I suppose, with some effort, I can find a way to understand the strategy of a Republican – er, sorry, multi-partisan –  organization attacking a progressive incumbent who represents a more affluent region of South County by supporting her more conservative, Democratic Primary opponent. However, the tactic, like so much of what Stenhouse does within the ALEC-inspired, hyper-capitalist, houses of money-worship over which he ministers, is ham handed. Take, for example, the mailer’s graphic image color scheme. It meant to inspire fear and uses a color pallette faintly reminiscent of the poster for Wes Craven’s original A Nightmare on Elm Street. Except, instead of distressed, hand- stenciled lettering for the copy, the ominous and empty cliches are typed using drop-shadowed, Trebuchet font.  And, instead of finding a photograph of Representative Tanzi depicting her as nefarious, or even as maladroit, the gray-scale shot of Tanzi is her smiling General Assembly website picture, Photoshopped to look like a missing person from an episode of Unsolved Mysteries. What is more, is that the call to action – “Vote for Ewa Dwierzinski” – is in an ectoplasm shade of green, floating over the tarmac-colored background and standing out as if she is the terrifying perpetrator who allegedly caused Teresa to disappear.

However, I am grudgingly willing to overlook form, if function is excellent. If the design is not inspiring, then perhaps the content is.

Is it?

No.

The entirety of the thread of propaganda hinges on how Tanzi’s vote for tolls on trucks will somehow raise prices on groceries for your family. How? Because rigged system! No facts. No statistics. No data. No surprise here. In fact, by substituting dysphemisms for debate and saying Tanzi supports a “rigged system,” and is a part of a “corrupt special interest majority,” Stenhouse insults the electorate. The social welfare organization implies that voters are unable to follow the debate through to the end, concluding for themselves whether or not a market-driven solution for repairing roads, paid for by the special interest group most responsible for the damage done to public thoroughfares, constitutes a “rigged system” and being a part of a “Corrupt special interest majority.”

What is ironic, is that Teresa Tanzi is among a handful of Rhode Island lawmakers who prioritizes pragmatism over politics and people over profits. She puts her own agenda dead last, preferring to weigh the pros and cons of issues and voting what the outcome of her debate concludes to do the most good, while resulting in the least harm. What Mike Stenhouse calls defying the will of the people and businesses, and harming economic growth, many Rhode Islanders see as refreshingly good governing.

Representative Tanzi has survived and thrived as a progressive Democrat in a chamber led by Democrats of a more Reaganesque variety. In spite of her left-leaning convictions, Tanzi has managed to earn the respect of House Leadership even after abstaining from voting for Nicholas Mattiello when he sought the Speakership following Gordon Fox’s resignation preceding his indictment. While others who abstained faced committee reassignment or primary opponents sponsored by leadership, Tanzi was assigned a seat on House Finance.

Furthermore, her record of key sponsorship does not remotely reflect supporting a “rigged system.” House Bill No. 7080: “Permits the town of Narragansett to establish a tangible business property tax exemption for local small business owners in an amount not to exceed thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000).” So, she supports local small businesses. House Bill No. 7152: “Allows for property tax and motor vehicle tax exemption for veterans and their spouses.” So, she supports veterans and their families. Possibly the most telling bill of which she was key sponsor, however, was House Bill No. 6066  SUB B entitled “An Act Relating to Reporting and Accountability – Taxation – Rhode Island Economic Development Tax incentives Evaluation Act of 2013. This comprehensive structure, requiring thorough oversight of corporate tax incentives for Rhode Island economic development (I assume most of you have heard about 38 Studios?), is the opposite of corruption. So, Mr. Stenhouse, if you please, just sit down and eat your cake.

Stenhouse’s tactic is weak and predictable. It fails to provoke thoughtful voting. It fails, even, to be clever. And, as one who has a modicum of experience with political wetwork, it is poorly timed. If, in fact, the purpose is to help Tanzi’s primary opponent, it should have been sent weeks ago. Never go negative late. If a campaign is going negative, it has to go negative early or it looks desperate.

Most voters do not read the fine print. They do not know that a Republican, corporate interest backed, 501c(4), social welfare organization is responsible for the last-minute, hit-piece. They do not know that this type of electioneering is borderline section 527 status group activity. The fact that this actively dissuades debate of the actual issues, while limiting factual information, invites the argument that the Gaspee Project is not promoting the social welfare of the targeted recipients of the mailer. Rather, it is promoting the welfare of the unnamed donors and corporations who fund it. The candle in this shadow-money, social ill-fare, sender of political nasty-grams, is that it is conducted so poorly, it will probably do little or nothing to affect the race in Rhode Island House District 34. What it does do, however, is further expose just how feckless Mike Stenhouse and his think-tank / campaign action group really are.

“This is not who we are.”

Since when?

Of course this is who we are. If by “we” Democrats (who are opposed to the racist, tribalist, hyper-nationalist message on which Trump has based his campaign) refer to Americans who place their faith in the version of American history taught from the frame of reference of the “winners” of the American Revolution perpetuated in history classrooms from sea to shining sea, then a factual account of history disputes the premise by telling the story of this being exactly who we are. America has ongoing problems both with civil rights and with admitting the truth. We need only to look honestly at the cornerstones of America’s heroes of political patriotism to see the cracks in our national foundation.

• George Washington became a slave owner at the age of eleven and, as Commander in Chief of the rebels during the Revolution, ordered a revenge-driven, scorched-earth style massacre of Native Americans in Cherry Hill, New York.
• James Madison compromised on composing the second amendment to the Bill of Rights in order to allay the fears of white slave owners scared of an uprising by southern black populations rivaling free, white, Americans in some states.
• Francis Scott Key penned the lyrics to the Star Spangled Banner inspired by the survival of a US fort and defeat of a British force, bolstered by black slaves fighting for their freedom, in a war fought, in large part, over merchant trade routes including the middle-passage.
• Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, only after flip-flopping from his previous party loyalty as a Whig.
• Progressive hero, President Theodore Roosevelt, was an outspoken proponent of eugenics and is quoted referring to Africans as, “ape-like naked savages, who…prey on creatures not much wilder or lower than themselves.”
• President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, issued the executive order to round up over 110,000 Japanese Americans and relocate them to internment camps.
• President John F. Kennedy hid his ongoing battle with Addison’s Disease from the public.

But, after all, nobody’s perfect. Han Solo shot first. He is still my hero.

What Democrats who express vocal opposition to the very idea of a Trump presidency (more commonly referred to, simply, as Democrats) should be sending as a message is not “This is not who we are.” Rather, Democrats need to honestly reflect that the truth is “This is not who we say we are.” Americans like to talk about how our nation was conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. We go so far as to prominently and with great pride display a 305 foot statue of the goddess of freedom, on its own Liberty Island just south of Manhattan, complete with a plaque inside its base describing her as:

“A mighty woman with a torch, whose flames the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles.”

That is who we say we are. But, America has not lived up to such lofty ideals and, perhaps, unless we prefer the isolationist, protectionist, borderline fascist nexus of Donald Trump’s dystopia, striving to behave more like the Disney version of ourselves about which we boast to other nations at global cocktail parties is the answer.

