Democrats and Free Staters Meet In Exeter, NH

Last night, I went to a meeting of New Hampshire Democrats in Exeter, where a woman spoke who works for an organization (Granite State Progress?) which tracks a group called the New Hampshire Free State Project (FSP).

All I knew of the Free State Project is what I've read on the internet and Wikipedia from which I concluded these people believe in as little government as possible, government only to insure the rights of the individual to not be bothered by the oppressive hand of government. Government small enough to drown in a bathtub.

Part of their utopian dream is to make New Hampshire a place where like minded small-to-no government types can establish their ideal society, and possibly secede from the United States and set up a homeland for semi-anarchists.

The lady with the microphone asked if there were any Free Staters in the audience and about six stood up and introduced themselves.

Then she had them sit down and she proceeded to outline the nefarious plot the Free Staters were hatching, saying they infiltrated, undermined local government, town councils, and subversively denied they were up to anything at all.  But they have come to New Hampshire to take control of the state by getting themselves elected to the state legislature.
In Keene, she said they harass parking meter maids, who they claim are the agents of an oppressive government trying to extract parking fees. Several meter maids have had to retire because of post traumatic stress as a result of these encounters.
Meter maids with PSTD? Really?

The lady with the microphone gave her version of what Free Staters believe without ever allowing any of them to confirm or deny what she said.

She did sound very much like the old Joseph McCarthy news reels as she ticked off all the underhanded ways in which the FSP tried to destroy democratic town councils, the state legislature, the courts,   so people would lose patience with government and abandon it.

Her assumption seemed to be that we all know all there was to know about the ideas of the FSP and her job was simply to inform us how they intended to take over and what we could do about it.

One member of the audience rose to say he wondered what the FSP thought about the shift toward huge economic inequality, which the free market had fostered, not prevented and which as far as he could see only the government had the power or will to reverse. No FSP was allowed to respond to his question because the microphone lady seized control and moved on without calling on any FSP person to allow an answer.

I finally stood up and admitted I did not know much  about the FSP apart from some internet chatter about their belief we had too much government and I wanted to hear more from those people from the FSP who had come to the meeting, presumably to answer such questions.

I wanted to know, for example if the FSP believed that government had no role of any sort which could justify its existence, like for instance, protecting the public from terrorist acts.
If I saw a man belting on a suicide vest, or what I thought might be a suicide vest,  at the Manchester airport, I would go right to that government run TSA and tell them, but could I assume the FSP person would say, well this is a man who has the right to carry whatever ordinance he wants to carry--the FSP is for open carry gun laws--and would not want to bring the heavy hand of the TSA down on this individual who might want to express his displeasure with the public by blowing himself up in the airport?

To my surprise several of the FSP people said they would report the suicide bomber to the TSA. They were barely allowed to respond by the microphone lady, who was off to other assertions about how "ridiculous" their ideas were.

But what was evident is that some FSP disagreed with others about questions like this and they were by no means a top down organization with members. They insisted they were too free spirited to be members of any organization.

The big problem with the meeting was the scold with the microphone was simply not bright enough to allow the audience to tease out the FSP beliefs and to demolish them with questions.





She was a perfect example of what is wrong with the Democratic party,  which has been accused of being elitist, unwilling to listen to opinions from others who they believe are "ridiculous."

Fortunately, after the meeting we were allowed to stay and talk with the FSP people and I had some revealing exchanges which I wished the larger group of 100 had been allowed to hear.

I pressed the FSP about several examples which I thought illustrated the need for a government, as opposed to private sector efforts, and I pressed them about the value of being free from government interference vs the value of insuring the just functioning of a free society.

With respect to the TSA question, the FSP people told me we didn't need a government agency to protect us from suicide bombers at the airport because the airlines could hire their own security for that. But what about the public spaces? Would Southwest airlines pay for security in the bathrooms and hallways and gates?  Well, that could be worked out they said.
What about prisons? Should they be run for profit by the private sector rather than by the government? If the prisons are run for profit would it not be in their interest to keep prisoners as long as they can to keep beds filled? No time off for good behavior?
Well, no said the FSP, there is enough business for the prisons to have plenty of customers; they wouldn't need to keep prisoners in place to keep cells filled. But the experience, as I understand it, with private prisons show just the opposite.

