your adversary’s head is a key ingredient that Sun Tzu recommended… for achieving victory.


There's still time to use some of these!!


footnotes

[1] This will come up again. Utah is probably the largest concentration of RASRs – Residually Adult Sane Republicans –disgusted, even outraged, by the Trumpian travesties. Outreach by moderate-liberal America would seem timely, even overdue. 

 

[2] The Right’s romance with Russia: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/false-romance-russia/603433/

 

[3] As Christopher Walken’s character in Blast From The Past dubiously observeswhen told that the Kremlin had simply dropped communist revolution – or at least all the surfaces and incantations: “You got to hand it to them,” he said, with errie brevity.

 

[4] The Inspector General of the United States http://davidbrin.com/nonfiction/inspectorgeneral.html

 

[5] The FACT Act: http://davidbrin.com/nonfiction/factact.html

 

[6]  See the signing ceremony, April 12, 2006, for the crowning achievement of Mitt Romney's governorship – a health insurance plan that was the template for the Affordable Care Act. The head of the Heritage Foundation crows over the role his group played in designing "Romneycare" based in the earlier Republican Party Health Plan for individual mandates and insurance buying markets or "exchanges" that originated at the Heritage think tank and that was touted as a way to use market forces to solve the problem of the uninsured.  http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/04/10/90621/heritage-romneycare/

 

[7] Think Progress: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/04/10/90621/heritage-romneycare/

 

[8] Karen McDougal released from her NDA: https://www.spin.com/2018/04/karen-mcdougal-nda-agreement-american-media/

 

[9] As of pub date, 10-25-19, it appears that civil servants are taking matters into their own hands, not waiting for Congressional subpoenas to step forward. I don’t mind seeing some of my “judo Suggestions” bypassed in such ways. We’ll be saved by heroes.

 

[10] In October 2019, Nobelist Paul Krugman wrote: “I don’t mean that Trump is stupid; a stupid man couldn’t have managed to defraud so many people over so many years. Nor do I mean that he’s crazy, although his speeches and tweets – ‘my great and unmatched wisdom,’ the Kurds weren’t there on D-Day – keep sounding loonier.” Krugman adds, however, that Trump is “lazy, utterly incurious and too insecure to listen to advice or ever admit to a mistake. And given that he is, in fact, what he accuses others of being – an enemy of the people – we should be thankful for his flaws.” Well… we’ll see. The same week, on Saturday Night Live, Weekend Update host Michael Che voiced (brilliantly) a meme I had been spreading about a new and clever way to deal with the weird-crazed phenomenon of Donald Trump. ““I don't know how to ask this, but are we sure that it's OK to make fun of this guy?” he asked. “Did you ever read Of Mice and Men? Remember how Lenny was really ‘strong?’ What if Trump is really strong? I've got a cousin who is also strong. And he loves alligators too, but we don't make fun of him.” https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/paul-krugman-trumps-mental-deficiency-may-actually-save-us-from-disaster-as-he-keeps-sounding-loonier/

 

[11] Minneapolis mayor: We saw Trump stiffing cities for his rallies, so we told him to pay up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/12/minneapolis-mayor-we-saw-trump-stiffing-cities-his-other-rallies-so-we-told-him-pay-up/

 

[12] Old fashioned terms like honor, courage, dedication, devotion, integrity, etc. These are core values for a lot of people. And they await rescue from hypocrites who have stolen them.

 

Saturday, October 17, 2020

More: What Would Adults Do? Or what MUST Democrats do, if they get power? Chapter 13 (part 2) of Polemical Judo

 Last time we covered the minimum things that are desperately needed, in order to save the Republic and our narrow, fantastic Enlightenment Experiment. 

I listed 31 things that have been mentioned or invoked by Biden, Pelosi, Harris, AOC, Bernie and many decent Republicans as tremendous areas of common ground, allowing us all to end the cheating, restore our alliances, bring back accountability, resume respect for facts/science, end capricious abuses of presidential power, and so on. 

Alas, you will find such a trim, straightforward list nowhere else, not even from Speaker Pelosi.

