Top News

•  
• Tags

Bernie Sanders
Campaign Finance reform
Donald Trump
Froma Harrop
Hillary Clinton

Bernie Sanders is almost certainly not going to be the Democratic nominee. Though he retains a devoted following, the crowds, the attention and the money are no longer what they were — death for a campaign built on momentum. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, holds a virtually insurmountable lead in both delegates and votes.

Passion is a valuable commodity in politics, and the time has come for team Sanders to redirect it. There are two useful paths at this point. No. 1 is joining Democrats, sensible Republicans and the rest of civilization in defeating the appalling Donald Trump. If Sanders and his troops can graft their idealism onto the realism of Clinton’s campaign, then Trump goes down in a pink puff of stage powder smoke.

No. 2 is turning that liberal energy into an enduring political force. That would require making the “movement” less about Bernie and more about ideas.

The thorny question is, how much of Sanders’ support is tied to one man? Sanders has won many young hearts, but turning a fan base into a voting bloc is not easy.

The News York Times

Op Ed Submission

To: The Editor

There is an increased discussion about inequality, capitalism, the minimum wage and a host of other topics bearing on the manner in which we measure the well-being of people in our society. Two aspects of our method of measuring that poison the well are our penchant for labeling and placing the value of money as the foremost measure of well-being. The discussion of the minimum wage is a prime example of confusing the amount of income with the quality of life. Providing low-income people with a minimum wage of $15 dollars sometime in the future is not going to change their quality of life. They will still be poor and many of life’s quality determinants will still be beyond their reach.

Although income is an important factor, it is not the only or most important determinant providing one’s well-being. Those areas of life that account for human need, such as medical care, education, transportation, public utilities and numerous other areas, should be provided by the government and paid for by a truly progressive tax structure. Those areas that provide consumer goods, such as automobiles and other consumer products should be provided by the private sector.

Labeling in our society causes a confusion and misunderstanding of the existing economic structures extant in the industrial world of today. Some people will refer to European countries as socialist and the United States as capitalist. Neither exists in today’s industrial world, but the words carry a significant mythological message. The industrial world embraces the concept of mixed economies, where all or some of the human needs of society are in the hands of government and consumer production is accomplished through the private sector. The problem exits when human needs are controlled by for-profit corporations or when there is too much control over consumer production by government.

It is really time for our leaders in government and industry to embrace more completely the mixed economy model and focus on the quality of life factors in our society. In mixed economies, some important industries are government owned, such as railroads, public utilities, public transportation, health care, and education. Progressive taxation and elaborate welfare systems help achieve equitable distribution of resources. The concept of equality is one of equality of condition. Examples of such economies are found in Germany and the Scandinavian countries. In addition to government benefits, high taxes provide a system where the gap between CEOs and worker’s pay is much less than that of the United States today.

427 words

Harry E. Berndt

150 Parsons Ave.

St. Louis, Mo 63119

Phone; 314-962-1749

Email: hberndt1926@sbcglobal.net

WHY AMERICA NEEDS HILLARY

By Harry E. Berndt

I support Hillary Clinton and think that it is important for women around the world for her to be elected, and therefore important for our society. Even if she were to disappoint us, her election would be important for the future of women. As for Trump, there is really no comparison between his life-time experience and achievements and hers. Much of her work has been on issues affecting women and children, and she is respected and admired by women around the world for her efforts on behalf of women. Women around the world are abused horribly, and a woman president of the United States would bring hope and raise the aspirations of women everywhere. It would also have symbolic value for little girls now and in the future.

I believe that a woman president would bring another dimension of governance to the office of president. I say this even though female leaders in other countries have not, as a general rule, been much different than their male counterparts. Women are the majority in our country, and they can make this happen.

I am not suggesting that one should vote for Hillary only because she is a woman or because she has done much for women and children and in support of families. Her accomplishments as a two term senator from New York and as Secretary of State for the United States extend far beyond such considerations. Senator Sanders likes to point to mistakes made by her and even by her husband, Presided Clinton, such as her vote for the Iraqi war or his Prison Reform Bill. Her successes seem not to matter. Mistakes are made by those who, in fact, attempt to accomplish something, and not by those who speak of what they might accomplish. I have not heard much or, in fact, anything about Senator Sanders mistakes.

The record of Donald Trump is not worthy of discussion, because he has done nothing other than attempt to amass wealth and promote himself and his organization. His mistakes are many but none relate to attempts to improve our society.

