Assessing the political life of Jimmy Carter

I think we have to ensure we don't overstate Carter's presidency in light of what followed. Erik Loomis, who got his PhD in History at University of New Mexico, where I am currently seeking my Master's in History, and is a respected historian back east, wrote a great political-historical obit on Carter immediately after Carter's death at the ripe age of 100. I also appreciated this essay from a man who was a major player at the Carter Center, who loudly and unfairly resigned after Carter published his prescient and prophetic book, "Peace, Not Apartheid" in November 2006. Yeah, Steve Berman, you definitely needed to apologize to Carter, and I am glad you did so while he was alive.

However, the following need to be recalled about Carter's presidency:

1. In retrospect, Carter may be best described as the first post-New Deal Democratic Party president or first modern Democratic neoliberal president. Carter never understood the importance of labor unions, first off. He helped kill what was the last moment for the rest of the century and through now to pass important labor law reform legislation. He refused to intervene and speak publicly and strongly for the deeply labor law reform bill, and let right-wing Republicans in the Senate win a filibuster by one vote short of cloture to end the debate. The labor law reform had already passed the House. At one point, Carter's staff threatened to veto the bill if it came to his desk. I know that last one because I was a congressional intern in that summer of 1978 and was listening in to meetings of what were called The Irish Mafia led by Tip O'Neill and Ted Kennedy and their staffs (they would appear at meetings, but not stay for long). I worked for a lower level congress member of that group, Eddie Pattern (D-NJ). There is a reason why Teddy Kennedy finally decided to primary him, and this refusal to push for labor law reform was a major factor in that decision. There is also now reason to understand machinist union leader, Bill Wimpisinger's acid comment. When asked, "What can President Carter do to restore union people's faith in the Democratic Party," Wimply responded, "Die."

2. Carter appointed Paul Volcker to head the Fed to crush the economy with high interest rates. Carter strangely thought that would help him in his re-election campaign for 1980. Carter didn't really believe in New Deal type of legislation and instead supported tax cuts. This leads to number three...

3. Carter, the same summer he said the Congress should not take up the labor law reform bill because he was pushing for the Panama Canal Treaty, pushed for and got the first capital gains tax cuts, beating Reagan out on the topic by three years. Again, I was there, and was shocked at what I saw, because I was a Jimmy Carter fan, especially after reading Hunter Thompson's famous essay in Rolling Stone.

4. Carter's administration had released his proposed military budgets for a second term of 1981-1985. If one reads it, one sees the Reagan military build up would have occurred anyway. Carter's defense chief, Harold Brown, was a major war hawk (meaning war criminal for the rest of us).

5. Carter dithered while the oil companies reaped tremendous profits in the last two years of his term. He simply accepted the oligopoly in oil as capitalism, and, like another one term engineer, Herbert Hoover, believed there was little he could do.

6. Despite placing human rights at the center of his rhetoric, Carter presided over the rise in Central American death squads, and funneled money to Guatemala through Israel, when the Guatemalan death squads became too hot a topic in the US Congress. One needs to at least skim the late journalist Penny Lernoux's "Cry of the People" (1980 edition), which shows the continuities from Nixon through Carter in this regard. I will give him props for Robert White, his El Salvador ambassador, who saw how horrible the death squads were and how the El Salvadoran government was ultimately behind those squads, no matter their denials. And with regard to Iran, he had no business listening to David Rockefeller and the Cold War Establishment in having the Shah return to the US for medical treatment--which was true this time, but which Iranians believed was the same lie told in 1953 when the US was plotting its infamous coup against Mossedegh to reinstall the Shah. Carter brought on himself what became the Iranian hostage crisis--though it is now fairly clear Reagan's people interfered with the hostages' return in 1980 to ensure Reagan could make Carter look weak.

7. Despite the above, as with Clinton, Obama, and Biden, there are bright spots to be sure. They start with judicial appointments, and a few brave souls who Carter appointed to administrative roles who tried, in good faith, to do good business regulatory work. There were increases in the minimum wage, but those were hard-fought with a Carter White House which gave the rhetoric but wondered, in the meetings with Congressional leaders, why increases were necessary. Again, as stated at the start, Carter did not really understand the New Deal or the utility of labor unions.

So, please. It is more than appropriate to mourn the end of Carter's long life, and describe him as the greatest ex-president since John Quincy Adams. One may state in that regard how he was so often a force for peace, post-presidency, and his gallant work with getting Israel and Egypt to peace (mostly pushing Israel, one must add). But, please do not overstate what was a failed presidency. He was not hampered by a bad faith Congress the way John Quincy Adams was, for example, which opposed Adams even on things they agreed with him about in order to make him a failed president. Carter had much more ability to make good things happen, and his micromanagement and his inability to get beyond neolib nostrums that opposed New Deal politics ultimately did him in.

After the Ordeal, but Out of Season: A post-mortem from my FB page-post. For posterity?

 I wrote all this on my FB page. And I now repeat it here, with slight edits, for blogging posterity. :)

My daughter called around 1:30 am my time in New Mexico when I had been sleeping. My initial thoughts in response to her disbelief (she was shocked, but not surprised) were as follows:

1. Harris put Israel above the Republic. Her strategy to get white women Republican voters failed. Arab- and Muslim-Americans in Michigan appear to be deciding to put themselves at risk rather than even tacitly support genocide of their relatives. College kids in Michigan decided risking real fascism was better than supporting genocide, too. Just as I feared across the board. And it looks like this had an effect in Wisconsin and the now largely pro-union, but minority-led union, Nevada (where "none of the above"--a Nevada innovation--won 1.3%).