This time I will complete the chapter with proposals of my own!  Some will look familiar to many of you... for example I have been shouting for two decades that all of the inspectors general of the US Government should report to a neutral officer - the Inspector General of the United States - who is insulated by law from the kinds of outrageous pressures we've recently seen applied, by those evading accountability.

IGUS may be familiar to you. But do you recall my proposed way to make it impossible for a majority to trample a Congressional minority's power of oversight, ever again? 

This chapter assumes we'll win this phase of the Civil War and discusses what to do with that victory. It's important that somebody do this.

But first... as usual... a few news items.

== Hot blips from this week ==

Trump is clearly lying with statistics when he said the economy before COVID was only due to him. Most of the improvement happened under the Obama administration. And yet, my own chart is even better!

In the early days of the pandemic, President Trump downplayed the virus, while his economic advisers were telling wealthy donors otherwise, enabling them to shift investments and profit from a crisis that hurt the rest of us. No wonder the Adelsons are using Chinese Communist Party cash - laundered in their Macao casinos - to funnel a staggering $75 million into a Trump-backing super PAC.

A different Pac - or pack of capering MAGA faux-intellects concocted this meme image to mock my ongoing challenge for any Fox-quoters to step up with large, escrowed stakes for manly wagers over any of their faux memes, from QAnon spells to Clinton incantations, all the way to ocean acidification and “deep state” allegations. 

They always flee when you demand cash money on the line - escrowed, because they can't be trusted to pay - in bets over provable/falsifiable assertions, to be judged by panels of senior, retired military officers.
It always works! Well, not to make money… the chickens always, always run away… sometimes squawking “I posted a jpeg-link and won!” Then, when the coast seems clear, as soon as the dust of their cowardice settles, they resume their traitor-fanatic war on all fact-using professions.


And now back to Polemical Judo... as if anyone pays attention to ideas anymore...

Second half -- What we could accomplish, if the way ahead opened…

 

 

Chapter 13 of Polemical Judo

 

Can We Make A Deal? “What would adults do?”

 

(Second half)

 

 

4.  True Judo. Do the unexpected.  

 

All right, those lists (that we posted here last time, from part 1 of Chapter 13) concentrated on measures that might be taken right away, even as committees and conferences begin pondering more complex issues, like long-term health care. Prominent Democrats should offer such lists, reminding splitters how briefly they held real power, in 1993 and 2009.

 

Now I want to do something that keeps faith with the title of this book. In section 4, below, we’ll offer judo moves that would make Newt Gingrich – at his most agile – seem a clunking doofus. We’re about to propose…

 

- 4.1  How the majority can both establish new precedents and gain huge public cred, by doing the unexpected… by honoring losing side.[1]

 

- 4.2 A sudden and unexpected judo move: give every House member one subpoena per termPlus modest suggestions about floor votes and filibusters!

 

- 4.3 We’ll know we’re emerging from this childish era – that Robert Heinlein predicted as the “crazy years” – when candidates agree to stipulation![2]

 

- 4.4 Here’s a choice one that’ll stick in their craws. Judo enact the ‘good parts” of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America!” This would convey a sense of maturity and willingness to take ideas from all directions. Plus it pokes the GOP, revealing that all pretense at reform was just another lie. But we’ll make it good. And it collapses the meme that Joe & Kamala are radicals.

 

- 4.5 And I’ll say more about one reform I think could make the most difference. Establishing the office and independent agency of the Inspector General of the United States.   

 

Let’s begin with one of my older (lightly updated) political posts. And yes, it seems naïve in an era I now call civil war. But gestures like the following could help lure millions of citizens back to civilized argument.

 

4.1 Honoring tens of millions of American “losers.” [3]

 

As we launch into another Presidential campaign, get ready for the same tiresome metaphors relating politics to sports, to war and even to revenge. The front-runner will fight to maintain his or her lead over the underdog in key battleground states where crucial clumps of electors are awarded by winner-takes-all. Those on the victorious side will gather every marble, leaving citizens on the losing side bitterly muttering about getting even next time.

