Catholics for Choice

Key findings include:

• Latinos, Catholic women and Catholic millennials show the largest support for Clinton over Trump.
• Sixty percent of Catholic voters say that the views of the Catholic hierarchy are not important to them when they are deciding who to vote for in the presidential election.
• Six in ten Catholic voters do not feel an obligation to vote the way the bishops recommend.
• Sixty percent of Catholic voters say that abortion can be a moral choice.
• Seventy-two percent believe that abortion should be available to pregnant women who have contracted the Zika virus.
• Seventy percent of Catholics do not think that companies should be allowed to use the owner’s religious beliefs as a reason to deny services to a customer or employee.

Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice said, “The Catholic vote is like a jump ball in basketball—every election it comes into play and both parties try to claim it as their own. As it represents 25 percent of the electorate, considerable effort goes into trying to determine which team will grab it. However, as this new poll shows what we’ve always known: Catholics are concerned with social justice and compassion and do not vote with the bishops, no matter how much the bishops try to project their own beliefs onto this section of the electorate.”

The poll was conducted before the vice presidential debate between Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Mike Pence, where the two squared off on religious liberty and abortion, but in a statement released after the debate Catholics for Choice said, “Catholics act according to their own conscience and they do not stand with the Catholic hierarchy on abortion, access to healthcare or the rise of religious refusals backed by the bishops, and similarly do not think they nor Catholic politicians have an obligation to vote according to the Bishops. In fact, Senator Tim Kaine said it was not the role of a public servant to mandate their faith through government, and on fundamental issues of morality, like abortion, we should let women make those decisions.”

Rhode Island is routinely said to be the most Catholic of the United States.

Trump for President signs can be found around Cranston, says Aubin, displayed next to signs for the three Republican City Wide City Council candidates. Their names also appear on signs with local GOP standard bearer, Mayor Allan Fung, who told WPRI in August that he supported “the Republican nominee” and said of Trump’s hate speech that the presidential nominee “keeps putting his foot in his mouth.” By aligning themselves with the mayor and not publicly disavowing Trump, Michael Farina, Ken Hopkins, and Louis Petrucci are sending a signal that Trump’s message of racism and division is okay by them.

Farina, reached by email, did not reply directly to Aubin’s call for him to disavow Trump. “I am running for city council not President,” said Farina, “and this is a lame attempt for her to garner attention in a race against 2 incumbents and other more popular candidates herself. She should run on the issues and how she plans on making Cranston better. I stand by my record of positive improvements in the city of Cranston.”

This isn’t enough for Aubin. “When nomination papers were filed in June, Trump was already the presumptive nominee of the Republican party. No one forced Michael Farina to switch parties and become a Republican, and his continued unwillingness to disavow Trump’s racism and bigotry — even when given a direct opportunity — demonstrates a severe lack of judgment, courage, and leadership.

“So this absolutely matters to Cranston and the people of our city deserve to know where Mr. Farina stands on Donald Trump. I believe that Trump’s near constant hateful and incendiary comments are dangerous for America and for Cranston. I have spoken clearly about the issues I am passionate about for our city — improving our neighborhoods by making them more walkable and affordable, protecting our environment, improving our local economy, reducing wasteful spending, and making sure Cranston has top performing schools.”

At the time Farina switched party affiliation from Democrat to Republican he said he believed there had been “efforts to inhibit or obstruct him from taking positions on certain issue contrary to fellow Democratic leaders.”

“As a Democrat I have felt pressure,” said Farina, “to conform to party positions … more about political maneuvering and personal ego than the constituents.”

Aubin says that as a longtime advocate for social justice, she believes in a Cranston that is strong, diverse, and equitable. The America that Donald Trump is selling, based on xenophobia and intolerance, has no place in Cranston or anywhere in our country.

“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.

Trump’s comments did not come out of a vacuum. They were in reference to the the high profile trial of 10 Somali-Americans who were tried for attempting to join ISIS. But note that Trump isn’t going after terrorists or criminals in his statements, he’s going after a community. The Somali community in Minnesota is the largest in the United States. Of the over 85,000 Somalis in the country, 25,000 live in Minnesota, and they want what we all want: peace and love and family and friends.