The heavy hand of government

What about government intervening to right wrongs?
Take, for example, slavery.
Would the FSP people have sat home in 1860 and not gone off to force slave owners to give up their property in states where slavery was legal?  After all, the federal government waging war on slave owners trying to defend their property rights is the ultimate in the heavy hand of government.
Yes, they said, they would have sat home and allowed slavery to persist in the South.
But they would have opposed the Fugitive Slave Act to prevent the slave owners from pursuing slaves in New Hampshire.
But by what means would the FSP have opposed the private armies of the slave owners when they appeared in NH to reclaim their "property?"  Would the FSP have called out he NH national guard? Again, government getting between a man and his property. Or would the FSP have hired a private force to oppose the slave owners' armies? Who would have skin in that game, to pay for a force to protect runaway slaves? No profit in that.

The problem is, the profit motive does not motivate change for those who cannot immediately contribute to your profit. (I would argue there are whole parts of the economy where the profit motive has proved a conspicuous failure, driving up costs and decreasing quality, e.g. health care.)

The big vulnerability in the FSP people was they had never thought through the implications of what they were saying, which is they basically are anti social, and if you follow their line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, they want to live "off the grid." 
How much appeal would these hermits have to the 1.3 million citizens of New Hampshire?  The best disinfectant for these thinkers is sunlight. Just let them talk in open venues and they will burn up under the glaring light of scrutiny.

What about the lunch counter question? If a man owns a lunch counter and hangs up a sign saying "No Negroes served. Whites Only,"  are we wrong to bring the heavy hand of government down on him to get him to serve the public, all the public, as he is holding himself out to do?
Well, the FSP people said, market forces would drive out of business the guy who refuses Blacks service. Now that's a practical argument, but for 100 years in the South no market force drove those segregated businesses out of business. This response is a dodge. It avoids the moral question of whether such expressions of racism as they take the form of concrete action should be permitted. It says the rights of private property (owning a soda fountain) should be ascendant over the right of every citizen to enjoy the benefits of public access to public places and to not be discriminated against on the basis of race.

 And  what of public bathrooms labeled Whites Only or Blacks Only? This practice was by local governments acting as a matter of policy to support segregation.
The FSP answers:  Well those bathrooms could have been privatized.
And what would be the profit motive in integrating private bathrooms?

And what about public health?

If an agent from the federal government shows up at a man's private farm and says he wants to test his cows for Mad Cow Disease, would the FSP be opposed to that heavy hand of government? 
--Yes. The market would close that man down if his cows had Mad Cow disease.
--Ah, but the disease does not show up for 15 years in human beings who eat that meat, the market is too slow. That cow is out of the barn. 

--Well, private companies could certify the meat free of Mad Cow disease. 

-- But that's like Moody's and all those private companies rating stocks--they were motivated by profit to rate stocks highly, for fear of losing the business of the companies they were rating. What company paid by the farmer would find the disease in the cattle of the man who is paying them?



What about thalidomide? 

The FSP hates that heavy handed agency of the Federal government which harasses drug companies.  Had there been no FDA unsuspecting American mothers would have been swallowing thalidomide and giving birth to thousands of babies who had no arms or legs, as happened in England. Would the FSP think that's just fine?

Better than laying the heavy hand of government on the drug companies?

And what of the polio vaccine? 

Many FSP people oppose requiring polio vaccination (or any vaccination, measles, mump, tetanus) for kids to attend public schools. Again the right of the individual to place the group at threat.

Government requiring the individual to not be a threat to others or a burden to others.
Many also oppose requirements for health insurance as a government intrusion into their lives.
If we had an Ebola outbreak in New Hampshire and vaccine to prevent it, would you oppose mandatory vaccinations, knowing those who refused vaccination could pose a threat to the entire population by getting and spreading Ebola?
Blank stares in response and much blinking.
Back in the 1940's and 1950's every child and parent knew about and feared the yearly epidemics of polio--would you want to return to that?
FSP answer: It's up to the individual to assess risks for himself.