Take, for example, the recent controversy surrounding NFL quarterback, Colin Kaepernick. Because he has chosen to sit during the National Anthem, he has been cast in the pink-hued spotlight of being unpatriotic. The thinly veiled implication by his critics is that he has been allowed to earn millions of dollars for playing a game. Therefore, he is insulting those who protect that privilege by using his privilege to protest on behalf of those who suffer the violently tragic fate of inequality and oppression.

Allowed? Do we smell the big old steaming pile of bullshit yet?

A grown man of mixed race, who grew up in one of the whitest parts of Wisconsin, just northwest of Milwaukee (I have heard tell of some strife there, recently), and raised by white adoptive parents, has chosen to protest racial inequality in a time when a rich, white, major party presidential nominee is appropriating patriotism to mean white supremacy and xenophobia. And, the response is that Colin Kaepernick is being insensitive. Sit down and eat your cake.

Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave … and smile … and slowly extend its middle finger. Maybe Colin is not so keen on the stars and bars because he has not forgotten, even though he is a star, too many people who look like him are behind bars.

Democrats’ efforts to oppose Donald Trump would do well to stop talking about who America is and who America is not. Instead, Democrats would benefit by inspiring each other to be a part of the American story and recognizing that America’s history is what created this steeply raked playing field of which I hear so many complaints. Democrats can call upon each other to help write the next chapter to coherently further the story in the direction of an epic anthology. America’s revolutionary exposition set the stage for a drama about certain inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The plot then took a turn toward utter antithesis and has been reading like the story of Sisyphus for nearly two and a half centuries. In this version, Sisyphus is a woman of color and the stone is made of oil, gold, and loud white men.

If the American story is the story of the bargain to experiment with civil rights, then the constitution is the codification of civil rights. Ask Khizar Khan, he carries a copy of those rights in his pocket. So do I. So should you. So far, the experiment has not been successful. It has made progress. But, trial and error takes time. That is why it is not called trial and success. Trump is not going to win this election. However, that does not mean he will not leave an indelible mark on American history. The chapter Trump submitted is entitled  Give up and save your own white asses. It was actually co-written by Alex Jones and Satan. What is more, Americans already read it in 1956. Except, the earlier version was co-written by Joseph McCarthy and Roy Cohn. Yet, if Democrats can unite, accept the truth of America’s past and encourage each other to practice the great American sermon, then Trump does not get to finish his story. Rather, America can begin to write over his repetitive and hollow platitude of “Make America Great Again,” with an honest account of the steps and missteps of the great work of making America good. It is not who we have been so far. It is, however, who we could be.

This is why our country doesn’t work. You understand. So, we have thousands of people in a room next door. We have plenty of space here. We have thousands of people waiting outside to get in, And, we have a fire marshal who says, “Oh we can’t allow more people. It really is so unfair to the people. I’m so sorry. And, I have to apologize. But, it’s not my fault. I just came here. But, we have thousands of beautiful, wonderful, great people in the room next door, and outside, and they won’t let ’em in. And, the reason they won’t let ’em in is because they don’t know what the hell they’re doing. That’s why. Okay? Too bad.

That’s why our country has prob- Maybe they’re a Hillary person? Could that be possible? Probably. I don’t think there are too many of them. I don’t think there are too many of them.

Anyway, they set up a screen in the other room. They set up something outside. But what a- what a disgraceful situation. So … but, you people can’t be complaining, right? (applause) You can’t be complaining.

Alright. (pause) So much … So much to straighten out in this country. This is the kind- this is the of think we have in federal government also, by the way, folks. You know? And then you wonder why we’re going to hell. That’s why we’re going to hell. It’s the thought – You know what it is? It’s the thought process, right?

So far, Trump has insulted the Fire Marshal for enforcing the fire safety code, and clumsily connected that to support for Hillary Clinton and the eternal damnation of the United States of America. Good start, Donald.

So … I watched last night. I watched Hillary Clinton. (shakes head disapprovingly) What a sad … what a sad situation.

And, and, by the way, they’re going to let some of these people, I was just informed, they’re going to let some of them meander in … meander. Too bad.

But, I watched her last night giving a speech … that was so average. And, I watched last night as the network said, “It was alright. It was good. It was fine.” And, then I watched this morning. “It was so wonderful.” It wasn’t wonderful, folks. And, then I read a report that just came out, I can’t believe it, in Politico. I can’t believe that. And, they wrote something all cliches. All just written by a – by a scriptwriter. And, it was all clichés, you know. They used a little tweet one on me about tweet. And, she said something about the campaign. “Donald Trump doesn’t know how to campaign.” Something like that. I just beat sixteen people and I’m beating her. (pause)

A scriptwriter writes scripts. While it is unclear to which of the several articles Donald refers, it appears from his repeated use of the word “cliches,” he is referring to the Politico piece by Jeff Greenfield. One which was not particularly flattering to Clinton’s speech. Greenfield is a journalist, holds a law degree, and served as a speechwriter for Robert Kennedy. To the best of my knowledge he has never written a script for the stage or screen.

As of July 29, 2016, Trump is not beating Clinton in polls. In her speech, she did refer to Twitter, which (one can imagine) is to what he referred when he said “They used a little tweet one on me about tweet.” Yes, she did say something about the campaign. Had she discussed deli meats in her speech it would have been surprising.  As, however, both you and Sec. Clinton are running against one another for President, it is standard to discuss the campaign during an acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination.

I mean … I’m watching it – I’m watching it … Oh, and by the way, this is very important. So, the Nielsen ratings just came out. These aren’t polls. These are for television, much more important than polls. You know, television – these guys (points out over the crowd) – they don’t care about ra- they don’t care about polls. They only care about ratings. And, the Nielsen ratings came out. So, it’s Trump against Clinton. And, you heard about how wonderful – ’cause I’ll tell you what. I liked the Republican convention better. I did. I liked it better.

Television ratings are more important than polls to network executives and advertising executives. People who watch television are not necessarily likely voters. And, one would hope you liked the Republican convention better. You were there. You are Republican. And, at the convention, you were named as the Republican party’s nominee for President.

I liked it better. I thought we had a far more beautiful set. Not even a contest. How about the first night. They had no American flags up on the stage. Second night, I started saying, “No American flags up there.” And, they put so many American flags up – it’s called overkill. It’s called incompetence. They put so many American flags up there (gestures) you didn’t know what to do. You didn’t know what to do.

Voters who are going to decide for whom they vote based on the convention’s set, then they probably think that Applebee’s has a great decorator. Furthermore, If – wait a minute. What is that? Oh … great scott! AH! Flags! Everywhere! What do I do? I’m calling 911! Everybody into the bunker! FLAGS! Oh,

And: 

But lemme just tell you. So, Thursday to Thursday. That’s the big one, right? Thursday, we beat her by millions on television. Millions. MILLIONS! We beat her by a lot. They both did good. We beat her by a lot. But honestly, the numbers were incredible. Which tells you … which tells you, isn’t it good to have Trump running for the presidency?

Notwithstanding Donald’s insistence that television ratings are the superior measure of electability, they are more indicative of his apparent inability to perform simple arithmetic. While true that night four of the Republican convention had more viewers than the corresponding night of the Democratic convention, it was a difference of approximately 800,000. Not millions. It was the only night the Republicans had more viewers. And, over the course of four nights, the Democratic convention had approximately 117.1 million viewers compared to the Republicans convention, with 100.7 million.