Trump’s words emboldened his followers to attack the Somali community. Laura Yuen of Minnesota Public Radio News, reports:

In an audio recording the Somali Museum of Minnesota said it received last week on its office voicemail, an anonymous caller, who identifies himself as a Minnesotan, saying “when Donald Trump is elected president, you’re going to have to close down your museum.”

The anonymous caller continues: “November’s coming around; he’s gonna get elected, and we’re gonna get put a ban on all Muslims, especially Somalis. Go listen to Donald Trump speak at speeches: He’s talking about Somalis in Minnesota. What do you think is gonna happen? They’re all gonna get deported. What’s gonna happen then to your museum?”

This is not an attack on terrorists, this is an attack on a culture, the threat of genocide is implied by such threats against its cultural institutions. The Somali Museum in Minneapolis is the only one of its kind in the world. Another museum, in Mogadishu, fell victim to the civil war, its artifacts and exhibits scattered to the wind.

I visited the Somali Museum on Saturday. I was given a tour by Abdirahman Hassan, a 24 year old University of Minnesota student. Hassan taught me about Somalia’s history of colonization, about the ways in which the country was divided by the English, Italians and the French. How a failed government led to civil war and the expansion of the Somali Diaspora. Today more than one million Somalis now live around the world in communities like Minneapolis.

Abdirahman is very much an American youth. We bonded over our mutual appreciation for Star Trek, yet his eyes were most alive when we talked about nomadic Somali culture. As part of the diaspora he could not read or write the Somali language until he began to learn it at university.

The Somali Museum concentrates on the nomadic Somali culture. Weaving is an essential skill. Some pots, like the one pictured above, are woven so tightly and expertly they can contain milk without leaking. The camel, in Somali nomadic culture, provides transportation, meat, leather and milk.

Abdirahman told me of Arawelo, the ancient and legendary queen of Somalia, who advanced the cause of feminism even as she castrated and limited the power of men.

I learned of Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, called the Mad Mullah by the British. He fought for the freedom of what was then known as Somaliland against British, Italian and Ethiopian forces. His was the first army to face aerial bombardment as biplanes dropped bombs on his forces. He did not die in battle or in prison, but of the flu at age 64.

There is a culture, a language, a history, a people and a community under threat from the mad rhetoric of Donald Trump and his followers. On June 29, near the University of Minnesota, “an assailant allegedly made disparaging remarks about Muslims before opening fire on five young men clad in Muslim prayer robes called qamis. Two of the men, ages 22 and 19, were wounded when bullets struck them in the leg.”

And of course there is 13-year old Yusuf Dayur, who has been bullied in school for being Muslim. “Why do your people attack us for no reason?” Yusuf was asked in school by an older student.

“I just walked away. I didn’t know what to do,” said Yusuf.

The mission of the Somali Museum says that, “By promoting the highest forms of Somali creativity, the Somali Museum believes that it can also help to diminish harmful prejudice and misunderstanding.”

Mission accomplished.

Coincidentally, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump came to Minneapolis MN on the same day I made my first visit to the city. This turned a day that I had planned to spend sightseeing into a day of traveling to three different anti-Trump events.

“Trump’s rhetoric is creating an unsafe environment for the Muslim community, for the Somali-American community, and we have seen an increase in Islamaphobia and anti-Muslim efforts across the state of Minnesota,” said Jaylani Hussein, executive director of the Council of American-Islamic Relations- Minnesota (CAIR-MN), “We have seen, just a few weeks ago, an incident involving five young Muslim men who were shot… we believe that incident is a hate crime.”

Hussein believes that Trump’s extremist rhetoric is creating a hostile, unsafe environment for Muslim Americans and immigrants, and the effects are being felt by the most vulnerable.

Hussein introduced 13-year old Yusuf Dayur who has been experiencing bullying in his school because he is a Muslim. Hussein suggested that Dayur might one day be president. Though Dayur’s school is very proactive in providing Dayur time and space in which to pray, some of his fellow students do not trust him because he is a Muslim. Dayur bravely fought back tears as he described the difficulties he faces.