Political Leadership and Governance

The present crop of Republicans is bereft of responsible leadership, as reflected by their titular leader’s statement that”The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one term president.” In addition, the majority of Republicans who signed the Grover Norquist pledge never to increase taxes have abrogated their ability to govern, if they are to abide by their pledge. Their ability to address the pressing problems arising from poverty and the potential demands of warfare are rendered ineffectual. If politics is the art of compromise, how can the Republican Legislators effectively act as co-partners in governance? The present economic crisis strongly indicates that they fail to recognize the need for compromise, and that their attitude reflects allegiance to their party rather than allegiance to the United States.

How did it happen that the Republican Party became so inadequate, so miserable and pathetic? It certainly has not always been so. At other times the Republican Party not only stood for smaller government and low taxes, the party and its leaders also stood for Civil Rights, and was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment. The 1964 Civil Rights legislation would probably not have passed if it had not been for Republican Senator Everett Dirksen. Robert Taft, Mr. Republican, stood in the Senate and denounced our internment of the Japanese – the only one to have the courage to do so at a time of national fear of invasion and hatred of the enemy. An example of statesmanship was President Dwight Eisenhower’s warning of the military- industrial complex; a warning unheeded by subsequent national leaders. And Gerald Ford brought dignity and compromise to the office of the President after the tragedy of the Nixon scandal. These men were politicians practicing the honorable art of politics as committed leaders of our country. They were not just leaders of the Republican Party seeking political power, although they were that, too, but they recognized that the art of politics is compromise. These are the kind of leaders needed at this time of national crisis. Unfortunately, they are dead!

Harry E. Berndt

A WORD ABOUT MARRIAGE

By Harry E. Berndt

As one ages there is an inevitable decline in abilities, but is there also a possible concurrent improvement in one’s insights? When short term memory declines, long term memory sometimes improves. Long term memory improvement is not because short term memory seems to be diminished, but rather because both occur more or less simultaneously as part of the aging process; short term memory because of declining ability and long term memory because of nostalgia, a longing to understand the currents of one’s life. An understanding of History, in this case the history of one’s life, provides insights not available to those who depend on the immediate: who depend on short term memory for insights into the verities of life. Older adults are often considered conservative, but they are not necessarily conservative relative to politics or economics; it has more to do with being conservative relative to societal norms and social issues.   

As a young person living in a rather small industrial town in Western Pennsylvania, I and all the people I knew had never knowingly met or knew a person now referred to as Gay. The word had yet to be invented, and what was termed homosexuality, or vulgarly referred to as queer, was considered as sexually deviant and laws existed criminalizing such behavior. For the most part, we never discussed or thought about the existence of people living that particular life style. It should not be difficult to understand why people born in the 1920s or 1930s find the idea of same sex marriage untenable. Of course, that is not to say that the more cosmopolitan sophisticates among us were unaware or even unaccepting of the gay life style, but for the majority of small town residents the subject was never broached.

 People born after WW II are more likely to better understand society’s changing mores and better able to accept the Gay life style and same sex marriage. Those of us of an older cohort find it more difficult, but most are coming to accept the inevitable, especially those of us considered to be socially liberal. Social conservatives hold to the one man/one woman sexual and marriage position, often basing that position on religious belief.

Once same sex marriage is established and accepted by society the rules and definition of what is meant by marriage will become the issue. Is marriage all about sex and should the saying or song go “Sex and Marriage” rather than “Love and Marriage”? Actually humans, and I suspect most other species as well, are sexual from birth to death. Also, we love all of our lives, which is not necessarily related to sexuality. In either case, it is the mode that is particular to each of us and to each other. Whether one’s sexuality or love is directed toward the same gendered person or that of the opposite is not to be questioned. Then the real question becomes what is meant by marriage. Is marriage about love, sex, both or neither? If one looks to the history of marriage it becomes evident that historically marriage was about contracts. It is still the most prevalent element involving marriage and family. In many, if not most, parts of the world arranged marriages are now and have always been the dominant mode. Contracts are commitments, and the contract of marriage is that of commitment. The phrase “in sickness and in health, for better or for worse unto death do us part” means commitment in the face of all obstacles. It would certainly seem that Gay couples are as capable of fulfilling that commitment as are heterosexual couples. The real problems confronting marriage today, especially in those countries referred to as being in the Western Orbit rather than that of the East or Middle East, are not about same sex marriage or heterosexual marriage; they are much more about commitment and stability. As the concept of commitment has become ever more lax, family stability has been diminished. The increased diversity in the lives of many people today affects family cohesiveness and intimacy. Add children to the equation along with numerous other complexities and the stress on many marriages becomes overwhelming for many couples. These are the real problems that face society; not whether a couple is gay or heterosexual.

April 22, 2016