2. This is the angry male election, including Gen-Z men and high school diploma working-class men. And these men wonder why women in their statuses won't fuck them anymore. Also, for black and Latino men who supported Trump, your families need to have an intervention with you. Seriously.

3. The late poll in Iowa? Dead wrong. Waaay wrong.

4. Harris won NM by five points and the Greens didn't even make 1%. RFK, Jr. got twice as many votes. Cryptobros rejoice at 1% My vote didn't cause Harris to lose, but Stein votes will cause Trump to win Michigan. But, see #1. This is on you, Kamala. On. You.

I'm going back to sleep. I have class tomorrow (later this morning?). Oh well.

UPDATE AT 4:25 AM AFTER A FITFUL SLEEP:

May I offer the macroeconomic analysis here? Inflation was generally higher in other economically advanced nations than in the US. Most voters in most of these nations didn't know about inflation except in their own nation. Since 2022, most incumbent executive leaders lost their spots. The Dems were always going to have a hard time in 2024 because the US marginal or swing voters don't know about inflation in Europe or elsewhere. And they never really understood how much corporate oligopolistic practices drove inflation, starting with the oligopolistic oil companies.

Therefore, to overcome that structural and economic based political disadvantage, this was a get-out-the-base-vote election. And true to form, the Republicans leaned into their smaller base and picked up the marginal swing voters they needed in enough states under our Electoral College system. The Dems? Well, the Dems pissed on their larger coalition or base. This was ultimately proving once and for all, David Frum's formulation: The Republican Party leadership fears its base. The Democratic Party leadership hates its base.

The biggest constitutional irony is Harris may still likely prevail in the popular vote, though we would need to count "none of the above" and "Green" votes, I think. But, right now, Trump may win 51% per the NYT. Still, our Founders, if they could be brought back, would be appalled at what just occurred. The reason they compromised on the Electoral College was not only to please enslavement states, but because they did not trust even their white male (and minute black male numbered) property owners to get things right for president. We know they would not have supported Trump because, in the 1800 election, the elite people ensured that Burr would not win. We know that because we must remember how Hamilton, Jefferson's nemesis through the 1790s, switched to Jefferson rather than let Burr win. Burr was seen by most of the influential people and elites as too ethically-challenged. And Burr looks like a saint compared to Trump in that department. Oh, a sad irony for our still-brilliant, though flawed, Founders.

(UPDATE: November 7, 2024: Man, was I wrong on this last part! Harris lost the popular vote by about four million. More startling, she underperformed Biden from 2020 by over 10 million. Trump also lost around 2 million from 2020. I think one has to count COVID deaths in small part. However, I do believe Harris' tamping down enthusiasm from various parts of the Democratic Party base had its effects for Harris, and not just the sexism and racism people often have. What I also have read is the economy did push those marginal-can't decide voters Trump's way, which is, again, what I am talking about further above and why the Dems' larger base needed to be far more excited.)

"UPDATE: November 12, 2024: Well, now it looks like the missing votes were far, far less. Looks like a 2020 vs. 2024 delta of 1.5 million more in 2020, if that. And Trump may be closer to 50% than 51%. Still, that's a lot of people who couldn't vote in 2020 but got to vote in 2024, and COVID deaths and normal mortality rates on top of that may not be netting out. I remain convinced Dems pissing on their base had an adverse effect.)

And perhaps this is the long-awaited karma of Comanches, Dine, Chickasaws, Creeks, and Iroquois, among others. As my scientific son has said for months now, as he played with Tarot Cards,"The Tarot Cards say we will get what we deserve." The problem, of course, is a lot of people who don't deserve it will suffer.

As for me, in this moment, I am now more alienated from most people than I think I've ever been. I am sick of resistance liberals, and disgusted with Zionists and Republicans. Oh well. Again. ___________

I titled this post based upon two progressive rock instrumentals from the early to mid 1970s. The melodies and overall musical structures capture my mood. "After the Ordeal" is from Genesis' 1973 album, "Selling England By the Pound." The song comes right after "The Battle of Epping Forest", which is about the always-senseless gangland warfare in a British forest. The last lines of the Battle song are: "There's no one left alive/Must be a draw/So the Black Barons toss a coin to settle the score." The other song, "Out of Season," musically captures my alienation, but also my determination to move forward The song is from the legendary Canterbury prog rock band, Soft Machine, released in 1975.

The Atlantic's take on young people and reading: not as bad as its take on Israel, but not good

I guess The Atlantic wants to expand its embarrassing takes beyond Israel to now college undergraduate reading habits. William Dean Howells continues to be, well, howling.

My take on this is that the quote early in the article about professors whining "'the kids don't read' is as old as colleges" is correct. I had a seminar course as an undergaduate at Rutgers in the 1970s with an old guy, already in his early 70s, who said it every week. In those days of the mid to late 1970s, at Rutgers, most students I observed, including majors in Political Science or History, the two disciplines in which I majored, didn't read most of the books they were assigned. I hated the classes where the profs tried to lead discussions of the chapters or book students were supposed to have read because it was clear to me most of the class had not. They showed up to simply want the prof to spoon-feed them what the prof thought was important. I stopped attending many of those classes, or would leave before halftime of the class.