Jaylani Hussein’s full comments:

After the press conference I headed across town to the Minnesota State Republican Offices where Cosecha Minnesota was holding a “Wall Off Trump” event. Cosecha is “a nonviolent decentralized movement that is focused on activating our immigrant community and the public to guarantee permanent and humane protection for immigrants in this country.”

Estaphania and another woman explained that their protest, in which they painted a wall, like the one Trump is promising on the Texas-Mexico border, is meant to draw attention to Trump’s extremist rhetoric that threatens the health and safety of immigrant Americans.

My last stop was at the Minneapolis Convention Center, where people representing virtually everyone Trump has ever publicly maligned, including immigrants, black Americans, members of the LGBTQ community, women, Muslims, indigenous Americans and more, gathered together to denounce Trump ahead of his visit to a large donor rally.

This protest was organized by MIRAc, the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee, a group that, “fights for legalization for all, an end to immigration raids & deportations, an end to all anti-immigrant laws, and full equality in all areas of life.”

Trump did not make a public appearance in Minnesota, or even speak to the press. He spoke to donors only at the Convention Center. But his very presence in the city was enough to galvanize this group to come out to speak, sing, dance and chant their opposition to Trump being president.

According to the Minnesota Star Tribune, after this event, as Trump donors left the convention center, they were confronted by angry demonstrators. “The demonstrators who harassed donors were not present earlier on, when the protest was peaceful. Many in the later group hid their faces behind scarves,” writes reporter Patrick Condon, “Minneapolis police spokeswoman Sgt. Catherine Michal said there were no arrests and no reported injuries. There was, however, minor damage, including graffiti on the walls of the Convention Center, and officers had to escort Trump supporters in and out of the lobby because they were being harshly confronted, Michal said.”

Below are the rest of the pictures and video from the three events.

Rhode Island’s junior senator and Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, authored a letter to Cruz, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, asking him to hold hearings on Donald Trump’s recent “encouragement of a Russian cyber incursion of a U.S. presidential candidate.”

The two Democrats want the conservative Republican of Texas, an adversary of Trump’s, to “conduct an oversight hearing to determine whether existing federal criminal statutes and federal court jurisdiction sufficiently address conduct related to foreign entities that could undermine our elections,” according to the letter.

“Specifically,” reads the letter, “we ask that you consider whether requests for foreign entities to conduct cyber attacks on political opponents violate existing federal criminal statutes, and whether there are obstacles to the federal courts asserting jurisdiction to protect the integrity of our nation’s elections.”

No word yet on whether Cruz will agree to hold the hearings. While the climate change-denying Texan is no ally to Whitehouse, he may be a bigger enemy of Trump’s. When Cruz spoke at the Republican National Convention, he implored people to “vote your conscience” rather than voting for Trump, who purposefully interrupted Cruz’s speech. Before that, Trump insulted Cruz’s wife.

Read Whitehouse and Coon’s full letter to Cruz below:

Dear Chairman Cruz:

We write to express our concern regarding recent remarks made by presidential nominee Donald Trump and the threat of foreign influence in U.S. elections.  On July 27, reporters asked Mr. Trump several questions regarding the cyber breach of the Democratic National Committee and potential Russian involvement.  When asked if he would call on Russian President Vladimir Putin to stay out of the United States’ presidential election, Mr. Trump stated:  “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. . . . I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”  Mr. Trump’s apparent encouragement of a foreign cyberattack on presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, a U.S. citizen and former Secretary of State, is dangerous and irresponsible.  We ask that you conduct an oversight hearing to determine whether existing federal criminal statutes and federal court jurisdiction sufficiently address conduct related to foreign entities that could undermine our elections.

As two dozen national security experts stated in a recent letter calling for a congressional investigation, this is “not a partisan issue” but rather “an assault on the integrity of the entire American political process.”  The “hacking of a political party’s email system by Russian intelligence agencies would, if proven, constitute unprecedented foreign interference in an American presidential campaign.”