(14:38)

So … a lot of things happen. Now, I found last night interesting. ‘Cause we’re gonna’ get a lot of Bernie supporters, I think. And, Bernie made a big mistake. The mistake he made – and, this is the beauty of doing speeches like this and I saw it and she was thanking Bernie and talking about Bernie and he’s sitting there, like, glum. Did you notice? No smile. His wife pats him on the back and she pulled her hand away. Whoa, huh, huh, huh. Whoa! Did you see that? “A pat on the back, darling. I love you” And pulls it back. And, uh, she was a little bit concerned there.

Are you a marriage counselor, Donald? Go on.

But, he was angry. And then a second time they showed him, and he was angry. And, you know what. Honestly, he made a big mistake. Because, we have the best movement of all. We have far more people than anybody. We have the most important – I tell people, Bill O’Reilly said the greatest single phenomena he’s ever seen in politics. This is us. All of us. All of us. You. You. You. You. You. All the people outside. Man! They had people lined up in the driveway, all the way up.

I personally feel that, “Best movement of all,” and “far more people than anybody,” are the emptiest hyperbole in the universe … ever.  Oh. and there is no such thing as “single phenomena.” Go on …

But-but-this is one of the greatest movements in the history of our country. Our movement is much better than Bernie. By the way, I’ll tell you why Bernie blew it. He sold his soul to the devil. He did. He had a great thing. I was so surprised. ‘Cause, he was, like, a tough guy. He was like tough, tough, tough. And, then, in the end, he folded. And, I said yesterday. And, it’s true. He wanted to go home. He wanted to go to sleep. Okay. That’s what it was.

Finally, Donald reaches some political analysis. Perhaps “blew it” is not the right phrase for the Sanders movement, but … wait. What the f*** did he just say? Did he just say Senator Bernard Sanders was not the Democratic nominee for president because he sold his soul to Satan?

But, you know, had he not folded. And his people haven’t folded. ‘Cause his people were angry.

Donald, you just chastised Bernie for being angry. But now you are saying that his supporters’ anger gives them strength, but his anger is … what, evil? Exhausting?

Now, just to show you how unfair it is, if that would have happened at the Republican convention, they would have said, “catastrophic evening.” People are screaming. Did you see when they had the moment of silence for the police? And, by the way, the only reason the police were up there on that stage on the fourth night was because I was complaining they don’t have any police up there. Right? They put the police up because thy were getting a lot of heat. But, they don’t mean it. The difference is, I mean it. Okay? We’re gonna’ be law and order. And, I mean it. We’re gonna’ be great. We’re gonna’ be great.

What people are screaming? Are the flags back? The flags for which you are responsible, much it seems, like the police. As far as law and order are concerned, they do not apply to fire safety codes which, according to you, are the cause of the national trajectory to hell … where we will, of course, find Bernie Sanders’ immortal soul.

But, did you see what happened when they had the moment of silence for the police? Tough situation. Tough situation. Not good. Not good. And, then you have Bernie, and he makes the deal. And, they pick a vice president that’s exactly the opposite of Bernie, okay? He believes in TPP – which is a disaster, by the way, we’ll never approve it. They’ll approve it.

For the love of god, please tell me what happened when the had the moment of silence for the police! Or, are you asking. Yes. I saw it. Would you like me to tell you about it?

And, how about when Terry McAuliffe, the Governor of Virginia, comes out and said, “Don’t worry. Hillary will approve it after the election? See, that’s the way it is. And, it will take your jobs away almost as bad as NAFTA, which was approved by Bill Clinton. Right? NAFTA. A disaster. NAFTA has cleaned out so many states in this country. I – you know – look at New York state. You look at New York state. You look at New England. You look at Pennsylvania. What NAFTA has done to Pennsylvania with these companies moved to Mexico.

You chose a running mate who has expressed support for the TPP. Your suit contains labels bearing both your name and  “made in Mexico.”  Go on …

A friend of mine is a builder. He builds plants. Plants. Big, big plants.

What does he build?

Big, big plants. One of the biggest. Maybe I’ll use him to build the wall. What a good idea. Got a lot of smart people. Somebody shouts out, “Let him build the wall.” (crowd starts to chant, “Build that wall.” Or, maybe, “Kill them all.” Hard to tell) We have smart people. But, this guy builds big, big plants.

So, sorry. Didn’t catch that.

Automobile plants and, uh, computer technology plants. That’s what he builds.

Plants, you say?

He builds plants. One of the biggest. Maybe the biggest. One of the biggest.

If this guy can build plants (He can build them in a box. He can build them with a fox, etc.) but, he would not know where to start building an apartment, what makes you think he could build 1,989 miles of wall? Please, go on.

And, he started off building plants in the United States years ago. And, he’d build plants in the United States. So, I see him the other day, and I said, How’s it going? “Good.” How’s business? “Unbelievable” I said, great. I thought that was good for the United States, right? I said, how many plants you building? “Many,” he said. “You’ve gotta see what’s happening in Mexico.”

Now, by the way, this guy’s better than a consultant. If I hire a consultant, I hire some guy that, you know, is terrible, to tell me what’s happening. Right? They’ll charge you a million bucks. They’ll give you a report in seven months from now. They have to take a long time, otherwise they can’t charge as much. This guy tells me in two minutes – in one minute! I learned better from him talking to him about how’s business than I can learn from some phony consultant. Because, if he was any good, he would have been the one building the plants, right? You know? So … so, an amazing thing. An amazing thing. So, I said, so what’s going on? He says, “You gotta’ see Mexico. It’s the eighth wonder of the world.”

Great Pyramid of Giza, Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Statue of Zeus at Olympia, Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, Colossus of Rhodes, Lighthouse of Alexandria … Mexico.

He said, “We are building the biggest, the most sophisticated, the most incredible plants all over Mexico.” I said, well what about the United States? “Not so good.” Like, who cares? And, actually, he’d much rather build in the United States. But, not so good. He said, “Not so good.” And, I said, well what does that mean? He said, “Well, we’re doing a little work. But not much. But, Donald, you have to see Mexico.” I say no thanks. But, he goes – he goes – he goes, “What we’re doing there is incredible.” How stupid are we, folks?

I … don’t … know.

How stupid are we? Our companies are moving to Mexico and other places. While crooked Hillary Clinton – who is as crooked as a three-dollar-bill – while crooked Hillary Clinton sits there and makes up stories. “Donald Trump didn’t do well in his campaign.” I said, I just beat eighteen people or seventeen people. Whatever. No. No. It’s all written by … It’s all written – what!? By a Politico. I can’t believe I’m talking about Politico. ‘Cause Politico is terrible to me. But Politico write all cliches. Not good. Okay. But, somebody wrote it. She probably didn’t notice it. But, I’m being recognized for having done one of the most legendary campaigns in the history of politics in this country.

I can no longer even attempt to follow your logic, Donald.  It is like ‘Clinton-squared times Mexico plus the square root of Politico divided by sociopathy equals Batman symbol over eggs.