I admit that was not a good strategy to get As. Often, I would get Bs more than As, as, come test time, I would have a slightly different take on a reading. It was my view then that too many of my Rutgers professors were themselves fairly shallow and unable to transcend their own perspectives. However, if there was an extra credit question that was based on a footnote in the book at page 172, I would likely be the only one (or maybe one of two) to get the answer correct. I will also say I did best with the profs, like the great Cold War revisionist/US Foreign Policy History professor, Lloyd Gardner (still alive in his 90s last I checked!), who didn't do discussions. They simply assigned the eight to ten books you had to read and you were expected to read and understand. He would say, Come to office hours if a reading is too hard. In class, he lectured with supplemental information not in the books. It was one of the only times I ever took notes. I received As in each of the three classes I took from him. Yet, most History majors thought his classes were a terror. I would bet most of my fellow History majors who became teachers or profs are, to this day, probably not very bright--unless they grew up and realized you gotta read and think critically. :)

Even while I am in grad school at UNM, I continue to hear from people who attended grad school elsewhere, are currently in grad school, and even professors, that it is foolish and too much to read entire books. In my classes, there is, admittedly, A LOT of reading. For each class, most of the time, we have to read each week an entire academic book of two to three hundred pages PLUS write a paper on the book for submission before class--and then be ready to discuss in the class.

I realize The Atlantic is talking about undergrads, but I must say this: In my grad school classes, the quality of the discussions is actually better than I ever saw at Rutgers in the 1970s. I must also add I do have a two-level course this semester, meaning graduate and undergraduate students in the same class. My observation of the undergrads is there remains largely the same Bell Curve of who has read or not read the assigned readings as I saw as an undergraduate at Rutgers in the 1970s--maybe slightly better now.

The idea that today's young people are somehow deficient, when I see so many, many racist, xenophobic, transphobic, uninformed, ignorant assholes and idiots in my age level, tells me maybe this take from The Atlantic may not be correct. Really. Let's run through my ranting drill about my generation: Most Boomers are the reason the planet's oceans are starting to fry. Most Boomers happily accept being herded into the political duopoly. Most Boomers hated Bernie and would rather see fascism than somehow their taxes go up to help their children's or grandchildren's generation. Most Boomers learned long ago to support the US military-industrial complex mass murders, especially when perpetrated by the US' favorite client-state, Israel--and too many think criticizing Israel as an apartheid ethno-nationalist state is antisemitic. But, sure. The young people don't know how to read a book. Sure. For me, I start with the proposition of "Give the kids a break." And maybe hear the kids out for once. And if some of the best and brightest get angry and impatient at the challenges our society and planet face, instead of thinking they are too naive or need to grow up, apologize and ask them, "What can we do to make this better, even if it costs me more of my money?"

Thoughts on not watching the debate, and wondering about the aftermath

So glad I didn't waste my time watching last night's debate. I did read about the lies Trump told, easy ones to spot for me when I read them, and about Biden's old man looks, and doddering.

I do recall the 1984 presidential debates. Reagan looked really old (even though he was "only" 73 in 1984, younger than Biden and Trump are now) in the first debate against Mondale. Reagan had a sizable lead on Mondale, of course, but Mondale now had what media people called "momentum." In the second debate, expectations for Reagan were so low that the media pundits judged him the winner, even though, in the closing statement, Reagan rambled about him driving down Pacific Coast Highway (Highway 1) in the older days, ran out of time, and had to be cut off. See this at the 1:22 mark forward.

I remember watching this with a roommate who was a wealthy guy from Nigeria. We both thought Reagan clearly lost that second debate too. Then, we watched the pundits. And in the pre-Internet days, we could only gasp with frustration to listen to them say Reagan won the debate and was back on track. That congealed among people in the United States over the next 48 hours. And any hope for Mondale was dashed. It was, though, a perfect example of manufacturing consent.

I have only watched a relatively few national debates since then, meaning the 1992 debate with Perot, and Dem primary debates when Bernie was there--but not all of those either. I just realized that most people, even in the social media age, will be swayed by simplistic and trivial things, and legacy media messaging. It doesn't matter what I see.

For example, when Kamala Harris was on CNN after the debate--Jackie and I saw that--Anderson Cooper played a clip he said showed how bad Biden was. It was on the abortion issue. We watched the clip and were shocked to see Biden looked fine, even great while Trump looked even older than Biden. I have now seen another clip on the topic that is consistent with the media narrative. Yet, the one Cooper showed Harris was completely at odds with the narrative--yet Cooper insisted it was paradigmatic of the narrative he and the other talking heads were promoting. Oh, and I should say, I never saw Kamala Harris look and sound better than in that interview. She spoke in a way that was finally and seemingly genuine about policy. Also, showing comedians have a better gauge of how to present news, Jon Stewart had the clips showing doddering Biden, including the one where Biden confused the immigration and abortion issues in a dementia-caused way and another showing how Biden ended up saying he "defeated" Medicare. 

