Taking Job Applications

I'm looking at this election, as I do all elections, as an employer at a Job Fair.  This is my constitutional right as a US Citizen and I take it as a sacred duty.   Applications for the opening positions in my Executive Branch are being accepted.  As such, I'm sorting out which applicants best fit which roles in my Executive Branch and am narrowing down my top choices.

None of them are perfect savior-monarchs who will fix everything with the stroke of a pen.  That un-American expectation doesn't meet reality.  As a citizen employer, I have accepted that no matter who reaches the final interview, that person will NOT check all my boxes, nor will they give me 150% of the changes I want right this minute.  All of them have flaws and faults and all have made mistakes.  Of course, this impacts my decision.

When compared, though, to the outright Nazi regime we currently are being held hostage by, any of them would be a step back in the right direction.

PLEASE NOTE:  Each candidate has been linked to their Financial backers and I strongly suggest the reader examine each link, so that you can have an effective idea of who these candidates are REALLY serving.

FOR THE PRESIDENCY:

Elizabeth Warren is my hands-down favorite, who has the brains, the stamina and the compassion necessary for the job.  I agree with the vast majority of her platform and tactics and can think of no one better to right the ship of state.

Kamala Harris is a firebrand who holds her opponents to account without mercy or hesitation.  If Warren doesn't get the nomination, Harris, for all her faults -- and there are many, particularly when it comes to Mass Incarceration -- would be a strong, effective employee who would at least try to do right by the average person.  Undoubtedly Harris would hide behind the letter of the law as an excuse to do less for us than Warren would, which gives me ideological pause.  That said, looking at this as a citizen employer, given her experience, acumen and, let's face it, personal optics, I am seriously considering her as my second choice.  I could also live with her as VP or Secretary of State.

FOR THE VICE PRESIDENCY:

Pete Buttigieg would do well in calling out the hypocrisy of the Dominionist theocrats on the Right.  While his heart seems to be in the right place and his story is fantastic, I don’t believe him to be experienced enough to handle the top job.  The top job would handle him, which benefits none of us.  The Vice Presidency would give him experience that, down the line, would enable him to make an effective executive in the future.

Bernie Sanders, the grand old man of the Left, paired with a younger partner, would make an excellent VP, with a bully pulpit of his own and the President’s ear when it comes to policy.  Sadly, though, I agree with his younger opponents that his time has passed to be the Commander in Chief, but his wisdom and experience would be a priceless asset to any incoming administration.

FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL:

Julian Castro is my first choice for this position, not the Presidency.  He’s fierce, strong-willed, has an incredible grasp of the law and will absolutely prioritize humanity over profiteering.  He would make a wonderful AG, in the finest tradition of RFK.  That said, I don't think he's showing the necessary ground support to make it to the final rounds of Presidential interviews.  I also think he's a far better temperamental fit for the AG slot.

FOR CABINET POSTS:

As I’ve long maintained that Warren would be a perfect choice to run the Treasury or the FED, I would strongly urge anybody who wins the nomination from her to appoint her to that position.  There’s nobody more ethically or intellectually qualified to run it.

Amy Klobuchar seems to have good head and good heart, but in our age of shiny super-celebrity, she’s not someone who can realistically compete on the field.  I could absolutely see her running HUD or the HHS Departments.

Cory Booker would possibly make a half-way decent Chief of Staff or Attorney General.  Given that he never fails to argue on behalf of Big Insurance and Big Pharma he's far too much of a Corporatist for me to have much faith in his actions if he were to be hired for the top job.  His good rhetoric rings hollow enough to knock him to the bottom of my preferred lists.

Andrew Yang I laugh out loud at the idiotic way he presents Basic Universal Income every time he does it and have little faith in someone whose platform boils down to buying votes.  That said, his business acumen would be useful as a Deputy in the State or Treasury Departments.  He has some good ideas, but clearly doesn't understand a thing about how our Federal Government actually operates.

Marianne Williamson is back on the list solely for this position. Be honest, now.  Wouldn’t we all love to see her as Press Secretary, presenting a voice of humanity and compassion on behalf of the administration?