And (holds for applause) … and she puts in her thing right after the tweet. “If somebody tweets, he gets upset.” I get upset? I don’t get upset. I don’t get upset. Somebody wrote that. You know, it was a nice little sound bite, right? You know, they just announced I have over 22 million between Twitter and Facebook. I don’t get upset. If somebody Tweets, I do what I do. Who cares? I think – I’ll tell ya’ – I think I have the best temperament, or certainly one of the best temperaments, of anybody that’s ever run for the office of president.

While the two concepts are not mutually exclusive, it is imperative to understand that neither are they the same.

Politics and (some) Violence

In the United States, politics was established as the means by which problems can be addressed without violence. This places faith in a system, regulated by layers of redundancy in its checks and balances, to decide what measures to pursue that reflect the vox populi. One can guess that when the founders were composing the fundamental document to establish our government, they were still reeling from the echoing concussions of revolution. These men did not feel safe.

Rather, the founders probably felt correspondingly unsafe with the prospect of a disproportionate amount of power allocated to either the central government or the state governments. They felt unsafe with the potential  uprising of a population of people who were kept as property based on their race. They felt unsafe due to the enormous financial debt incurred by the colonies for the economic costs of war. So, they designed such constitutional measures as separation of powers, the second amendment to the Bill of Rights, and a fractional reserve system of banking. What worked to preserve their safety at the time was, perhaps, shortsighted.

Two-hundred-thirty or so years later, our nation, devised in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, has risen to a peak in global prowess that demonstrates the success of the system born of revolution, as well as showcasing its many flaws. History shows us that, when diplomacy fails and compromise is not pursued, violence fills the vacuum. While the argument can be made for the causes of political breakdowns to be many and complex, the most notable of them have been over race, war, and money.

Last Place Aversion in (presidential) Politics

The social phenomenon happening today has been increasing in frenetic urgency every four years, showing itself in the form of presidential campaign rhetoric. Fears are stoked and false equivalencies are pedaled. Now, as the locomotive of the Republican Convention barrels into the station as if driven by Casey Jones, the strategy has become clear. Donald Trump has tapped into the ugly effectiveness of the last place aversion paradox. Last place aversion is, to put it in extremely simplistic terms, the concept of relinquishing power to those with more, if it means preserving that power from those who have less. Following Donald’s speech, now more than ever, for Democrats to win this election against the nativist, hyper-nationalist, downright racist messaging of the Republican nominee’s pro-wrestling-style cheap-pop, they must focus all their campaigns -presidential and otherwise – on civil rights. In fact, all issues must be rooted in civil rights. That is an uncomfortable truth.

Last place aversion happens when uncomfortable is confused with unsafe. Self-preservation and self destruction look alike. The rest is just dressing one’s decision with self-serving justification to make it more palatable. Often such justification is fed to people by campaigns who would have people believe that politics is something worthy only of being the butt of a joke, or effective only when threatened with the barrel of a gun. This is thinly veiled by pundits and surrogates who use the word “establishment” with negative connotation, as if when they say it they want to laugh or spit. Just as familiarity breeds contempt, so does being an outsider fill voters with a sense of honesty and purity.

The Obama Coalition, consisting in large part of the growing minority population that makes up a reliable and vocal block of voters, ready to mobilize, and for whom this election is far too important to stay home, will be organizing and voting for the Democratic nominee. That, for some, is also an uncomfortable truth.

Trump in the Garden of Good and (mostly) Evil

Donald J. Trump has campaigned by exaggerating issues that make many people uncomfortable, thereby creating the illusion they are unsafe. Race in America is an uncomfortable conversation. Immigration is an uncomfortable conversation. Terrorism and  religion is an uncomfortable conversation. Yet, by harnessing the manipulative aspects of the behavioral psychological phenomenon of attribute substitution, a process thought to underlie a number of cognitive biases (including stereotypes), Trump has tipped the scale away from many of these uncomfortable conversations. If addressed bravely and honestly by Americans, perhaps communicating on these issues would make the nation a safer place in the long run. Instead, Trump scapegoats the populations statistically facing the most real danger, painting them as the causes of danger for those who are likely to harbor biases and discomfort.

Described by Daniel Kahneman in his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, attribute substitution is best explained as:

“When faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution.”

Kahneman goes on to clarify the concept:

“An easy question (How do I feel about it?) serves as an answer to a much harder question (What do I think about it?).”

Many Americans prefer not to think about “it” at all. In spite of the fact that the average (white) American is far more likely, statistically to die of heart disease than by Islamic terrorism, he is still more likely to stare suspiciously at the Middle Eastern-looking gentleman at the ballpark, while eating a second hot dog and drinking a 32 ounce Mountain Dew. That same person may complain about “Mexican illegals” taking American jobs, after leaving his empty cup and hot dog wrapper on the ground to be cleaned up by a tax paying, undocumented, Ecuadorian immigrant – a job the average (white) American would never accept. Then, he may confidently drive home, in excess of the speed limit, knowing if he gets pulled over, he will be able to afford the speeding ticket. The average (white) American takes for granted that, were he stopped, he would not be shot by the police officer.

It was to an audience, made almost exclusively of this average (white) American, to whom Trump addressed his speech, describing a thousand points of darkness. In the city in which Tamir Rice was killed for holding a toy gun, Trump talked about being the law and order candidate. Simultaneously, white nationalists and open-carry enthusiasts brandished real firearms absent of police interference. Because, the problem, according to Trump, was everyone except his audience. To call on his audience to look within themselves and discern whether or not they enjoy privilege that others lack, would make them extremely uncomfortable. The only ask he made of his audience was to vote to put him in charge and let him speak for America. Because, only he alone can solve the scourge of lawlessness which he blames on everyone except himself and his supporters. That is not only wholly illogical, it is decidedly unsafe.

(not) Voting Your Conscience

Come November, Americans will vote their individual consciences. One might argue that, based on the collective conditioning of attribute substitution and its influence on people’s cognitive biases, people who “go with their gut instinct” are just as often wrong as they are right. Yet, just as likely is that voters have already made their decisions and are simply seeking justification for the choice that makes them most comfortable. Another quote by Kahneman goes:

“We think, each of us, that we’re much more rational than we are. And we think that we make our decisions because we have good reasons to make them. Even when it’s the other way around. We believe in the reasons, because we’ve already made the decision.”

Voting one’s conscience makes one feel comfortable. Perhaps it may be better to truly weigh the facts and the potential consequences before voting.

Of course, this unsolicited advice is not directed at you. I’m certain your choice will be weighed, measured, and not be found wanting for that which is best overall for the nation’s most vulnerable and the longest and most balanced period of peace and prosperity.

Politics is not the enemy. It is the process by which America solves its problems, albeit slowly and uncomfortably, without resorting to violence.

You support Bernie. I support Hillary. An ancient quote attributed to

 The deeper I travel into the chaotic and complex realm of American politics, the more I strive to practice simplicity. I suppose I am considered a progressive Democrat by most standards. My thoughts on most issues have evolved to adapt with an ever-changing world, both without and within myself. At one time I would have been called a liberal Democrat. Now, it is classified as progressive. This is just one reflection of the only constant in life that I can guarantee: impermanence.