Oh well. It was nice nation while we lasted. Actually, not nice except for some moments and for mostly white people in the post-WWII period. Also, the Founders' debates remain one of the greatest intellectual moments in human history. Otherwise, it is settler colonialism all the way down. I have long wanted to stop and end the US Empire. However, I didn't want to stop and end the United States or its economic and political power to effectuate positive change in the world. I just wanted us to export development that was fair and kind, not corporate domination and bombings.

As I say, Oh well. If Biden doesn't quit or can't turn his campaign around, or change his enabling genocide in Palestine with US tax dollars, I guess mean, vindictive, dumb, and fascist Trump will return to the White House. Neolibs and MSNBC zombies will never see why this is primarily their fault. Oh. Well. Neil Postman was right. And maybe I was right, too, that Biden would have to step aside in the summer of 2024 (but I was very wrong in the details except for Israel-Palestine).*

*It is interesting to note Republicans don't care if their candidate has dementia (see: Reagan) and now don't care if their candidate is a rapist, tax fraud, and now convicted felon. Interesting all around as Republicans know their policies are anti-worker, anti-consumer, and anti-pretty much most Americans. All they have are cultural resentments and promoting prejudices, which works well in maintaining their ultimate dominance. My advice to Dems: Remember the Executive Branch is filled with tens of thousands of jobs, and most things are done by department heads and their staffs. Republicans know it doesn't matter if the president is doddering. That's how the second Reagan administration went. Oh, and I should add: If Biden steps aside, it is now likely a fight among Harris, Witmer of Michigan, and Josh Shapiro the surprise from Pennsylvania. It's then a 90 day sprint to November. 

An answer to a corporate Democratic Party PAC leader and a manifesto for New Mexico

I wish Jeff Apodaca would revert to his previous sensibilities and initial visions when he ran for governor in 2018. For reasons I find frustratingly odd, Jeff is pushing divisive rhetoric through his new PAC designed to go after so-called "progressive" Democrats in the State Legislature. His rhetoric consists of dividing New Mexican residents and citizens into rural vs urban, "moderates" (really conservatives) vs progressives, native New Mexicans vs outsiders, and worst of all, Hispanics vs Anglos. None of this rhetoric has any substantive meaning in terms of public policy. Worse, it looks as if the new PAC is raising significant money from oil/gas interests. But then, when Jeff gets to specifics, such as his idea to use the investment council as a means to diversify economic development, or increasing Medicaid reimbursements for doctors, I find I can agree with those two signature policy proposals--yet I am the suburban, progressive, relative newcomer (less than seven years) Anglo (well, Jewish-Italian guy from NJ who lived much of my adult life in CA).

I don't get what Jeff is talking about when he says progressive policies that got passed are what is ruining the State economically or even culturally. Is it the minimum wage increases, which are still lagging behind the cost of living by a country mile? Is it some movement toward environmental regulation, which still has our governor pushing for blue instead of green hydrogen, when both are pretty bad? Those are not progressive compared to many more economically successful states. Let's look on the positive side of the ledger from a relatively progressive perspective: Is it MLG/Democratic Party legislature's income tax cuts for lower income workers, and slight increase for the top earners? Or the governor getting rid of the state's social security tax on seniors? Oh wait! Is it the governor's greatest achievement, which is free public college tuition, which, by the way, has reversed the national trend and increased the number of young people attending college? No, wait, again! Jeff, is it the pro-choice abortion policies? Or protecting some trans people from discrimination? Or maybe it's the infrastructure redevelopment initiatives, however small. Tell me, Jeff, how is any of that ruining New Mexico in any way? Really, man. Just. Tell. Me.

I also don't get how Jeff has the audacity to assert progressives have run this state for twenty odd years. I may be a newcomer, but I studied this state's history as I love History with a capital H. I even taught it at a high school for a year before moving to overall US History. The history of the past twenty odd years is this: The legislature for most of that time was in the hands of the very conservative Dems and Republicans Jeff now claims he wants to promote. Plus, the new century began with a Bill Clinton pro-Wall Street clone, the late Bill Richardson, whose signature legislation (besides starting the film industry, a good thing) was income tax cuts skewed to the wealthy. Richardson also put in onerous requirements on teachers as he pushed for a meager raise in their starting salary to $30,000. Some progressive! Ugh. Then, the state endured eight years of a right wing, law and order reactionary Republican governor, Susanna Martinez. Jeff likes to tout he is a fifteenth generation New Mexican. So, how does he miss the facts I just laid out about who was really running this state for the past twenty odd years before the ascension of MLG, who was, when she was in Congress, a member of the Blue Dog Dems? I have said publicly over and over that she has been a great governor on a variety of fronts. I have, however, been disappointed in much of her second term, as I have felt she has genuflected to the oil/gas industry in ways I thought she should have overcome awhile ago. The better critique of our sometimes great governor is from the progressive side of the political ledger, not Jeff's purported side.