 

Are we really on opposing armies, bent on total victory over our neighbors? Yes, elections and majority rule constitute a vast improvement over coercive aristocracies of the past. Still, majority rule isn't perfect. A nation that treats the losing minority with contempt is asking for trouble.  (And yes, this includes those lonely “flyover states who feel so neglected – whether it’s true or not.)

 

In fact, majority rule is already tempered in American political life. Congress seldom passes a law supported by just 51% of the people, while vigorously opposed by nearly half. Minority objections are eased by negotiation and tradeoffs. Small but intensely passionate lobbies may effectively veto measures that are desired only tepidly by much greater majorities. This dance of factions can be frustrating when popular measures get sidetracked by vigorous advocacy groups like, say, the National Rifle Association. And yes, that is still a far cry from consensus – especially in recent years.

 

Things are different in the Executive Branch. Consider Ronald Reagan's "landslide" victory over Walter Mondale in 1984, or Lyndon Johnson's over Barry Goldwater in 1964. If your candidate wins by a 60/40 vote margin, you can legitimately call it a ringing victory, but it still means four in ten voting citizens did not want your guy in office. To that forty percent, the word "mandate" translates as – drop dead! All the more so after a close election, or – as we all saw in 2000 (and 2016) – when odd-suspicious electoral quirks put in office the man with fewer popular votes. Even if Al Gore had come out ahead in the Florida recounts – or Hillary visited Wisconsin – eking Electoral College victory to accompany their popular vote win, would that razor-thin endorsement entitle them to claim a clear cut mantle of history?

 

Can 50.1 percent legitimately ignore the wishes of 49.9 percent who disagreed?

 

The European model of coalition parliamentary government offers little to America. We've seen benefits to letting a president appoint loyal officers, governing without undue interference from within. Still, George Washington understood the temptations of human nature, which can transform well-meaning leaders into lonely monarchs, broody, isolated, and paranoid. It is disturbing to witness our top elected official insulate himself (as has happened often in living memory) with all access to the inner sanctum barred by an ideologically driven staff, justified by a sense of entitlement, cultural mandate and narrow-minded mission. [4]

 

An inquiring press can help to moderate this trend, as do Constitutional checks and balances. Yet, more is needed, like some way to honor the millions of Americans who lose each election – whether by squeaker or landslide –ensuring that their concerns will at least be heard.

 

There is precedent. Originally, the Constitution awarded a prize for second place – the Vice Presidency. After near-disaster in 1804 the system was amended, making the VP more a deputy, chosen by the winning party. Still, it’s clear the Founders intended for the losing side to get something.[5]

 

So, might there be some way to acknowledge the losing minority – or even a losing majority – without grinding their face in humiliation, making them determined to do likewise, when their turn comes around? First, here's an idea that may seem a bit silly. Imagine how it might have mollified millions of Democrats, and created a more collegial atmosphere after the bitter election of 2000, if just one of George W. Bush's electors had switched sides when it came to the vote for Vice President. By helping install a Democrat as VP, they could have made a gesture toward government by negotiation, consensus and respect, while still handing the reins of actual power to their chosen man. All right, that suggestion is far-fetched (if thought provoking.)

 

But here’s another one that's plausible, requiring no miracles or kludges, no meddling in the Constitution or legitimate powers of the chief executive. Yet, it’s so reasonable that only a churl could possibly refuse. Imagine a candidate or new President-Elect making the following pledge:

 

“If I win, I promise to ask my honorable opponent to pick a panel of Americans who will have control over my appointment calendar one afternoon per month. And I expect my opponent to serve on that panel. On that afternoon, I shall meet with – and listen to – any individuals or delegations that panel may choose. Millions of Americans will then know that I do not live in a tower of ideological isolation. I will answer questions and hear dissenting points of view.”

 

Such a pledge would cost a candidate and president little to make or to fulfill. There is no obligation to act on what the delegations say, only to be accessible, listening occasionally to more than one ideology. More than one brain trust of cloned advisors. Indeed, the legitimacy of any administration will be enhanced if we see the president receive articulate, passionate emissaries, representing diverse opinions and walks of life.

