Why I'm Quitting Politics (Sort Of)

Cropped from original

In 2016 I worked my ass off for Hillary (mostly phone banking and canvassing), in 2020 I did what I was able to for Joe (text banking), and in 2024 I did what I was able to for Kamala (text banking, postcard writing, and a bit of phone banking). 

But on November 6 of this year, I realized something I probably should have realized a long time ago. What follows is a slightly edited version of something I posted in the Slack for Vote Save America, the organization I volunteered through during this election:

While our societal problems clearly show up in our politics, as of today I no longer believe...that terrible political outcomes are solved by different or better politics, at least not anymore in this country. Hillary and Kamala both had, in my humble opinion, vastly better politics—better policies, better campaigns, better enthusiasm, etc....and in the end, none of that mattered.

Now, let me be clear: What we (humans, Americans) do in politics matters for sure. What we (VSA) did in this race mattered, and we should all take pride that we fought like hell to try to effect what we believed would be the right outcome.

But it's like treating the symptom and not treating the disease causing the symptom. I mean, how many times have "we" said...hell, how many times have l said that Tump's ascendancy was a symptom? To use another analogy, if the masses hadn't liked what he was selling, he'd never have gained a large enough following to make a real difference. 

On what his rise is a symptom of exactly, much has already been written. And I think we all could articulate some of those reasons. (And I don't just mean, for example, racism! But also: certain groups being ignored by one or both parties/by the government as a whole, being lied to all the time by the right-wing media universe, the system being corrupted by dark money/gerrymandering/lobbying, etc., etc.)

But the kind of politics we end up with rises out of the kind of culture we have, so...there are layers underneath even all of the above. What about human dignity, respect, kindness, empathy, compassion, the greater good? Those concepts aren't just pretty words to me. They're in my heart. I care about people...or I wouldn't be here.

Humans are neurobiologically hard-wired for connection (source: Brené Brown), meaning humans need other humans to survive and to thrive. (And as a VSA friend shared, "David Graeber & David Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity basically upends the 'survival of the fittest' [which in itself is a gross reduction of what Darwin was saying] idea of human history to one that, essentially, says the only ways humans were able to survive and thrive was through cooperation & collaboration more than competition. So aside from Brené Brown citing our hard-wired-ness for connection, add also the first 2 Cs I listed ^ to innate human characteristics.")

So when Kamala says, "The vast majority of us have more in common than what separates us," I think...we actually all do. It's a fact of being human. And a hyper focus by some on the differences do not make those differences any larger than they really are. 

All of that means we have to figure out how to get along (better) or...face an existential threat.

Which leads me to this: I've decided that for the foreseeable future, I can't do political volunteering anymore. At least not of the trying-to-persuade-other-voters variety. 

This does not mean I won't still be trying to make the world a better place; it's just that I believe I need to start going about it in different ways. I don't know what that'll look like yet. I just know...it'll be something deeper.

Why I'm Supporting John Russell for Congress

There's a special election this year in Ohio's 12th Congressional District, thanks to Representative Pat Tiberi's resigning before the end of his term. (It's a special election because it's to elect someone to serve the remainder of that term. The general election for that seat is for the following Congressional term.)

And the primary for each of them...is at the same time...on the same ballot. One of the things that means is: we have to vote for the same person twice on the same primary ballot. Strange but true.

That election is this coming Tuesday, May 8th.

From the night of Indivisible Ohio District 12's candidates' forum back in February, I knew I wanted to support John Russell. And my commitment to that support has only grown since. Here are some of the reasons why. If you live in Ohio's 12th District (Here's how to find what U.S. House District you live in), I hope you'll join me in voting for John Russell. 