What makes me agree with the progressive critique of Jeff's PAC is the type of candidates Jeff is pushing for. I do feel like the PAC is a front for oil/gas interests, at least in large part. It appears Jeff is trying to resurrect the John Arthur Smith crowd who he had personally told me were a big part of why NM has economically lagged. I mean, really, Jeff, you are pushing for the return of Clemente Sanchez, who is a Hispanic version of John Arthur Smith. From my observations, experiences, listening, and reading on the history of this State, the State's business and political leaders should be pushing a few fundamental things:

1. Promote water conservation through direct subsidizing of farmers and ranchers to redevelop their irrigation systems. Just as FDR didn't care if this constituency voted for him in 1932 when he helped farmers and ranchers who suffered during the Dust Bowl, I don't care if these people vote Republican and hate people like me. I care about them either way. It is also consistent with what I believe the purpose of government, which is to help people and communities. I don't care about political parties as much as policies. So I am all in to subsidize improvements in farmer/rancher irrigation and water usage, so that all of us benefit. Also, we should spend the money, too, to capture the excess salt flow from rivers in the state as we lose a lot of drinkable water from that poor management. When we consider these two initiatives, which would cost maybe under $2 billion, and that farmers/ranchers alone use 70% of the water each year, this is an important public policy for future growth. With these two initiatives, we can then be prepared to grow the population in this State from two to ten million. Not that this happens overnight, or even in a decade. The point is to stop people telling me we can't have good things for people in this State because if we grow, we won't have the water. THAT is the key here, which is getting beyond this cynical, negative inertia as we promote a really good set of public policies.

2. We really need to run, not walk, with Jeff's great idea--which the Santa Fe New Mexican newspaper loves to laugh at Jeff about, when it definitely shouldn't--about making the State Investment Council an incubator for developing business. And let's put our best business and political minds, who have vision--again I don't care about which party to which they belong--in charge. Right now, Wall Street brokers make nearly $400 million a year off the $30 billion or more grant funds the State has. This is a ridiculous waste, as we know from the Big Short book and film how overrated the Wall Street brokerage firms really are. We need New Mexico's citizenry and leaders to be in a position to fund and develop the State's own growth. CA had successive Republican and Democratic Party governors who had vision. Yes, the problems CA has are not what we want. But, CA refused to follow the advice of its greatest economist, the 19th Century pro-Adam Smith economist (not a Marxist), Henry George. To protect New Mexicans when we start to have economic growth, we must put in limits on profits from merely owning real property. I know that sounds Marxist, but it is not. George's analysis was that economic development makes property in the areas that economically improve more valuable. This leads to both economic progress and more poverty (which was the name of his famous book that gets mentioned in high school history textbooks, but is not studied in economics classes for reasons that have to with propaganda, not reality). I want to ensure that every step we see in economic growth in this State puts New Mexican people first. Especially young people.

3. We as a State are sitting on what, nearly $10 billion, in cumulative rainy day funds on top of the nearly $30 billion in grant funds? Why not take $3.5 billion from the rainy day fund and simply buy PNM? Don't let its executives try another Avangrid merger nonsense. PNM has a strong employee infrastructure. So what if a few greedy executives leave? From my own experience, and Jeff knows this, too, which is part of why I supported him in 2018, executives are overrated compared to the people doing the day to day work of a company. We should also look into buying out NM Gas Co. from the owners in Canada, as its market value is probably not much different than PNM's. If NM is going to have a strong environmental set of policies that protect all New Mexicans--and I mean all, starting with oil/gas workers--the people should own the energy companies to which it pays utility bills every month.

4. NM is in a great position to gain lots of doctors due to the stupid and cruel abortion restrictions in TX, OK, and other states. I had said what Jeff said about increasing Medicaid reimbursement when I met with the governor when she ran for re-election in 2022. She listened to some extent and put into this year's budget nearly $80 million to increase Medicaid reimbursement. Medicaid pays way lower than Medicare to doctors for their services, and lower than private insurers. It is why doctors are under such economic pressure in this State, and the med malpractice lawyers don't help--and in fact hurt. I say this as a progressive again, but as a lawyer who represented professionals, including sometimes doctors, and know the tort law-lottery system here is far more pro-plaintiff than California's tort system. I know. You're shocked, right? Well, it's true. We need to protect doctors and nurses, and the first thing we should do is ensure they are well paid for when they save us--and they save us a lot. I know that from personal experience. So, let's spend the $300 million to get every doctor taking Medicaid patients to be paid as if they were Medicare patients. And let's get to single payer as nearly half the state is already under Medicaid, Medicare, and the VA. Just take care of the other half. Oh, and free medical school for those who will agree to stay for five years, and they must let the State send them to the rural areas especially. You know, like the old tv show, Northern Exposure. 

5. As for teachers, having been one and married to one, I can say this: Teachers need a right to strike. It is the law of this state they can't. It's illegal. We can strengthen the teaching profession if the teachers have the power to withhold their labor. No more begging for a three percent increase to the legislature. Teachers should be fighting against the ridiculous paperwork they have and this ridiculous and arrogant rule from the NM Public Ed Department that mandated five day weeks--an insult to the rural communities of this state, and an insult to good sense I should add. But back to paperwork. No other profession has the paperwork teachers have. It is beyond ridiculous the more I think about it.  Again, a strong union that can withhold labor can get the starting salary to $70K, which will make the profession attractive to young people majoring toward law, business, engineering, science. And it can end the senseless and onerous paperwork that undermines morale, and local communities should decide how many days the school year should be with the previous minimum of 155 days, which allowed for four day weeks based upon more hours each day akin to companies with ten hour four day week schedules. I was at the hearing on the matter, and I was so deeply impressed with the teachers and administrators who spoke from these rural communities. My God, Santa Fe politicians and administration people! What the hell is wrong with you?!