 Yet, while the mind strives to categorize and classify and quantify, the label by which I am identified is not of particular importance any more than a maple tree cares whether or not it is called a maple tree, or whether it is called shade from the sun, or a place from which to hang a child’s swing, or one part of the forest. To cling to a belief is to ignore so many other things that are right here, right now. Reference points matter. The roots of that same tree will experience the world in a very different way than the branches. The leaves, from buds to green to red to fallen, have a very different perspective than the trunk, growing only an inch or two with every passing of another year.

 How, you are probably asking, does this have anything to do with politics? Politics, and political campaigns in particular, are often about filling people with the expectations of that in which they they believe can be delivered by a candidate, if he or she is elected, thereby altering the uncertainty and suffering of now and making tomorrow a better forever. They point to the past as proof of their qualifications and the lack thereof in their opponents. The truth, however, is that the past and the future are both escapes from this moment.

 I get angry. I want to fight to be right. Yet, to be angry with another for his or her political beliefs, when so much of what connects our ideas outweighs their differences, blinds me with my own assumption that another’s beliefs come from a place of hate, whereas mine come from a place of love. Thus, it becomes so easy to delude myself into believing that my anger is righteous and another’s is petty. In a self-defeating manner, I react angrily, foolishly expecting my righteous anger will somehow reinforce my own beliefs by changing the hearts and minds of others. It never has. I have convinced myself to expect that my perceived adversary will die when I, myself, drink poison.

 I expect. That, in itself is the root of much suffering. To feel pain is perfectly acceptable. Suffering, however, comes not from feeling pain, but expecting that right now should be any different than it is. If the candidate I support wins, then she wins. If the candidate you support wins, then he wins. But, all I can control are the ways in which I am this person, right here, right now. Regardless of the outcome of the election, it will do no good to reflect, with perfectly clear hindsight, the ways in which I was cheated, or what mistakes were made, or what I could have done differently. That is merely resentment or self-aggrandizement. I am still not going to have the power to change time. I still can only exist right here, and right now. To constantly be in the act of avoiding the moment by dwelling on what could be or what might have been, I would be, as master Joshu described, “like a ghost clinging to bushes and weeds.” Someone once told a master of zen, “I want happiness.” To which the master replied, “Remove ‘I’ and remove ‘want’ and all you are left with is happiness.”

 I can breath. I can understand that my emotions are valid and true, but, impermanent. I feel this way now. I will not feel this way until I die. I do not have to act to disconnect myself from the rest of my fellow humans by acting in such a way as to sever the ties to those with whom I share the same air, and sun, and land, and compositional stardust.

Even if people possess everything they desire, people are still unsatisfied. To desire is to dwell in the fantasies of the future and to cling to the illusions and resentments of the past, never truly being present. I enjoy politics. I do. But, what I enjoy about politics are the steps along the path. Paths can lead in different directions. They can lead to dangerous places. They can lead to wonderful, unexplored terrains. And, many paths can take different routes to arrive at the same destination. I am choosing to walk with anyone who wishes to join me on the journey. I ask only that we practice as great a compassion as possible, doing our best to abandon expectation in favor of the simple experience of the steps themselves.

 I choose to practice transmuting my passions that may otherwise tear us apart, into the right art of holding onto what connects us as progressives and as people; and not becoming a ghost, lost in resentments. I have not always been good at this. I am trying to do better. The world is flawed. Politics is flawed. Each and every one of us is flawed.

 The Buddha said, (supposedly), “Thousands of candles can be lighted from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.”

 You support Bernie. I support Hillary. Breath. Smile. We’re okay.

The professor was generous enough to grant some time on December 8 for an interview to provide expertise on the subject of constitutional law and the history of the ever controversial Second Amendment. A conversation via Skype revealed and explained fascinating truths behind American gun culture.

Insurrectionist Theory

“Throughout the history of the republic, until about 1960, as a matter of law, the right to bear arms was a collective right and not an individual right,” said Professor Bogus. He explained that the 1963 assassination of President Kennedy as a crucial moment in gun rights history, noting that Lee Harvey Oswald purchased his rifle from a mail-order ad in American Rifleman, an official publication of the National Rifle association. “Afterward,” said Professor Bogus, “there was a fear of significant gun regulation. The NRA was overtaken by right-wing political extremists.”

Of course, this version of history does not compute with the lofty rhetoric commonly used to espouse the right to bear arms as promoted by the NRA. Rather, one hears broad and abstract statements about the how the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all Americans. For example, according to the Rhode Island Second Amendment Coalition website,

“… our very liberty is in jeopardy at the hands of misinformed, and/or over zealous anti-gun legislators who don’t understand or respect the systems put in place through the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. Let’s not forget this; without the 2nd Amendment, the entire Constitution is nothing but unenforceable words on paper. The 2nd Amendment is the only thing that separates us from every other country that has confiscated the privately-owned firearms of the public – turning them into ‘subjects’ as opposed to ‘citizens’.”

Relatively new, this interpretation of the language of the second amendment is referred to as “insurrectionist theory,” and has been developed, in no small part, through NRA grant funding. In The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, a 1998 publication in the UC Davis Law Review, Professor Bogus writes that, “insurrectionist theory is premised on the idea that the ultimate purpose of an armed citizenry is to be prepared to fight the government itself.” But, in this self-contradicting concept, the wise framers of the constitution, whose foundation for American democracy is praised for its unique freedoms, expresses enough mistrust to require the need for citizens to arm themselves with sufficient deadly force and vehemently contested regulation to risk unparalleled levels of collateral damage. The Hidden History points out that insurrectionist theory would have one believe that all of the other Constitutional components designed to prevent the abuse of government power are insufficient and the ultimate guarantee of freedom comes from the barrel of a gun.

Well Regulated Slave Patrols

The popular, contemporary association, however, of armed individuals being the thin, lead line standing between liberty tyranny is not supported by the history of the “founding fathers.” Furthermore, it ignores the very language of the :

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

When asked whether individual citizens can be considered the de facto Militia necessary to the security of a free State, Professor Bogus said, “Not according to the framers. Militia is defined in the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8. There was a concern at the Virginia Constitutional Convention by George Mason and Patrick Henry, in 1788, that if congress declared, they could disarm the militia. There was a large dispute over what militia ought to be. There was talk of every white male able body. Madison wrote the second amendment to solve that problem, irrespective of congress.” Professor Bogus is, of course, correct. Notwithstanding the lack of an immutable definition of who actually composes a militia, well regulated or no, the article in the main body of the Constitution gives Congress power over the militia.

And, according to Bogus, at the time, state militias had only one job: controlling slave insurrections.

By the middle of the 18th century, in the South, militias and slave patrols had become synonymous. In Virginia, by the time the delegates convened to debate ratification of the evolving Constitution in 1788, over 40 percent of the population were non-white slaves. For all intents and purposes, the “well regulated militia” was a vast, industrial police system. Therefore, by that logic, the founding fathers’ intent by writing into the document delineating the supreme law of the land language that spoke of an armed militia as necessary to the security of a free state was, in practical terms, to preserve slavery. “Even during the revolution,” said Bogus, “the south refused to commit state militia because of slave insurrections.”

It was not principally Heller

When asked whether the primary shift in contemporary public opinion was the Supreme Court Decision laid out in D.C. vs. Heller, Professor Bogus said, “It was not principally Heller. They (the NRA, the gun manufacturing lobby) sold the view that guns signify freedom and the fear that people may need to go to war with their own government. Heller is the fruit of the long campaign to sell these views. Heller made it the law of the land. The culture here is a greater obstacle.”