 

During the first era of our republic, private citizens used to knock on the door of the White House and ask to see their nation's leader. As recently as the time of Harry Truman, there was a slim chance of seeing the president somewhere in public, buying socks for real, not as a publicity stunt. There is genuine peril in losing this connection between power and everyday life. So, if today's president cannot safely venture among us, representatives of sundry outlooks should have a route to him or her. Not just public figures, but individuals from the ranks of the poor and dispossessed might win a chance to plead their case before the highest official in the land. Even if such meetings don't benefit multitudes, at least a few worthy petitioners might get hearings, and possibly some justice.

 

Moreover, this would give those tens of millions who lost the election something. A token – or perhaps more. A vow to listen. If a nominee's goal is to live as a potentate, insulated from his or her countrymen, this is one pledge to avoid. But if the aim is to be president of all Americans, then what harm could such a promise do?

 

4.2 The Subpoena Individuation

 

This idea’s simple. Spread the power of subpoena – and include the minority party! 

 

Why should Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her committee chairs do this, when that minority party is Republican? 


Seriously Congressional Democrats; remember, a day will come when you'll be back on the outs. (The lesson of 1994 and 2010!) Now is the time to set permanent precedents and rules that ensure you'll still have a little power to poke after truth. Establish processes now so that even a congressional minority can hold some future Bush-like or Trump-like administration somewhat accountable!

 

One way: give today's GOP minority what they never had the maturity to give you – the general power to summon witnesses and demand some answers, even when their party is out of power.

 

Better yet, give every individual member of the House one subpoena per term, that can compel testimony from any person before one of that member's sub-committees for three hours. Or if that’s too much, allow any three representatives to jointly issue one subpoena per year beyond those voted by committees – and provide a venue with some staff support. That should cause some backroom wrangling! One for every three members – that’s 140 member-chosen testimonies... maybe sixty a year – or per term – from the minority party. A large enough number to make sure that pokes-at-truth will keep going on, even during eras when a single party machine dominates every branch of government. And yet, it's small enough not to disrupt House business overmuch.

 

Think about it. Pelosi and Schumer can afford that. It wouldn’t block legislation. Would some mad-rightists use their subpoenas to annoy? BFD! Just imagine how valuable that would have been for minority Democrats, during the first two years of the Trump Era.

 

There’s another aspect to this. Many Republicans would feel motivated to break party discipline and hoard their subpoenas for use in some way that impresses the home district. And thus, it could help shatter their caucus cohesion, encouraging individual autonomy![6]

 

The public relations benefits are clear, demolishing forever any accusations that “Democrats run roughshod over minority party rights.” 


And if Republicans later reneged? That would also be a black eye before the American public. (And individual GOP reps might rebel.)

 

When I first offered this proposal it was 2007 and Democrats in the House seemed to be riding high. I added: “There is no way that Speaker Pelosi and the leadership will want to do this, now that the GOP is reduced to an irksome nuisance. Still, please think about it. Just giving them the right to grill a few people won't let them do much mischief to an open and honest and competent Obama Administration. Meanwhile, such a precedent could guarantee we'll never again have an era as dark as the Bush years, without the other side getting to light some candles.” 

 

Was I naïve? Or would we have been better off right now, if this precedent had been set back then?

 

Here are a couple more judo procedural moves that could maybe dilute leader power, a little, but inspire citizens to know which party’s on their side:

 

In both House and Senate, let any 45% minority bring up to five votes per month to the chamber floor. 

 

- First replace the idiotic tacit filibuster (60 votes needed to advance a bill) with the old-style talk-filibuster. But even more effective a partial reform – try treating filibusters like sports timeouts. Your party starts each session with a fixed number. When they’re gone, they’re gone. 

 

 

4.3 Why Candidates Should Stipulate

 

The previous two proposals for cross-party outreach don’t require that both sides be mature. They show how the winners of an election might gain favor with voters by both appearing – and truly being – the better and more grownup party, establishing precedents that could serve us all well.