6. But, hey, what about oil/gas workers, you may say to me, as a suburbanite worried about climate change? Contrary to the NM oil/gas lobby, oil/gas workers are not 12% of the work force. The lobby is counting the person sitting behind the counter at the Allsups. Sorry, that is not an oil/gas worker. The actual percentage of the oil/gas work force is just under 3%. If this state embarked upon a strong infrastructure redevelopment, and frankly development, in a way to better connect the hamlets, villages, and towns that dot this relatively unique state (in terms of population distribution, first off), that would require a lot of blue collar workers. We must give first dibs to those oil/gas workers and guarantee at least ten years of the income they are currently making, or MORE to ensure they are respected for the important work they do. This way, if the State decides it can phase out some oil wells or coal mines, we don't get into the bullshit either/or arguments of jobs v environment. People in Hobbs and other oil/gas towns suffer a lot from cancer, leukemia, asthma rates, and poor air quality worse than probably Los Angeles on a bad day in 1978. It's not that the industry is really healthy for workers. We can do a lot toward mitigating effects from climate change. We'll need it. See the water issue which is number 1 above. Plus, connecting the hamlets, villages, and towns will foster further economic growth in the way economies of scale work.

7. I have said, almost since I got here, that NM has a politics that lacks faith in its people. I kept hearing among political types the late 19th territorial governor (and author of Ben-Hur!) Lew Wallace's line that every good idea comes to die when tried in New Mexico. Yet, New Mexicans I have met have been brilliant, creative, and above all, humane in their attitudes. Fun fact: NM tends to vote like CA much more than TX. Isn't that interesting? Also, how many know that, since 1912, NM has voted with the majority of Americans in every single presidential election (I am talking popular vote now) except in 1976 when NM barely voted for Ford over Carter. But other than that, every single time with the rest of America. That is why NM's legislature and Gov MLG signed onto the pact to overcome the Electoral College. Yup, NM voted for Gore and Clinton. This is where NM is not really all that unique after all.

I would say, however, NM history is relatively unique compared to nearly any other State in the USA and it does start with the 25 tribes and the fact that nearly half the State identifies as Hispanic or part Hispanic. But, that is not about substantive politics as much as Jeff would have us believe. And his Hispanics vs Anglos leaves out Native Americans, which is consistent with the continued refusal of State, county and local officials to consult with Native tribes. That is a disgrace and must change yesterday, not today. There is much to learn from strong communications with the 25 or so tribes in our State, starting with water development and distribution. There is also much to learn from the white, Hispanics, and Native folks in rural areas who continue to suffer and fall further behind in this economy driven by global corporate power and technological changes, including AI, which threaten humanity in ways only sci-fi writers have been able to conceive. When I get into deep dive conversations with politicians, I often propose, to no avail thus far, that the governor and executive officers visit these towns with a big oattag papers and a board to hold them, and meet people in the one building that would hold a decent number of people, and meet over two or three days at a time. The purpose would be to ask the people in these rural areas the following three questions (Heck, this would also work in ABQ in different districts!)::

a. What works in this hamlet, village, or town?

b. What used to work, but doesn't anymore?

c. What would you like to see start to work that has not even been tried to any extent? (And think of your children and what interests them as part of answering this question)

Notice how, when we start answering these questions, we are no longer worrying about pronouns, guns, and abortion? Notice, too, how we start to get at what the day-to-day lives of people are, and are about?

I had a lot of hope in Jeff when he ran what seemed like an insurgent progressive oriented campaign. In retrospect, I should have gone with MLG from the start, as I expected to support her when my wife and I landed here in 2017. It is funny that, when I arrived, I read two history books on NM, and a couple of novels situated in NM. When I transitioned from law to teaching, my first teaching gig was to teach ninth graders NM history, and I dove into the deep end of NM history to help young NM students have knowledge about, and even pride in, the history of their relatively unique state. I always say my two favorite governors in NM history are Larrazolo and Tingley, both of whom had vision. I think MLG will be in the top five and could be right up there with them, too, if she pushes a few more things. First, MLG needs to get family leave over the finish line. And then get the first three items on my list above.

I still think Jeff is capable of being a visionary type of leader. Why he chooses to use divisive rhetoric that bears no relationship with public policy is beyond me, and is one I would hope those around him ask him to consider.

An individual Israeli hostage woman's sexual assault, us men, and the historical context of Israel's occupation

It is terrifying to read about this young woman Israeli lawyer who became an initial hostage, but who was released late last year.

However, this is NOT proof of what the Israelis and US legacy corporate media have trumpeted. There are, in fact, Palestinian women's interviews and testimonies of having suffered sexual assault and even rape from individual IDF guards over the years, according to that recent UN group, which some pro-Israel supporters like to suddenly cite. The story of this criminally violated woman is about what individual men do with power over women who are from the other side in a war or conflict. What we men can also never forget is that individual men do this to women of their own ethnicity, national origin, or religion, too. Men don't need an actual war to hurt women in their (our) continuing war against women.

Israel's (and US legacy corporate media's) argument continues to be that Hamas had a SYSTEMIC policy to commit rape--and that it was "widespread" by Hamas soldiers. Again, this is not at all proven with this awful story. We really need to not be misled by the propagandists for Israel. That position of systemic rape is on par with the British government's lies about Germany's rape of Belgium during WWI. Were German soldiers committing atrocities in Belgium, including rape of Belgian women? Absolutely. German soldiers did engage in such conduct. However, this was not systemic or a matter of German military or political policy.