To what culture does he refer? Is it the culture that flies the flag of the armed minuteman, but ignores the armed slave owner? Is it the culture that places its trust in the men in government who cry loudest that government cannot be trusted? Is it the culture that creates a campaign to stamp out every single cause of gun violence except for the guns? Or, is it the culture that calls itself the greatest democracy the world has ever seen, but only if the provisions of the doctrine that enable those ideals it holds in such high regard – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – are held at gunpoint?

Approximately six weeks ago, I was using the internet for its intended purpose: arguing with strangers about social policy issues while simultaneously binge-watching the latest Netflix series and shopping for the best online deals for boxer-briefs. During my bandwidth frenzy the social media debate in which I was engaged turned to the issue of gun laws. It must have been in the recent aftermath of one or another mass shooting. With the frequency of such occurrences, I cannot recall which one.

I made a comment concerning the relative ease of purchasing a firearm and was met with a strong opposing statement about how difficult it is to buy a gun. I believe I had said that peanut butter is too dangerous to bring on to school property, but certain lawmakers want to allow concealed firearms. I followed that up with something comparing the simplicity of buying a gun to that of buying peanut butter. Admittedly, this was not my best case argument to date. But, I was testing an angle. I decided to try an experiment.

Opening yet another browser window on my laptop, now hot to the touch due to the number of running applications, I typed into Google, “buy a gun online.” I clicked the first response that popped up. Six and a half minutes later, I had located a 9mm semi-automatic handgun, completed the background questionnaire, and been approved. I requested a hold for delivery to a nearby gun shop for pick up within six days. I also checked to see how long it would take to buy peanut butter online. For the record, ordering peanut butter for in-store pickup was quicker and easier by a good two or three minutes.

Also, for the record, I had no intention of actually purchasing a firearm. Nor do I plan on owning a gun. I rely heavily on statistics for most decisions and the numbers point to a much higher probability of something irreparably traumatic occurring to me or someone for whom I care than of requiring such a device for protection. I feel no need to repeat the statistics that have been accurately expressed ad nauseum by other sources. Suffice it to say, they all strongly suggest that more guns result in more shootings.

It was after I went through the online registration with the site that acted as the broker for my gun purchase that never was, that I started to receive the almost daily promotional e-mails from Gallery of Guns, a site that prices and deals in firearms. I had gone through something that called itself  the Gun Genie. The primary address for the operation is in Prescott, Arizona. Yet, I also noticed a secondary address in Greensboro, North Carolina. I have no knowledge of Arizona. I did, however, live in Greensboro, North Carolina for six years. I went to college there. And, I cannot say that I am at all surprised that such an operation would exist in Greensboro.

But I digress. Below are some of the highlights from the e-mails that I have been  receiving.

Then there was a bit of a shock when I was offered aan opportunity to enter for a chance to win not one, but two guns. Mind you, these are not just any guns. The Jericho 9mm is a nearly indestructible, polymer sidearm; and the Tavor is a unique, bullpup design, with a similar barrel-length and muzzle velocity to an AR-15 assault rifle. However, the configuration allows it to be more compact and maneuverable in close-combat situations. You know, like close-combat deer hunting and close-combat target shooting. Both are Israeli-design and versions are used by the Israeli military. I will be sure to let you all know more about their design characteristics if I win the “Great Gun Giveaway.”The last promotional e-mail is the real class-act. One might think that the day following the November 27 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood siege, in which a gunman killed three and wounded four over the course of a six hour standoff, it would be in good taste to refrain from sending advertisements for military-style firearms. However, one would be wrong to think so. Advertised as a special for this weekend only, the ever popular AR-15 type weapon, touted here as the best gun for WSHF/WROL (without forward assist). If you do not know (I had to look it up) that stands for “when shit hits the fan,” and “without rule of law.” So, I suppose this is the one you would want to buy if you found yourself trapped by police after invading a women’s health facility and opening fire on unarmed, innocent civilians.

I cannot pinpoint exactly what to take away from my own story. I suppose the issue worthy of discussion is this: If guns are tools of either survival or of sport, why are they being marketed so hard. As soon as I provided one single point of contact, I have been bombarded with a barrage of marketing that has showed me a glimpse of the culture of the firearms market. These are instruments designed to maximize the efficiency with which a human being can cause life threatening injury or death to another living thing. When there are cries of guns getting into the hands of the wrong people and discussions of responsible gun owners, limiting access to convicted felons, or (the most recent scapegoat) the mentally ill, it holds even less weight than before I became aware of all the savings, deals, promotions, and shameless advertising tactics for tactical weapons.

This experience has further validated my suspicions of an industry and a culture that speaks out of both sides of its mouth when it promotes rights and responsibilities and then acts in such a sensational and classless manner, offering deals on AR-15 rifles the day after a national gun-related tragedy. And, as for the “Great Gun Giveaway,” yes, they have indeed given it away. But not just the gun. They gave away the whole scam.

Perhaps informing the public is no longer the point? These days, readers and residents can easily see through the truth-bending, mean-spirited talking points of the Providence Journal’s editorial section. The change in editorial tenor seems driven not by shrinking staff but rather by a unflinching desire to align with business and corporate interests.

Then again, maybe informing the public with informed opinion was never the point.

A friend recently told me about the editorial offices of the ProJo, in which are displayed the evidence of the newspaper’s record of having been on the wrong side of public opinion since shortly after dinosaurs made their final appearance on our earth. Even under their newest ownership, the newspaper’s editorial section retains consistency in choosing the wrong side of the debate. Here is why.

Though Rhode Island’s economy has shown some slight improvement, it remains sluggish. In this environment, the General Assembly should be encouraging growth, rather than making it more difficult for job-creating small businesses, including the state’s famous restaurants, to stay alive.

That is why the Assembly should reject a proposal, backed by a national lobbying effort, to massively increase the minimum wage for those who receive tips.

Decades of economic trial and error should have, by now, taught anyone and everyone who claims to have an interest in encouraging growth for more than just his or her own bank account, that economic growth requires an expansion of, not just small business, but also consumer purchasing power. In a business landscape reliant on discretionary expenditure, such as the restaurant industry, increasing the non-essential spending power of the workforce that helped to make the state’s restaurants “famous,” would be taking a page from Henry Ford’s book by allowing the workforce responsible for helping to produce a profitable product the financial empowerment to afford the product they help produce. Translation: if you want to know what actually trickles down, ask a plumber. I guarantee she will not say prosperity.

Additionally, the national lobbying effort has done very little to earn the support of the vast majority of Rhode Islanders polled as to whether or not they believe gratuity based employees should be paid more than $2.89 an hour by their employers. That support was earned by virtue of common sense.

Currently, the minimum wage for such workers is $2.89 an hour. Those seeking a change note the wage has not gone up a cent since 1996, and they argue for the wage to be brought up by 2020 to the level of the state’s minimum wage, currently $9.

What they leave out is that that $2.89 is not really the worker’s wage. Under state law, tips must make up at least the difference between that number and $9, or the employer must kick in the difference. Rhode Island follows the example of most states and the Internal Revenue Service in considering tips to be earned income.