1.  As he was growing up in the rural Ohio Valley, he saw people in his family and community pull together to help each other through tough times, which he says gave him the values of community and service, and he believes that such values should be written into our policies. I couldn't agree more.
2. He is committed to running a face-to-face campaign. He wants to talk to as many 12th District voters—both urban and rural—as he can. And he's taken concrete steps to do just that, including participating in candidate forums and debates, holding town halls (he has held one in every county in the district), and attending 'meet the candidate' house parties. He has also committed to holding regular town halls once he's in office.
3. He gets that as a white man, he wouldn't exactly add to the diversity in Congress—and that he doesn't have the lived experiences or perspectives of those who identify differently than he does. But he is committed to surrounding himself with a diverse group of people who do have those lived experiences and perspectives—and listening to them.
4. He is not accepting any corporate donations to his campaign. Here's what he has to say about why: "Over and over and over again, corporations hire armies of lobbyists and get preferential treatment at the expense of ordinary people who can't hire lobbyists.... If we want to challenge the status quo, and take on special interests, we need the independence given by not accepting corporate money to get elected."
5. He has been politically active for years, even before Tiberi's seat became open. John independently started a petition to get Tiberi to hold a town hall with constituents. (Note: Tiberi never did; he resigned before his term was up, and now John's running for that same seat.) John helped organize Indivisible Ohio District 12 (one of the many Indivisible activism groups that formed in response to the 2016 election), and he joined their fight to save the Affordable Care Act.
6. He has a strong grasp on the issues. In the time that I've been volunteering for his campaign, I've observed John talking with voters on multiple occasions. And I don't think I've seen him stumble once when asked about any issue. He's able to immediately speak to it and to articulate where he stands. And it strikes me as being more than just good communication ability or being personable, though he certainly has both of those as well. He really knows where he stands and what he will fight for.
7. Having grown up in and being a farmer in rural Ohio and having also worked with fellow activists in the urban areas of the district, he has broad appeal across both parts of the district. That seems to be a rare quality these days; it's  refreshing to have a candidate who can cross what has become way too much of a divide in our country.
8. Last but certainly not least, he has solidly progressive positions on the issues. Among other things, he'll fight for:
• common sense gun safety laws
• making voting easy/ier for all eligible voters
• universal health care, through a single-payer, Medicare-for-all model
• improved infrastructure
• steady, good-paying jobs
• a $15/hour minimum wage

Here's John talking more about his position on several important issues:

You Guys, She *Gave a Speech*

Let's get one thing straight right now: While she would almost certainly do a better job than 45 (which, let's face it, is probably the lowest bar for presidential success of all time), Oprah Winfrey is not terribly well qualified to be the President of the United States. I'm not insulting her; I'm just stating a fact. She's incredibly accomplished and is qualified for a lot of things; I just don't think that being POTUS is one of them.

Giving an impassioned (and awesome) speech at an awards show does not automatically mean she'd be a great candidate. And overseeing a media empire does not automatically mean she'd be a great president, who is tasked with leading the most powerful nation on Earth.

There is a lot more to candidacy and certainly to presidency than speechmaking and business savvy.

I mean, how many times do we have to learn the hard way that business ≠ government?!? Because...business does not equal government! Would some parts of government do well to apply sound business principles? Surely. But they are not the same things. Determining how to maximize value to shareholders is a far cry from, say, deciding whether to send troops into harm's way.

As my friend Jay Cosnett put it,

 Governing requires experience... at governing! Passing bills, forging consensus, navigating overlapping centers of power and influence, maintaining and building coalitions, dealing with other politicians and governments... This idea that government is somehow "not real work" and that someone from the private sector doesn't need experience in it is bullshit.

And Thomas Chatterton Williams in this great New York Times piece:

I am not immune to Oprah’s charms, but President Winfrey is a terrible idea. It also underscores the extent to which Trumpism — the kowtowing to celebrity and ratings, the repudiation of experience and expertise — has infected our civic life. The ideal post-Trump politician will, at the very least, be a deeply serious figure with a strong record of public service behind her. It would be a devastating, self-inflicted wound for the Democrats to settle for even benevolent mimicry of Mr. Trump’s hallucinatory circus act.

*  *  *

And let's talk for a minute about how all this "Oprah 2020" talk is diverting attention from the content of that awesome speech. It was (mostly) about eliminating the need for #MeToo, to put it succinctly.

Here it is, in case you've been living under a rock for the past 24 hours:

Why aren't we talking about how to make that new day dawn? Why aren't we talking about how to make harassment and assault socially unacceptable? Why aren't we talking about how to make respect for the personhood of all human beings...absolutely basic?

Why are we ignoring these critical topics, fixating on the fact that she spoke well and passionately, and jumping immediately to...'hey, let's make her president!'?

Why?

*  *  *

By the way, since electing Barack Obama didn't end racism, do we somehow think that electing Oprah would end sexism?!?

If an extremely qualified white woman, one of the most qualified people to ever run for the presidency, couldn't get elected to the highest office in this country (and...you're kidding yourself if you think misogyny didn't play a role), how well do you think a Black woman would do—without the requisite cultural change that Oprah's speech so beautifully called for happening first?