2020 is our final rounds of interviews, folks.  We are hiring.  Do the research on your applicants and see which ones realistically could do the job.

The Harsh Truth

In our divided age, I have been doing my best in person and online to defend the values that we hold dear – social and economic equality, justice, humane and ethical behavior.  

I have been fought against every step of the way by Drumpf supporters, Nazi sympathizers, Regressives and idiots, and I treat them accordingly. 

This greatly hurts their feelings, and they furiously parrot their party’s new line demanding an apology for being treated as racists and Nazi sympathizers.  Many have indignantly demanded that I lay out my case for why I treat them as harshly as I do.

Here's why my default assumptions about the ethical and political characters of Drumpf's supporters are the way they are and how I've come to the inescapable conclusion that every Drumpf supporter is, by default, a Nazi or at very least sympathizes with Nazis.

First and foremost -- they are literally standing in solidarity with actual, swastika-waving Nazis in praising a man who has not only repeatedly declared his desire to be dicatator but who has acted like one at every opportunity, even going so far as to use actual Nazi slogans to attack a free press and a KKK motto for his entire administration, to threaten the lives of political opponents, falsely declare that he can undo Constitutional laws by Executive Order and openly defy our Constitutional checks and balances.  I’ve yet to meet a single Drumpf supporter who doesn’t excuse or defend this behavior.

Secondly, he has done everything he can to incite racist violence at his rallies to the point where violent hate crimes against minorities spike every time he comes to town and those who perpetrate that violence cite him for giving them permission to do so.

And what is racism?  Merriam-Websters defines it as follows:

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles

b: a political or social system founded on racism

3: racial prejudice or discrimination

And yet Right Wingers insist that pointing this out is somehow racist in and of itself.  What they are doing with this line of rhetoric is strongly implying that they agree that their biggest fear is being treated for being white the same way that minorities have been for generations.  Why else would they consistently scream in terror whenever you bring up BlackLives Matter?

Now that we’ve gotten the definitions out of the way, his personal history of racism is well-documented.  He has repeatedly referred to actual Nazis as “very fine people”, refusing to condemn them outright, as any decent person would do, yet routinely berates the idea that a non-white NFL player would dare to exercise his right to protest.  That’s the pattern of behavior one would expect from a White Supremacist, but that’s not all!  He’s even made a point of showing solidarity with such, calling himself by their very label.  True to form, he also saves his most savage attacks for the non-white members of our own government.  Again, I’ve yet to see a single Drumpf supporter who doesn’t make a fool of themselves defending and excusing this behavior.

Thirdly, and most heinously, he is rounding up ethnic and religious minorities and putting them into concentration camps.  There’s no other way to describe it.  Once again, I cite the standard definition of the term:

: a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard —used especially in reference to camps created by the Nazis in World War II for the internment and persecution of Jews and other prisoners

These camps feature absolutely inhumane conditions, forced labor, overcrowding and deprivation under armed military guard.  And yet his supporters cheer louder.

He is not limiting his ICE activities merely to the border, but he has ordered the rounding up of American citizens, specifically targeting LEGAL immigrants and even veterans of our own military.  Again, ask any of his supporters about this and they’ll double-down in cheering.

Interestingly enough, he’s conveniently leaving the white illegal immigrants alone.

So we have a man behaving exactly like a Nazi dictator, implementing policies that differ from Nazis ONLY in which minority is being targeted (Hispanics now, instead of Jews), to the thunderous applause of actual Nazis and the KKK.

After a while, it’s hard to tell the difference between a man standing in an SS uniform and the man standing next to him, taking a selfie and holding a sign that says, “I agree”.  There’s not enough of a difference in character to quibble about.

At the end of the day, even those who aren't actively waving a swastika are making every appearance of being happy to stand in solidarity with those who do. Every effort they make to excuse, defend and deflect from the fact that the man they're all cheering for -- both openly and tacitly -- is committing actual human rights violations towards children is a demonstration of their support for his actions, again, in solidarity with actual Nazis.

If they don't want to be tarred with the label of what they're standing in solidarity with, the easiest way to avoid it is to actively denounce the man, his supporters, his policies and his party.