As elusive as the Holy Grail, it appears we have found the one thing on which the business community and the IRS agree. Gratuities are earned income. But they are not paid by the employer. Therefore, if the majority of income earned by tipped restaurant employees is not paid by the employer, this appears to be skirting wage and hour laws pertaining to classification of employees.

Let us call gratuity based employment what it actually is: a sales job with profit based on voluntary commission. Normally, in a commission-based industry, commission is a contractually negotiated percentage of the sale of a good or service, paid by the employer or contractor. However, in the employment world of gratuities, that commission is paid directly by the consumer. Furthermore, it is voluntary and subject to the fancy of the consumer.

In most cases, the tips, keyed to rising prices, come through. According to Census data, Rhode Island’s tipped employees report they receive $12.12 an hour, 35 percent more than the minimum wage. And they may make more than they report. Research from the National Restaurant Association, a business lobby group, shows that, on average, tipped employees make between $16 and $22 per hour — well beyond Rhode Island’s current minimum wage.

Consider the source and the reference bias that comes with accepting a report from a business lobby group called the National Restaurant Association, while rejecting evidence by a national lobby for working people. Furthermore, after making the statement that employers must “kick in the difference” between the minimum wage and the actual earnings of the employee, the opinion writer then offers up the accusation that Rhode Island’s tipped employees are under-reporting their earnings by upward of ten dollars an hour.

The argument of the employer investing only $2.89 per hour because of an unsubstantiated claim of tax evasion by an undisclosed percentage of gratuity based restaurant staff while blindly assuming that all restaurants are complying with the regulation to compensate the difference between what they pay and the minimum wage is, at best, an abstract justification. At worst, it is a call for further regulation.

That is why most servers, asked whether they would prefer a $2.89 per hour minimum wage with tips or a flat $15 per hour wage, would go for the tips, says Dale Venturini, president and CEO of the business-funded Rhode Island Hospitality Association.

Most servers could very well mean six out of ten servers chosen, not at random, by “the business-funded Rhode Island Hospitality Association.” It could mean that forty-nine out of one-hundred servers refused to answer a question asked by counsel for representatives of an organization comprised of the owners of the restaurants for which the servers work. It is hardly compelling evidence to substantiate such a statement.

We are sympathetic with the struggle of unskilled workers to earn a living these days. According to an organization pitching a higher minimum wage called the Restaurant Opportunities Center of Rhode Island, some are not able to lift themselves out of poverty through such work. Tipped workers in the state, the center reports, receive about $638,000 in food stamps every month.

But would they be better off without jobs?

No. They would be better off without a condescending and thinly-veiled threat. They would be better off with an acknowledgement that what they do is a skill. They would be better off in an industry that does not boast one of the highest turnover rates. They would be better off exercising their right to organize and demonstrate by walking out, mid-shift on a Friday night rush because, while they are offered the opportunity to earn money for selling the restaurant’s dining experience to patrons, it is the patrons and not the restaurant that are investing the vast majority of the money to insure prompt service. To Insure Prompt Service = TIPS. Would they be better off without jobs? If someone pees on your shoe, should you appreciate that he or she did not stab you in the neck?

Many restaurants operate on very thin margins, and many go out of business. Tripling the cost of labor in five years would have the obvious effect of making it much more expensive to run a restaurant. Since businesses with small margins cannot afford to see profits shrink, they would have to respond by slashing costs (the quality of food and/or service) and/or by raising prices. Such changes would make people less likely to eat out, driving restaurants out of business.

I worked in the restaurant industry for 13 years. I was a front of the house, service-staff employee in every capacity. I was a server, a busser, a bartender, a bar back, a host, and a manager. The reason I left the industry was because there was no consistency of income. As a manager, I knew that I could over-schedule my waitstaff and “flood the floor” with servers in order to ensure potentially busy shifts would never result in the unlikely, but possible, event of getting slammed with too many guests at once.

Eighty to ninety percent of the time, that kind of rush did not happen. The restaurant would fill. But rarely would it be the maelstrom for which I over-prepared. Servers would have to “turn and burn” tables in small sections in order to make enough to make the aggravation worthwhile. Understandably frustrated servers would often give poor service and, as manager, I would take a dose of attitude from servers. But, at $2.89 per hour, it cost the restaurant very little to flood the floor.

Costs are going to rise and fall with the prices and availability of corn, gas, water, tomatoes, taxes, milk, bread, or window cleaner. Restaurants are still going to purchase these items. If a french restaurant encounters a hike in butter prices, they are not going to switch to canola oil. They probably will not go out of business. The restaurant will pay for butter because French cooking needs butter.

Restaurants should value investing in their ambassadors to the public as one of their most vital ingredients. After all, what a restaurant really sells is service. The opinion expressed in the Providence Journal editorial is one of antiquated greed and should be placed on the wall of the editorial office at the Providence Journal with the impressive collection of evidence of having opined on the wrong side of public opinion.

The state’s economy is stagnant. The government is shadowed by reports of corruption. The physical landscape is only just showing signs of
what lies beneath the greying piles of snow and ice, and revealing an infrastructure pockmarked by craters in the roads and residual grit and slime from salt and sand trucks that dominate the narrow roads. Has the last year of blame and struggle and polarization and polar vortex broken the spirit of our small and weary state? Or does Rhode Island have what it takes to rekindle the dying embers of hope?

It is so much easier to be cynical than to be hopeful. Cynicism is immediately gratifying and triggers a feeling of superiority. It also hedges one’s emotional wager. If one proclaims expectations of only the worst, one is rarely disappointed. Rhode Islanders have become cynical. All too often, when sifting through the opinion section of a local news source, one reads a commentary on an instance of corruption, written with the air of “Expect nothing less in Rhode Island,” and “Of course so and so did such and such. That’s Rhode Island for you. And nothing will ever change.” It is not long before even those who have demonstrated intentions and actions that are altruistic, honest attempts at being good and true are labeled as foolish, false, and doomed.

This dark cloud is not without merit. The chicken and egg debate of cause versus symptom aside, Little Rhody has more than its share of stains on our white collar. Most recently, the light shed on Gordon Fox’s poor moral and legal decisions has forced the deep-rooted shoots of contempt to grow upward through the frozen ground and the mountains of snow blanketing the state. This comes on the heels of a state representative copping to tens of thousands of dollars in misappropriated campaign finances, a twice-convicted felon running for a third term as the capital city’s mayor, vicious primary and general election cycles, the timeline of the 38 Studios fiasco … the list goes on and on.

Some readers will remember the 1980s. The eighties were also a time of economic decline; of manufacturing abandoning the state for elsewhere and recession teetering on the brink of depression. In 1982, there was an ad that ran on television for Rhode Island: The Biggest Little State in the Union. Some may remember the jingle and the miniature hot-air balloons rising in front of the State House. It was a dedicated campaign to try and instill pride in Rhode Island. It was schlocky. It was self-contradictory. But it was hopeful. The most interesting feature of the ad campaign was that it only ran in Rhode Island. It was not a national tourism commercial. It was an attempt to remind Rhode Islanders how great Rhode Island is. Or, at the very least, remind them to laugh at themselves and spend some Rhode Island dollars in Rhode Island, on Rhode Island-made goods.