Mr. Trump’s encouragement of a Russian cyber incursion of a U.S. presidential candidate represents an unprecedented call for a foreign government to spy on a U.S. citizen and interfere with a U.S. election.  The threat Russia poses to cybersecurity has long been recognized as a national security issue, with a 2009 National Intelligence Estimate warning that Russia had the most “robust, longstanding program that combines a patient, multidisciplinary approach to computer network operations with proven access and tradecraft.”  Recent Russian attempts to influence foreign elections – in Ukraine, Georgia, and France, for example – by engaging in cyberwarfare and orchestrated leaks are well documented.  Mr. Trump’s comments implicate U.S. criminal laws prohibiting engagement with foreign governments that threaten the country’s interests, including the Logan Act and the Espionage Act.  They threaten the privacy of a U.S. citizen and former government official, inviting Russia to engage in conduct that would violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and, if performed by the U.S. government, would contravene the Fourth Amendment.  Finally, Mr. Trump has invited foreign interference with the presidential election, which we believe should be carefully guarded against under U.S. law.

To ensure the integrity of the presidential election and its insulation from Russian cyber threats, we ask that you conduct an oversight hearing to consider whether existing federal criminal statutes and federal court jurisdiction sufficiently address conduct related to foreign entities that could undermine our elections.  Specifically, we ask that you consider whether requests for foreign entities to conduct cyber attacks on political opponents violate existing federal criminal statutes, and whether there are obstacles to the federal courts asserting jurisdiction to protect the integrity of our nation’s elections.

Sincerely,

Christopher A. Coons                                                                         Sheldon Whitehouse

United States Senator                                                                           United States Senator

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.

However, I don’t blame those Sanders delegates who chose to walk out. We all know that the DNC, at the very least, “slanted” the primaries in Clinton’s favor and sought to undermine the Sanders campaign. We all know that Clinton, by way of the FBI’s statement on her email scandal, is inherently dishonest, even to her own supporters, and that collusion between her campaign and the DNC possibly occurred during the primaries. I don’t blame those Sanders delegates for protesting, or booing, or for feeling jilted.

But I do blame them for not following Bernie’s lead. Sanders, in his speech on Monday night, called for unity in the Democratic Party. And at the end of the roll call vote on Tuesday night, he graciously moved to nominate Clinton after he did not win the vote. He made a selfless gesture toward unity, and not just Democratic unity.

He made a gesture toward unifying against Donald Trump.

I don’t want to buy into the fear-mongering, but beating Trump at the polls in November is of the utmost importance. His narcissistic nihilism, tinged with fascism, framed by xenophobia, and fueled by racism is, in the words of the Washington Post editorial board, a “unique and present danger” that the GOP has officially presented to the general electorate. Now Trump is everyone’s problem. And, unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is now the only major party nominee that stands between Donald Trump and the presidency.

For those who aren’t willing to risk a third party vote, this choice boils down to a difficult moral dilemma. One one hand, we have a deceitful neoliberal who lacks favorability and is quite possibly corrupt, yet unarguably has a qualified history in American national politics and has the backing of prominent progressive politicians, including senators Warren and Sanders. On the other hand, we have a loud-mouthed bully with no political experience, who doesn’t know Constitutional law, who would trample on free speech rights and freedom of the press, who openly discriminates against Muslims and Mexicans, who tacitly supports racial violence, and who asked Russia to help reveal Clinton’s lost emails.

Democratic unity, today, is not about rallying behind Clinton as a nominee, nor even about rallying around what she represents. It isn’t unity within the Democratic Party per se. It isn’t even about Clinton, or Warren, or Sanders, as Bernie has pointed out numerous times in his speeches, particularly on Monday night. It’s about Donald Trump, which is exactly what Trump wants because everything in his world must be about him. In his own words during his acceptance speech, he said of America’s problems, “I alone can fix [them].”

What Trump doesn’t know is that no president alone can “fix it” (and Trump “doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and he’s uninterested in finding out“). The same rule applies to Clinton, yet she knows that. But the slight benefit of a Clinton presidency is that she has the support of progressives like Sanders and Warren and will be held accountable by them. They will influence her decisions, help frame progressive legislation, and approve Supreme Court picks that will overturn Citizens United. That’s what checks and balances are for. And Clinton, despite her massive shortcomings, is expected to defend our Constitutional rights by her progressive peers, and she would do well to repair her lack of public trust by delivering a strong progressive agenda.