The way to guarantee that the label sticks is to double-down in excusing and defending that same man, his supporters, his policies and his party.

This is an issue that goes beyond mere politics.  This goes straight to personal character.  Taking the labels away, for a moment, and just focusing on basic human decency, I challenge every Drumpf supporter to follow their Fuhrer’s lead.

Go into work on Monday and tell one of your coworkers of color to “go back where they came from”.  Find a coworker with disabilities and mock them for it to their face.  Grab a coworker by the p*ssy and then call a less attractive coworker a “dog” or “horseface”.  See if you can stay employed through lunch time by doing so.

If you’re not willing to do this, then you’re acknowledging that such behavior is unacceptable. 

Now, ask yourself why you feel that unacceptable behavior should be cheered for and supported in any person at all, let alone an elected official.

While we quibble over the feelings of those who clearly don't care about other people's feelings, innocent people are being brutalized, abused and killed. I don't see how there's any reasonable excuse to not treat those who cheer for that treatment accordingly.

The real question isn’t “how dare you call Drumpf supporters ‘Nazis’ and treat them as such?” – it’s how can we objectively NOT do so and still be decent human beings?

So, for all those poor crying Drumpfers who don't like being held to the standard of behavior they cheer for, I can only say this:

Let the Job Applications Begin

The past two nights have been most enlightening for me, regarding the state of affairs in our political lives, as we, The People, hold interviews for the applicants to the job of managing the overall afairs of the nation on our behalf.

I was pleasantly surprised at the high tone of the first Democratic debate and highly disappointed to see the second devolve into a pissing match.  What I was heartened to see was that MOST of the candidates on each night enthusiastically endorsed a platform of principles that I wholeheartedly support:

• Curbing the power of the Economic shadow elites who have hijacked our national governance

• Combating the impending Climate Crisis

• Making the economy work for the benefit of those who put the most work into it and at long last putting FDR’s Second Bill of Rights into law

• Restoring basic human decency in our legal, immigration and sick care systems.

• Ending the free-for-all of deadly weapons that plagues our streets and schools

• Kicking out the Nazi regime currently occupying the White House

I could live with that platform, at least for the short term.  No, it doesn’t fully address every issue on the table that affects the average person, but it covers a lot of major and pressing ones.  Politics is the art of the possible, as Ben Franklin once said.  There is no Savior-King who will fix everything with the wave of a magic pen overnight.  Ideological purity tests don't change that reality.  We have to work with what we've got.

I myself have misgivings about each individual candidate in one way or another, so I came at these debates rooting not for an individual candidate, but with an eye to build an effective coalition of the Left to successfully take up the fight.  Lincoln set the precedent of reaching out to his election opponents in the backroom to create one of the most effective governments that this country has ever seen.  I strongly urge the candidates on the field to do the same – make a deal with one another to present a united front against a common enemy, even if that means losing the limelight as individuals.

To that end, I’ve arranged my preferred choices of the field into positions that I feel they’d most effectively fill to achieve the result I so dearly wish for this country. 

Think of this as my recommendation for a Justice League of sorts – a team that, together, can get far more done more quickly and effectively than any individual could do alone.

PLEASE NOTE:  Each candidate has been linked to their Financial backers and I strongly suggest the reader examine each link, so that you can have an effective idea of who these candidates are REALLY serving.

FOR THE PRESIDENCY:

Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris came out ahead, from what I could tell, at least rhetorically.  Warren was direct, no-nonsense, well-informed and projected an image of gravitas that has been long absent from the White House.  Harris was a firebrand who held her opponents to account without mercy or hesitation.  Either one would be a strong, effective employee who would at least try to do right by the average person, although I get the impression that Harris would hide behind the letter of the law as an excuse to do less for us than Warren would.

FOR THE VICE PRESIDENCY:

Kirsten Gillibrand impressed me greatly, with well-thought-out answers and, I think owned the evening, given that every single one of her opponents spent the better part of the next hour trying to restate ideas that she had already put forth.  She has experience and strength that would make her a most effective leader of the Senate.  Given the state of our society, though, I don’t think that the poster child of Aryan femininity is appropriate to be given top billing.  That said, think of how clearly she would own any debate against Pence.  One wink at him and he'd be a complete mess.