We cannot skip the hard, hard work of dismantling systems of racism and patriarchy and expect that electing a charismatic leader will in and of itself fix our problems. Even if that charismatic leader is very well qualified (see again: Obama).

*  *  *

Would I love to see a Black woman president? Absolutely. I say bring on the #BlackGirlMagic. I mean, the white guys haven't done all that well, for one thing. And Black women have been at the forefront of social change for ages. They know how to get shit done.

But first, we need to do (at least) these two critical things: 1) look for truly well-qualified presidential candidates (of any and all identities) and 2) get to work on fixing that which is broken both within ourselves and within how we relate to each other.

The future of our culture and our republic may well depend on it.

Evangelicals: I SEE YOU, AND I SEE YOUR HYPOCRISY. I SEE IT.

Source: theblaze.com.

So Jerry Fallwell, Jr. (president of Liberty University), one of evangelicalism's first and most enthusiastic endorsers of Donald Trump, was interviewed on NPR on Thursday.

INSKEEP: What have you heard from other evangelical leaders about supporting Donald Trump so early and so strongly? 

FALWELL, JR.: You know, it was funny that rank-and-file evangelicals were ahead of all the leadership.

Great. If that's true, it's way, way worse than I than I'd thought.

[FALWELL, JR., cont.]: They saw for decades conservative Republicans had made promises to them on issues that were important to Christians and conservatives when they were running for office. But when they won, they didn't keep those promises.

When did you ever think they were going to keep their promises to you? When did you ever think that making this country "more Christian" was really at the top of their priority lists? Oh wait—for a long time, I know. So I guess the better question is: Why? WHY did you ever think that?!?

And wait—wasn't Jesus always having to remind people that His is a spiritual kingdom and not about the politics of the day?

John 18:36: Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

 Also, the phrase "kingdom of God" appears 54 times and "kingdom of heaven" 31 times in the Gospels alone (of the New International Version).

So...maybe—I'm just going out on a limb here—maybe Christians shouldn't trust political leaders to make this country more like, say, themselves...and should instead focus on the spiritual kingdom, perhaps by fulfilling the first and second greatest commandments, the ones on which all "the law and the prophets" hang? Just a thought.

For anyone listening in who may not be familiar enough with the Bible to know, here are the two greatest commandments:

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (from Matthew 22:37–40)

 Love God and love your neighbor. That's it. And in case anyone wondered who his or her neighbor was (so they could get away with making certain people not their neighbor), Jesus told an entire parable to clear up that one.

[FALWELL, JR., cont.]: And I think, you know, like the song by The Who "Won't Get Fooled Again," I think they just decided no more. We want somebody who maybe makes mistakes and maybe sort of talks off the cuff and may not get it right all the time, but at least he's not bamboozling us.

 Noooo, Trump's not bamboozling you at all. Not even one tiny little bit.

INSKEEP: Is his personal life or any candidate's personal life relevant to you?

FALWELL, JR.: Well, I think Jesus said we're all sinners. When they ask that question, I always talk about the story of the woman at the well who had had five husbands and she was living with somebody she wasn't married to, and they wanted to stone her. And Jesus said he's - he who is without sin cast the first stone. 

Um...No. If you're going to use stories from the Bible—the book you supposedly believe to be the most sacred of all—and if you're going to use them on a national program, and if you're going to use them to, of all things, justify your support of probably the most unChristian* presidential candidate in American history...at least get those stories right.

There was a woman at the well. And she had had 5 husbands. But a) no one wanted to stone her, b) Jesus talked to her about spiritual stuff—He didn't try to get her elected to public office (there's a ginormous, important difference), and c) Jesus talked to her even though she was both a woman and part of an outcast ethnic group. (Think about it.)

The one about whom Jesus said, "he who is without sin cast the first stone" was the woman caught in the act of adultery, for which a bunch of religious establishment dudes wanted to stone her to death. And...oh yeah, she was, like, a totally separate person.

[FALWELL, JR., cont.]: I just see how Donald Trump treats other people, and I'm impressed by that.

Oh, so you’re impressed by a man who disrespects women, mocks the disabled, and stereotypes people based on country and religion (rather than, say, welcomes the stranger as the Bible says to do)? (And those were just the examples that sprung to mind. We both know there are more.)

Wow. Just...Wow.