This is not to suggest a repeat of the ‘Biggest Little State’ campaign. However, even self-deprecating humor is more productive and less poisonous than angry contempt. Moreover, pure sneering negativity, of the sort spreading like a virus through the social media networks that connect people to sources of news, and subsequent spite, faster than ever before, passes down through generations and hurts the chances of anything ever changing. Repeating the idea that nothing ever changes in Rhode Island, reinforces the probability that nothing ever changes. It is the textbook example of the self-fulfilling prophesy. By passing down a misanthropic and forlorn image of Rhode Island through generations, cynicism is dooming the state.

The economy is not Rhode Island.

The government is not Rhode Island.

The potholes are not Rhode Island.

The people are Rhode Island.

The Rhode Island state flag does not bear the motto “money.” The license plates (nope, none of them) are embossed with the phrase “the know-a-guy state.” The Ocean State flies a flag with the state motto: Hope. Should the state change the flag, change the license plates, or should the state – the people of Rhode Island – change their prevailing sentiment from one of resignation to the worst case scenarios, to one that assumes the overwhelming power of the ocean and floods the population with hope?

A population filled with hope is a population that can attract success, retain success, and create success. While Rhode Islanders most certainly disagree on their definitions of success, most can agree that what Rhode Island is currently experiencing could be better. Yet, the rhetoric reported by so many says it simply cannot. A people who can hope are a people who can also dream, innovate, and change the course of their own history.

 “another tradition to politics, a tradition (of politics) that stretched from the days of the country’s founding to the glory of the civil rights movement, a tradition based on the simple idea that we have a stake in one another, and that what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart, and that if enough people believe in the truth of that proposition and act on it, then we might not solve every problem, but we can get something meaningful done.” Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream

 

Rhode Islanders have a right to be upset with politics, the economy, the weather, and each other. But so too do citizens have a choice to either wallow in self-indulgent blame and acceptance of powerlessness, or seize hold of a collective hope for an environment in which generations to come can thrive and proudly call home. Whether one supports the President or detests him, his point in the quoted passage with regard to having a stake in one another is what can give Rhode Islanders hope. What binds us together as citizens of this smallest of states is greater than what drives us apart. There will always be strife, disagreement, crime, and disappointment in Rhode Island. Yet, just as the state’s collective history has built its character, it is how people react to such adversity that reveals character.

Let our character be bound together not by defeatism, but by hope.

There is a strong movement among the liberal base of the Democratic party encouraging Senator Elizabeth Warren (D – MA) to run for President. With social media pages like Run, Warren, Run popping up, and local gatherings organized by Democratic fund-raising powerhouse MoveOn.org, it seems that, in spite of the Senator’s own vehement denial of Presidential ambitions at this time, popular pressure might have built momentum too strong to abate.

I, for one, do not want Senator Warren to run for President.

I am a Senator Warren devotee, bordering on being zealot. I organized field for her in 2012 as a canvass-team leader in Fall River, Massachusetts, in a joint effort of SEIU and the Coalition for Social Justice. I had the honor of meeting her twice. Once as a candidate and then as Senator. I have followed her from the Obama apointee to head the Consumer Protection Bureau, blocked by Republicans, to her vindication as the now senior Senator from Massachusetts, to her current role as the polestar of the liberal (or progressive … whatever) wing of the Democratic party.

I have cheered as she has publicly shamed usurious banking cartels and corporate plutocrats for the economic imbalance that they caused with their collective greed. I have watched her verbally eviscerate the entire fallacy of supply-side economics in just over a minute, while speaking before leaders of AFL-CIO, championing the resurrection of the middle class and the empowerment of working families.

Why then, one may ask, do I not want her to run for the highest executive office in the nation?

From her legislative office as a high-profile Senator with a mobilized following, she is able to maintain her liberal ideology and focus on very specific issues without having to compromise the very values and agendas that make her so laudable. To run for president, I fear she would have to water-down her principles and move to the center. No longer would she need only to appeal to her constituents in the very blue and historically liberal state of Massachusetts when seeking re-election as an incumbent. Rather, she would have to cater to a much broader audience on a carefully coordinated national path, including key battleground states where Democrat is often defined quite differently.

From a Democratic primary perspective alone, pitting Warren against the far more centrist Hillary Clinton, would not only showcase Warren’s relative inexperience in foreign affairs as compared to the former Secretary of State, but would factionalize a party that needs to rally behind a unified message that spotlights sanity and pragmatism as a stark contrast to the Republican theatre of the absurd that is currently staging its primary play with a cast of thousands.

Well then, one may say, can she do both? After all, since her six year term as Senator in Massachusetts is not up until 2018, she would not be appearing twice on the ballot. Therefore, she can run for President without sacrificing her seat if she loses.

Running for President is an exhausting, time-consuming, and expensive undertaking that would expose her to a level of public scrutiny against which she has not yet had to defend, forcing her to take positions on issues that may not be within her realm of expertise. It is one thing to cast a vote as one one-hundredth of a chamber in a bi-cameral legislature. It is quite another to have to explain a position on which you may be expected to speak on behalf of your entire party and, potentially, lobby support of the nation and even multiple nations. Additionally, the level of fund-raising needed to run for President in the era of Citizens United may very well force Senator Warren to accept contributions from groups that would compromise her integrity and contradict the very values that she wields as her populist arms.

Clinton, on the other hand, (and I use her only as an example because it is a certainty that she will run and she has a prior presidential campaign history with which one can compare) is far more economically conservative and seasoned at fund raising. She is a far more corporate-friendly political pragmatist and, therefore, more likely to attract the kind of money necessary to compete against the nearly $900 million the Koch brothers alone have pledged to a Republican Presidential victory. Clinton also has the advantage of her skeletons being publicly aired ad nauseum, and a husband who spent eight years as Commander in Chief and still boasts a higher approval rating higher than our current president even after a decade and a half out of office.

Does the idea of a centrist Democrat in the White House make me squeamish? Somewhat, yes. But not as much as the idea of Bush 3, Mitt 2.0, Ted Cruz, or any of the radical right wing Republicans vying to be tied to the marionette strings of Corporate America. And, to those who find little difference between a centrist Democrat and a right-wing Republican overseeing social security, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the most frightening military the world has ever seen, you and I will have to agree to disagree.

Then there are those who think that Senator Warren, herself, is hypocritical in her economic progressive rhetoric. Unfortunately for you, Alexander Supertramp has no plans of running for elected office.. But, I digress.

I do not believe Senator Warren would win a presidential election. That does not make me respect her or support her any less. But, from a political strategy perspective, it is a distraction from her current job at which she is excellent and, in which has a responsibility to her constituents and supporters to continue performing to the best of her abilities. Running for president would not make her a better senator for the next two years. One does not run for president to make a point. One runs for President to be President.

I do not know if I am “Ready for Hillary.” None of us know, for certain, who all will be running for the 2016 vacancy. In that time, my mind may change … multiple times. For now, I do know that I hope Senator Elizabeth Warren decides to continue devoting 100 percent of her efforts to her role as senior senator of Massachusetts, fighting for a level playing field, speaking as the voice of the working families, promoting policies that restore economic equity, and doing what she does best: legislating for a better future.

Stay, Warren, stay.