Pete Buttigieg also did well, I thought, especially in calling out the hypocrisy of the Dominionist theocrats on the Right.  While his heart is in the right place and his story is fantastic, I don’t believe him to be experienced enough to handle the job.  The Vice Presidency would give him experience that, down the line, would enable him to make an effective executive in the future.

Bernie Sanders, the grand old man of the Left, sadly, came across as doddering in these debates, but paired with a younger partner, he would make an excellent VP, with a bully pulpit of his own and the President’s ear when it comes to policy.  Sadly, though, I agree with his younger opponents that his time has passed, and our focus needs to be on the future.

FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL:

Julian Castro is my hands-down favorite for this position.  He’s fierce, strong-willed, has an incredible grasp of the law and will absolutely prioritize humanity over profiteering.  He would make a wonderful AG, in the finest tradition of RFK.  He also had the benefit of being the only candidate on the stage who didn’t come across as insincerely pandering when he spoke Spanish.  While I could also see Beto O’Rourke in this position, I greatly prefer Castro.

FOR CABINET POSTS:

As I’ve long maintained that Warren would be a perfect choice to run the Treasury or the FED, I would strongly urge anybody who wins the nomination from her to appoint her to that position.  There’s nobody more ethically or intellectually qualified to run it.

Amy Klobuchar seems to have good head and good heart, but in our age of shiny super-celebrity, she’s not someone who can realistically compete on the field.  I could absolutely see her running HUD or the HHS Departments.

Tulsi Gabbard’s war-hawk temperament kicked her out of my top choices for the Presidency.  I do, however, feel she would be ideally suited to Secretary of State or the Department of Defense.  Her foreign policy experience would nicely round out a Progressive team and give us the best chance of having the military go along with ending perpetual war.

Cory Booker would possibly make a half-way decent Chief of Staff or Attorney General, but given his ties to the Corporatist shadows currently running our nation into the ground, his good rhetoric rings hollow enough to knock him to the bottom of my preferred lists.

Andrew Yang I laughed out loud at the idiotic way he presented Basic Universal Income, but his business acumen would be useful as a Deputy in the State Department.

Marianne Williamson came across as a lovely woman whose heart is in the right place and who would have no clue at all how to govern in any way, shape or form.  That said, I would love to see her as Press Secretary, presenting a voice of humanity and compassion on behalf of the administration.

TIME TO BOW OUT:

Joe Biden and Bill de Blasio both need to go.  Biden not only came across as more doddering than Sanders, but got his head handed to him last night – rightfully – for his long and tarnished record.  His brand of Corporatism is absolutely the wrong way for this country to go.  And while de Blasio talks a good game and I was happy to vote for him for Mayor when I lived in NYC, by all accounts he has failed to live up to his soaring rhetoric there and the likeliest outcome is that he would fail as President as well. 

Jay Insley and John Hickenlooper each had a point when they said, “I’ve already done it”, but neither seems to have any clue how DC works and both have the charisma of a wet sponge.  I might be able to live with either of them in some lower Cabinet post, perhaps in charge of finally legalizing Marijuana, but neither of these players is ready for Prime Time.

Finally, Michael Bennett, Tom DeLaney, Tim Ryan and Eric Swalwell all need to learn that discretion is the better part of valor and that bowing out now is preferable to trying to make the policies and rhetoric of George W Bush look at all appetizing to a Progressive American Public.  Trying to make Republican policies look Progressive is a fool's errand.

In conclusion, the American nation is indeed at a major crossroads, where our core values of openness, kindness, diversity and teamwork are under direct attack from cruel Fascists and Nazi sympathizers, who celebrate inhumane treatment of children and demand nothing less than totalitarian rule.  We cannot allow their efforts to divide the rest of us to succeed.

Let us form a true coalition to defeat them, as we did in WWII.  We did it before.  We can do it again.

COALITION NOT COMPETITION

E PLURIBUS UNUM