We really need to stop weaponizing sexual assault against women. We must have far more focus on holding mostly men accountable for rape and torture in war situations. It is why I so fully support the international women's groups who do brave and dangerous work to protect women around the globe. However, the context of the particular horrific act this Israeli woman describes is Israel's occupation and repression. I know that's hard to hear, but the occupation is what led to the woman being attacked and held hostage.

As I keep saying, to talk about October 7 in the way we do is to NOT learn the lessons of US history concerning the genocide of Native Americans. Focusing on Hamas' atrocities on October 7 is the equivalent of Americans saying, after a Comanche raid where torture and rape of white settlers occurred, "The Comanches deserve everything coming to them! We're gonna wipe them out!" Don't believe Comanche raids did not have instances of rape and torture? Start here and here.

Yet, no person of good will today would ever say a particularly horrible Comanche raid justified the removal and killing of the Comanche people. It would be supporting a racist policy against Comanches and a genocide in the form of collective punishment. It would also be an insult to our own nation's best values. Yet, many 19th Century Americans cried for the removal and even "extermination" of Comanches after the first major Comanche raid event of March 19, 1840.

The Comanches in the US historical period of the 1840s through 1880s were akin to Sparta in terms of military discipline, and, despite brutalities Comanche warriors may have committed in their war against the settlers, had a strength of cultural cohesiveness and character. What led them to be so hard on white settlers going through the mid and southwest? Think about the year 1840. The Comanches were not ignorant. They had people in their leadership who specifically saw and understood how Cherokees, and other tribes, had, in the 1820s and 1830s, tried to assimilate and use US Constitutional law to protect their rights. The Comanches saw how the US promises made to Comanches and others were broken in a way that was effectively a lie. Worse, not only were the Cherokees deprived of the property in Georgia and elsewhere in which they had lived in peace. The Cherokees and others were forcibly removed, resulting in starvation and disease and death. The Comanches therefore chose violent resistance rather than assimilation. Any of this sound familiar?

For me, this historical lens is a far more comprehensible way to understand what occurred on October 7, 2023. It does not minimize what occurred on October 7, 2023. Instead, it provides the context in which the events of October 7, 2023 occurred. This lens also helps us begin to recognize our common humanity. If we, as Americans, and human beings, truly want to learn from our nation's own19th Century US actions, then, today, regardless of our politics, religion, ethnic/national origin/religious background, we Americans must stand up for the Palestinian people as a whole. This is not about supporting Hamas, though propagandists for Israel keep wanting us to believe that.

IT IS GOOD POLITICS TO END AID TO ISRAEL FOR CONTINUING ITS BRUTAL ASSAULT ON GAZA AND OCCUPATION OF THE WEST BANK

It is also now good politics to be for lasting peace. The majority of Americans do not want to support Israel's brutal occupation and conduct any longer. The Dems are the one party of the duopoly of Republicans and Democrats which really has to effectuate a change on this important foreign policy and indirectly domestic issue. Of the two parties, only the Democrats' constituencies will be able to right the policy wrong of enabling Israel's conduct and its occupation of Palestinians. Otherwise, they will not come out when they know they speak for the majority of Americans and yet their voices are silenced.

If you think those who are threatening to not vote for Dems this fall are "purists," that is ironic for liberal Zionists and liberal supporters of Israel. It is they who need to understand the majority of Americans are not on Israel's side in what they are doing. If Trump is the existential threat corporate libs and Israel supporters continually claim (I agree with them, I must say), then Biden's policies on Israel must change. They must get to at least Bernie's Sanders' position, which is to end aid to Israel while they continue to engage in the behaviors they have before and after October 7. Time for liberal Zionists not to be purists. This election, they themselves say, is about US democracy or our republic. If so, then don't put the nation at risk for a country occupying another people and committing horrible acts on a daily basis. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is starting to see it, and he is the self-proclaimed "shomer" for Israel. Israel needs its leash tugged. And tugged hard in the form of no more military aid.

Right wingers who realize they don't know anything until after they get elected

This deep dive article from today's Washington Post on the education of a right wing school board member is well worth reading because it reveals almost directly the truly messed up and poisonous  right wing discourse that political normies, let alone progressives, only rarely come directly in contact. Even more beautifully though, the article gives us the full-on right wing's and even conservative's fundamental ideological misunderstanding of political philosophy rooted in their own fears, prejudices, and frankly ignorance--the last in the sense of being initially uninformed, and then compounded with misleading information.

Notice how this woman initially explains her political philosophy about being about "liberty" and "freedom." Then, we get almost immediately what she MEANS by those terms:

“As soon as you start to give privileges to one group, you are taking away from or neglecting others,” Wenhold said. “So, I do think that the solution is going back to teaching our kids that we are all equal in the eyes of God.”

There it is. The zero-sum political philosophy rooted in fear and prejudice. And the line about "God" I'll get to in a bit.