* * *

If Trump has done anything "for" us, it may be that he revealed the true nature of many evangelicals (and a lot of other people in this country). As Jonathan Merritt put it in an excellent piece for The Atlantic (emphasis mine):

Evangelicals are acutely aware of their waning cultural influence and shrinking share of the population. These religious leaders care about their principles, yes. But they care about something else even more: power. While not every evangelical leader is enthusiastic about Trump, many are starting to express warm feelings toward the candidate.

 I really believe that rather than causing misogyny, racism, homophobia, and xenophobia among his supporters, he has merely exposed it. He has somehow "given people permission" to bring all that ugliness out into the open. As bothered as I am by Trump, I'm bothered even more by the fact that he has supporters—and enough to have actually won presidential nomination.

* * *

Back to Jerry. Does he represent all evangelicals? Certainly not. (He doesn't even completely align [politically] with his own brother, who happens to be the pastor of their late father's church.)

But he represents a lot of them. Trump met with 1,000 or more evangelical leaders last month, and he received plenty of praise from them, as well as endorsements from many who once vehemently opposed him. (Source: Merritt's piece, linked above.)

So—I am speaking here to Jerry and to those evangelicals he does represent:

Dudes, your hypocrisy has finally come out.

There had to be at least a strain of this hypocrisy there all along if this—THIS—was ever going to be a result.

Are you proud of yourselves?

Because I'm pretty sure that Jesus is not.

——————————————————————

*I've got a newsflash for ya: Being a Christian is not required to be a good president. It's not even required to be president at all. It's possible for a person of another faith or even—gasp!—of no faith to be principled enough, to have all of the right qualities, and to make an excellent president. It really, really is.

P.S. The title of this post is paraphrased from Jon Stewart's epic, not-to-be-missed takedown of hypocritical conservative media and Republicans.

Surviving Presidents

source

So we now know who will be president for the next four years. Many are delighted; many are dismayed. Me--I'm just delighted it's over.

With as crazy as this campaign got and as our political climate has become (more about that later), it was certainly easy to become distressed by it all. And I succumbed to that my fair share. But you know what? I also reminded myself often: "We will survive whoever wins this." We survived Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan*, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, and the first four years of Obama. (And I'm only going back as far as I've been alive.)

And--we will survive another four years of Obama. Barring the end of the world...we will very likely still be here in four years.

I'm not saying this because I voted a particular way and now need to console myself. (Actually I'll not be sharing how I voted--it's beside the point; plus, I don't think it's anyone's else's business). My concern here is the lack of perspective by many, the depths of despair by some, the outlandish claims by others.

So here's a little perspective for ya: Barack Obama is neither a god nor a demon. Same goes for Mitt Romney. Same goes for every political candidate of all time.

source

On the despair front: the photo on the right. I mean, seriously?? Besides the fact that those look like a man's hands on a lady's body...it seems a bit much to me. (It appears this was created before the election, but I've seen it posted a few times in my Facebook feed within the last day.)

As for outlandish claims, there's always "I'm moving to Canada if my guy loses." Well, first of all...in 99% of the cases: no, you're not. But...if you're serious, you might want to prepare yourself for the fact that it ain't easy. And by the way, like that article says, Canada has universal healthcare (so it gives health screenings to immigrants and rejects those with conditions it deems too expensive), and gay marriage has been legal there for about 7 years. Oh, and in case you're thinking Australia:

source

Just an FYI.

What concerns me even more, though, is the way many people are treating those who disagree with them politically. It has gotten way out of hand. In this regard, you gotta listen to this, the most recent episode of This American Life:

I'm thankful for the bright spot in Act One, the politically-opposed authors** who've looked for techniques that those with differing views can use in talking with each other. But on the whole: Ugh.

One of my friends posted this on Facebook today:

Love is wise; hatred is foolish. In this world, which is getting more and more closely interconnected, we have to learn to tolerate each other, we have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don't like. We can only live together in that way. But if we are to live together, and not die together, we must learn a kind of charity and a kind of tolerance, which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet. -Bertrand Russell

And I can only say: Amen and yes, please.

How do you think we can better tolerate differing views--and those who hold them!, to improve our country's political climate and our relationships? If you have ideas for this, please share them in the comments.


*Reagan only made the list for completeness; I happen to think he was one of our better presidents.
**I've not read this book, so I'm not recommending it here, just pointing to it.