Trump, however, is expected to trample on our rights by his jeering supporters and the foolish GOP politicians who endorsed him. His VP pick, Mike Pence, has signed legislation that legalized open discrimination against LGBTQ people. And the most frightening part is that the most ignorant of Trump supporters don’t even realize the danger he poses to their own liberties and freedoms as Americans. Trump would have control of the FBI, NSA, CIA, TSA, and every other executive branch agency (not to mention the military) that he could easily, under executive order, command to act out his hostilities.

And this is where I say what I’ve never wanted to say: a vote for the Democratic nominee is more important than voting my conscience, at least this time around. Of course, in terms of my personal values, I want to vote for Jill Stein, but I do not place voting for my own values above protecting what liberties and freedoms that we already have. To do so would be selfish and disrespectful to people who would face the worst treatment by a Trump presidency. While I admire Stein for tackling the two-party system, now is not the time to do so, and openly dividing Democrats under the #DemExit banner is counterproductive to the goal of keeping Trump from the presidency.

Yes, Rhode Island is deep blue and a vote for Stein may be safe here, but against the broad and insidious influence of Trump, we shouldn’t take any state for granted, especially with Clinton’s high negatives and recent drop in the polls. So, instead of voting Green or staying home on election day, we should consider following Bernie’s lead to vote Democrat in November. Bernie knows that this movement has now become about the long game. He has vowed to continue the Political Revolution, and the first step toward gaining ground is beating Donald Trump, because under a President Trump, there’s no chance to pass any progressive legislation. I have no doubt that he’d veto anything he wants without a second thought.

There’s nothing I’d love more than to see a Bernie Sanders presidency, or even Green Party viability. But second to that, I’ll take Trump getting blown out of the water on election day. To vote Democrat is not to just reject Trump as a nominee, but to reject the hateful and powerful zeitgeist he’s stirred up among a surprising number of voters in our country. That’s where our choice as voters goes beyond voting against a candidate. It’s about voting against what Trump has come to represent. Preventing the rightward march toward peril that Trump has inspired is absolutely imperative to continuing the experiment of American democracy, however flawed that experiment may be.

Congressman David Cicilline asked President Obama to not share with Donald Trump the national security secrets typically confided in candidates for president. Earlier today, Trump publicly prodded Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s email.

He sent this letter to the president today.

President Obama,

Since 1952, the White House has authorized the U.S. intelligence community to provide major party presidential nominees with classified briefings on the state of international affairs.  These briefings feature the discussion of sensitive intelligence, and are designed to help prepare candidates for the solemn national security responsibilities that they will assume upon taking office.

As the Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump will presumably be eligible for this courtesy in the near future.  However, on July 27, 2016, Mr. Trump urged Russian intelligence services to conduct cyberespionage operations into the correspondence of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, saying, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope that you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.  I think you will probably be rewarded mightily be our press.”  In light of these recent statements, we respectfully ask you to rescind Mr. Trump’s access to these briefings.

It is our belief that these statements, when considered in the broader context of the Republican nominee’s prior conduct and ties to the Russian government, warrant a re-examination of his access to this sensitive intelligence.  These remarks reflect more than just a lack of good judgment—it is an explicit call for intervention from an adversarial foreign power to undermine the American democratic process, and represents an action just short of outright treason.

Unfortunately, this intervention would be only the latest chapter in Russian efforts to interfere in this presidential election.  In May, National Intelligence Director James Clapper announced that the intelligence community had seen some indications that foreign governments were attempting to hack U.S. presidential campaigns.  And in June, CrowdStrike identified Russian intelligence agencies as the source behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee—an assessment that has been largely corroborated by the U.S. intelligence community.

The Republican nominee’s call for hostile foreign action represents a step beyond mere partisan politics and represents a threat to the republic itself.  It suggests that he is unfit to receive sensitive intelligence, and may willingly compromise our national security if he is permitted to do so. With this in mind, we respectfully ask that you withhold the intelligence briefing to Mr. Trump in the interests of national security.

Sincerely,
David N. Cicilline
Member of Congress

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.