 

The next one truly does require that both sides be capable of rising above the fray, with some sincerity and wisdom. [7] Yeah, yeah, I’m a scifi-fantasy author. But as Garth said in Wayne’s World, “Hey, it could happen!”

 

Let’s start with a flawed example that stands out, instructive even in its failure. In 2008, Nancy Pelosi – then Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives – sat with former Speaker Newt Gingrich on a small couch in front of the Capitol, to film a brief joint statement.[8] They began with a charming – some might say artless – admission that they had few areas of agreement. But the pair then went on to urge action on the pressing matter of climate change. No specific methods came up, whether government or incentives for industry. Both did avow faith in our ability to develop clean, efficient energy systems, if we make it a priority.

 

Alas, what followed was emblematic of this (so far) benighted century. Fox and the GOP establishment raged at Gingrich, eviscerating his betrayal of the Hastert Rule against seeking common ground with the enemy. [9] So volcanic was the response, especially from Republican donors, that Newt unctuously swerved back into line.[10] And yes, I’m beginning this section on “stipulation” with an abject failure – but a colorful one, that’s still a bit inspiring.

 

It’s been said that a politician gets to be perfectly honest just once in a long career – at its end. Refreshing candor sometimes pours after an old pol has faced the last campaign. No more fund raisers, or need to flatter voters. One final chance, before the cameras, to tell the truth.

 

Not all retiring officials spill their hearts, but when they do it can be colorful. Take the day in 1991 when both Republican Senator Warren Rudman and Democrat Paul Tsongas withdrew from public life. They made headlines by jointly suggesting that everyone was at fault for the country's condition at the time, from then-President Bush to the then Democrat-controlled Congress, all the way to the American people. The pair castigated politicians of all parties for not telling citizens that burgeoning budget deficits threatened our economic well-being. Responsible economists agreed. A few even credit Rudman and Tsongas for spurring reforms that helped lead to the Clinton era surpluses.

 

A more recent example of post-retirement candor came with ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill’s revelations about the second Bush Administration. It resulted in a fire storm of attacks from his own party. O’Neill’s explanation for this candor? That he was “old and rich” and unafraid to speak his mind.

 

However one feels about those specific examples, we can all agree they are rare. One of the chief flaws of our electoral system is that real candor is punished. Both sides may rail against each other, but they'll never aim bad news at us. Even if both nominees believe in their hearts that the public needs to face some hard truth, neither will dare be first to say it, lest the other side take advantage. Think about it. Throughout the coming election we will learn how the candidates disagree on a myriad issues, plus platitudes that voters want to hear. But logically, there’s a third category – areas where these well-informed professionals agree with each other, but are afraid to speak out. We’ll never hear whatever topics or beliefs occupy that logical box, because neither candidate will dare speak first.

 

Now consider: there’s no political cost to telling voters what you really believe... if your opponent says the same thing.[11]

 

Yeah, that statement sounds absurdly simpleminded. The metaphor for an election “give ‘em hell” combat. But wait. What's wrong with two leaders finding a patch of consensus amid a sea of discord? We cheer when heads of state overcome differences between nations, finding common ground. Why not between candidates?

 

It’s called stipulation... as when the attorneys representing opposite sides in a trial agree to agree about a set of points, helping move the trial forward by focusing thereafter on areas where they disagree. So will you bear with me for a "what-if" thought experiment? A weird, but possible scenario? [12]

 

Sure, it's absurd to even imagine this happening with Donald Trump. But suppose, amidst the 2008 campaign, Republican candidate John McCain and his Democratic opponent Barack Obama were to suspend mutual attacks to meet for an afternoon. First, they and their staffs would cover issues such as scheduling debates, and how to prevent spirals of mudslinging. The people would applaud any agreement on fair campaigning principles. Heck, just seeing them talk to each other like adults might be refreshing. Think how the image might affect the rancorous mood we see in politics today, independent of policy disagreements.

 

So far, so good. Only then suppose the two nominees do something unprecedented. They go for a walk, unpressured by cameras and media flacks, seeking just a few points of consensus.