But, first things first. This poorly educated middle aged white woman is concerned that telling white, heterosexual, evangelical right wing Christinan folks in particular they can't publicly discriminate any longer against darker skinned people, non-Christians, or non heterosexual people is itself discrimination. It is, but in a sophist's way. And it is cynical prejudice posing as fairness. To accept such thinking against anti-discrimination laws creates a fundamental contradiction that negates or undermines basic civic rights for a whole bunch of people who are not, well, white, heterosexual, evangelical right wing Christians. The way out of the seemingly "logical" conundrum is why any practical and morally based political philosophy needs to continually recognize tensions that require an enlightened society to balance "liberty" and "equality." If we go too far in one direction, we undermine the other. And even with DEI, we are not at the "too far" in favor of "equality," folks. Really, we're not. 

This woman's fear of earth-bound equality is so deep that it initially drives her to want to decry somehow the unfairness in trying to promote more young women to take courses in STEM. Her twin sister wisely informs her not to make a commotion about the award the school district won to promote more high school females to go into STEM, but her miseducation remains troublesome to her and lingers in her mind.

When teaching government/civics high school classes, I did my best to explain the need to balance "liberty" and "equality" and that the true understanding of those terms arise in the particular, not airy philosophy. I would also archly explain to my civic students to be wary of any speaker or writer they hear or read who begins with a cry for "liberty" or "freedom". It is usually a cry for the right to discriminate against, or repress other people. I would then remind the students who had me in US History classes how those who most often spoke and wrote about "liberty" and "freedom" in their speeches were the ones trying to defend their "right" to literally own other people.

This woman, though, provides us something else. She implicitly recognizes her stance as problematic and prejudiced against even her own gender. So, in her statement about what she meant by "liberty" and "freedom," she added the absolutely vacuous phrase ""we are all equal in the eyes of God." So, lady, we're supposed to wait till we're dead to have "equality"? How convenient for you, Whitey-Normie. How convenient.

Again, recognizing the balancing and overlapping meanings of airy terms such as "liberty" and "equality" allows us to promote a society that allows all to meaningfully participate in our civic or daily public lives. This is consistent with the best values of our main Founders (Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, and Hamilton) who understood and accepted the value of balancing "liberty" and "equality" as one which is continually modified through experience. It is why, for example, Madison was so insistent, during the Constitutional debates, in making sure the word "slavery" did not appear in the ultimately drafted Constitution. Madison and others at that Convention wanted to create a document for posterity--notwithstanding the frustration Jefferson voiced from France against the Constitution document by saying the "tree of liberty" needs re-watering with the "blood" of people every 20 or so years. Jefferson's presidential administrations are about Jefferson's practical learning curve as many historians long ago determined. That Jefferson followed most Federalist policies after gaining the presidency is one of the nation's first ironies of History.

What is amusing is the woman was elected to the local school board, yet knew NOTHING about budgeting. She admitted she had to talk a lot with a fellow board member, asking a myriad of questions of how a budget is formed and operates. She appears to know NOTHING about what it takes to build a curriculum. She admitted, too, she never read the Declaration of Independence or Constitution before taking that grifty-right wing adult course, though that was the clarion cry of her candidacy. The same with the Federalist Papers and so-called Anti-Federalist Papers. 

As Daffy Duck liked to say, "It is to laugh."

My former students can tell you how dense those documents are, and that the Constitution is not well understood without learning at least some case law interpreting words over historical time--just as Madison predicted and explained in Federalist Paper no. 37. My former students would also have a lot of fun asking her, even after her taking that grifty-course, to explain Federalist Paper no. 10 in light of Federalist Paper nos. 37 and 41--Madison wrote all three--and in light of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). I would forgive my former students for not remembering the case law, though. Some may remember the case law holdings, though, and I think more than some would remember how we read in class the quote from then-Congressman Nathaniel Macon (Jeffersonian-NC) who, during Madison's administration (1809-1817), who declared he would oppose any and all Hamiltonian economic development legislation because, if Congress can legislate to build a canal, it can pass a law limiting or ending slavery. Thus, the opposition to at least domestic policies from Hamilton to Lincoln to FDR to LBJ to Bernie Sanders go back to the beginning of the Constitutional Republic and is ultimately built on white supremacy and enslavement of darker skinned people. 

The reason I taught what I did in high school history and civics/government classes was to show there is a constitutional basis to support a constitutional vision of federal economic activism and even strong civil rights from the start of the Republic--and especially after the Reconstruction amendments. I then taught it is a conceit to think it is only that vision or the conservatives' constitutional vision. Learning constitutional history also helps expose how most right wingers in our nation who call themselves "Constitutionalists" or "Federalists" (including the misnamed "Federalist Society") are really anti-Federalists, with far more in common with Patrick Henry's anti-Federalist politics than the early Federalists, including Madison--until Madison entered Congress and realized his bread was buttered with Virginia enslavers. That crafty Madison! :)

What the article's ending shows most amusingly is the right wing woman realizing being on a school board and dealing with the practical day to day of running a school district is the opposite of the bullshit she was fed in her grifty-right wing history course for miseducated adults who already believe in magically based delusions. And really, it is not difficult to assume how this pathetic person, back in her high school days, was likely a mess who often fell asleep in, or skipped out on, civics/government and history classes. I admit I once told my mostly guys in the back of the classroom, who worked hard not to listen in class, "Don't worry, guys. In twenty or thirty years, you'll run for office as right wingers trying to tell the nation a whole bunch of wrong things you could have avoided while in high school. And also tell us all about 'liberty' and 'freedom'!"

And we'd all, including them, laugh.