 

Don’t dismiss this too readily! For all his faults, McCain did this sort of thing before. So have Democrats like Bill or Hillary Clinton and Obama. Oh, neither candidate will change the other's mind concerning major divisions. But here we have two knowledgeable public persons, concerned about America's future. Surely there would be some areas of overlap? Things that both of them feel we, as a nation, should do.

 

Now imagine that this overlap results in a joint statement. Though reiterating a myriad points of disagreement, they go on to make public, simultaneously, their shared belief that America should, for its own good, pass law “X”, or repeal restriction “Y” or reform a particular flaw. Further, they agree that neither will attack the other for taking this stand.

 

No longer pandered to, a lot of folks might say – “Gosh, if both of them agree that the country needs this strong medicine, let's give it some thought.”

 

This would not free candidates from the stifling effects of mass-politics. But it could let them display something we've seen rarely... leadership. Even statesmanship. Setting aside self-interest in favor of hard truth, telling the people what they need to hear, whether they like it or not.

 

Unprecedented? Well, actually, it happened before, during the Presidential campaign of 1940. When Franklin Roosevelt was running for a third term, he approached the Republican candidate, Wendell Wilkie, to negotiate just such a stipulated agreement in the area of foreign policy. Britain badly needed escort vessels for the North Atlantic and the U.S. had over-age destroyers to spare. But Roosevelt feared political repercussions during a campaign in which he was already under attack for breaking neutrality. Wilkie agreed to FDR’s request, and declared that lend-lease would be his policy too, if he were elected.

 

Everyone benefited – Wilkie rose in stature. FDR got his policy implemented, and the world was better off because political advantage got briefly put aside for the common good. On other issues, Roosevelt and Wilkie battled as fiercely as ever. Yet, that historical act of stipulation shines as in memory.

 

How might today's politics differ if two adults – each the standard bearer of a major party – agreed to let it be known how, in a few ways, they agree? Might they take on some of our most politically impossible subjects? Perhaps a cow as sacred as the Social Security retirement age, a compromise on gun control, some campaign finance reform, or perhaps shifting strategy in the endless, brain-dead War on Drugs? That would still leave plenty for us to fight over, don't worry.

 

Is this quixotic proposal too much to ask of today's opportunistic brand of politician?[13] Perhaps. Still, American politics can evolve. Only during the most recent generation has the tradition of Presidential debates become so entrenched that no front-runner can now duck them. Ancient hurdles of age, race, and gender are falling. So why not barriers against candor?

 

Might the Candidates’ Post-Convention Stipulation Summit become traditional, like doldrums in July and mudslinging in October? Someday, the whole nation may look forward to the occasion, once every four years, with a sort of delicious, nervous anticipation – awaiting the one day when two eminent politicians will say not what is politically wise, but what is simply wise.

 

Now let’s put that dreamy fantasy aside, and get back to metaphors of war.

 

 

4.4 Judo enact the ‘good parts” of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America!” 

 

All right, I am beating this drum pretty hard. But the best way to learn judo is by defeating it! Remember, too, that the “good parts”[14] truly did attract millions to believe (*cough*) that Gingrich’s party wanted reform:

 

Among the better “contract” ideas that were betrayed:

 

- requiring all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
 

- arranging for regular comprehensive audits of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
 

- limiting the terms of all committee chairs and party leadership posts;
 

- banning the casting of proxy votes in committee and law-writing by lobbyists;
 

- requiring committee meetings to be open to the public;
 

- guaranteeing an honest accounting of our Federal Budget.

 

Elsewhere I point to ways that this good promise – and subsequent hypocritical betrayal – could launch into genuine Congressional reforms, starting with restoring independent advisory agencies for science, technology other areas of skilled analysis, to counsel Congress without bias or dogma-driven pressure. [15]  This might ensure that technical reports may not be re-written by politicians - or worse, lobbyists -changing their meaning at the last minute.

 

As I’ve said repeatedly it would convey a sense of maturity, plus really dig at the GOP, saying clearly that they had been liars. And yet still, we’ll cull the bad and enact the stuff the people really wanted, turning lies into truth.

 

 

4.5 Create the office of Inspector General of the United States…[16]

 

…or IGUS, who will head a uniformed agency akin to the Public Health Service, charged with protecting the ethical health of government. It’s something I’ve long pushed – (it’s in the FACT Act) - that could make more of a difference than any other proposal. 

 

And yes, I saved this one – likely the most important suggestion of all – till the very end of the chapter. 

 

Currently, the inspectors – or IGs – in all government agencies experience some conflict of interest, having to investigate people who appointed them and to whom they are beholden. That will change when IGs are appointed out of a dedicated and disciplined service, reporting directly to IGUS. 

 

The Inspector General of the United States will advise the President and Congress concerning potential breaches of the law and will have authority, independent of the Justice Department, to summon grand juries. IGUS will create a corps of trusted observers, cleared to go anywhere and assure the American people that the government is still theirs, to own and control.[17]


And yes, I am dreaming to even imagine that politicians - even the good guys - will be at all interested in fresh strategic... or even tactical... ideas. Alack.


Footnotes

[1]   Honoring the losing side. http://www.davidbrin.com/nonfiction/losingmajority.html

 

[2]  Candidates might show their maturity through… stipulation! http://www.davidbrin.com/nonfiction/candidatestipulation.html

 

[3] Originally posted: http://www.davidbrin.com/nonfiction/losingmajority.html

 

[4] Yes, I wrote this long before Donald Trump got installed by elements wishing us harm.

 

[5] President Lincoln famously appointed former Whigs and Democrats to his Republican Cabinet. The Team of Rivals. https://www.amazon.com/Team-Rivals-Political-Abraham-Lincoln

 

[6] Again, if gopper reps used theirs, while in minority, then it could establish a firm precedent for when – not if – Democrats slump back into exile! Think how valuable that would have been, during the 22 out of 26 years the GOP owned the House. Especially 2017-2019, when that rule could have peeled away at Trumpian travesties.

 

[7] http://www.davidbrin.com/nonfiction/candidatestipulation.html

 

[8] Pelosi-Gingrich “couch commercial” jointly urging climate action. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154

 

[9] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gingrich-feels-the-heat-for-appearing-in-global-warming-ad-with-pelosi

 

[10] So furious was the reaction from the right that Gingrich made abject pilgrimages of abasement before the Koch Brothers and other GOP powers, banishing forever-more his science-loving-statesman side and doubling down on the ‘loyal-gladiator.’ His reward for vociferously supporting Donald Trump was to be the only major GOP leader between Reagan and Ryan honored – or even mentioned - at the 2016 Republican National Convention. Pelosi, too, took some flack from her left – which she easily shrugged off, as a large majority of Democrats approved. The lesson? Courage and enlightenment ain’t easy. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gingrich-feels-the-heat-for-appearing-in-global-warming-ad-with-pelosi

 

[11] But… but Newt on the couch! Okay, I wrote this in a slightly more hopeful time. But such times may come again.

 

[12] Again, this book is a mélange of edited and update essays, articles and postings I’ve written over the years. That explains much of the irksome repetition! And also some of these time travel artifacts that I’ve decided to leave in place.

 

[13] Reminder, except for some light updating, this essay is from mid 2008. And yes, I know how absurd it looks, slipping Donald Trump or Mike Pence into this scenario. But, times can and must change.

 

[14] “Should Democrats Issue Their Own 'Contract with America'?” http://www.davidbrin.com/nonfiction/contract.html

 

[15] http://www.davidbrin.com/nonfiction/advisoryagencies.html

 

[16] http://www.davidbrin.com/nonfiction/inspectorgeneral.html

 

[17] IGUS will be appointed by a commission consisting of all past presidents and retired justices of the US Supreme Court, with advice and consent of Congress. Note a historical item. When Sun Yatsen crafted the 1911 constitution of the Republic of China, he established the Inspectorate as a separate branch of government, independent of the Executive and even the Judiciary.