We went back and forth about all this and I understood the FSP stance, or rather, their variety of stances, always coming from the point of no government, and I understood it is no more monolithic than the Catholic population of America.  The pope would forbid contraceptives, but American Catholics use them anyway. They reject parts of the orthodoxy but still consider themselves Catholics. So it is with the Free Staters who disagree with some dogma and embrace other parts of it.

They are not "ridiculous," although as is true of many absolutists, their absolutism gets them into precarious intellectual positions.
Even the American Civil Liberty Union accolyte gets hung up on his absolute belief in free speech when Oliver Wendell Holmes asks, "But do you have the right to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater when there is no fire?" 

Small government guru. Worked for him. Owned slaves. Except for the Louisana Purchase

The microphone lady kept going on ominously about the 20,000 FSP subversives who have moved in to the state to seize control.
Personally, I've got no problem with 100,000 true believers moving here--they still have to convince others they are right and given my conversations with them last night, I doubt they'll ever be able to persuade more than their own numbers. They find few converts beating up on meter maids as the example of the oppressive hand of an overweening government.

If you want to look to a model, look at Utah, where true believers flocked and set up a utopia which over time gave way to the demands of the greater nation.

I would hate NH to become Utah, but we are a free and open nation, with no borders which prevent free travel and relocation. We have to defend our ideas, not our borders. Even the Mormons had to change their beliefs to accommodate the heavy hand of a federal government which forbade polygamy.

The trouble with Democrats is they react in the authoritarian /scold mode.
I do not fear these FSP guys.
They collapse quickly enough when you press them on their positions.
They are hardly a pernicious threat. Listen to them. Argue with them. Respect their right to believe crazy things and then demolish those crazy things and watch to see if they are capable of seeing the truth as you see it.

Let's Cut Food Stamps for the Welfare Queens!

President Trump's budget is out and he's cutting food stamps and disability payments and giving the money to defense contractors.
And as the Republicans in Congress and in his administration see it, it's about time.

All those welfare queens, driving around in their Cadillacs, are using the food stamps to buy orange soda pop, cigarettes and booze and then selling that on the street to make a tidy profit and buy themselves mink stoles and pink Cadillacs.


It's an abuse of the welfare system, all those undeserving poor, living off the teat of the federal government.  Not like the defense contractors who do not live off the teat of the federal government but earn their money, fair and square and then keep it by using the carried interest dodge in their federal income tax so they pay less than their secretaries.


Finally, we got a guy in the White House who, for the first time since Reagan, will root out all those people on welfare disability who are perfectly able bodied but who prefer to go fishing rather than to the factories (which President Trump will be reopening shortly) and take their welfare checks which they spend on drugs, booze and loose women. 
I hear the women in my office talking every day about how it's high time all those shirkers, parasites and underserving poor got what's coming to them. The women in my office who talk this way do this between answering phone calls and telling whoever calls in they better call back later because it's not their job and the person whose job it is is out on break. Then they go down to the kitchen on break.


So, the universe is coming aback to a better place now that President Trump is in office and states like Pennsylvania will realize they voted right. Pennsylvania, you know that state, which is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and Alabama in between.

Voting in Iran and Invasive Species

What a wonderful age we live in: Last night I saw Steve Inskeep on The News Hour, and as Judy Woodruff interviewed him you could see people behind him voting in a mosque in Iran.  
It was a gorgeous mosque, with lots of tile and colors but the most amazing thing was the people.

Steve Inskeep

I could hardly focus on what Mr. Inskeep was saying because I was so taken with the images of the Iranian people behind him.  I had heard him say, on NPR radio, earlier in the day, that women lined up to vote in separate lines from men, so I imagined a sort of bleak and dreary event. 

But, NO!  The women behind him on the TV screen were vibrant, smiling, laughing, having a wonderful time. The whole scene was joyous and the vibrancy of the people came through.

It reminded me how very narrow and distorted an image I have of Iran and likely of the entire Middle East. Yes, they have to be careful about what they say and write for fear of a visit from the government goons, but they have lives, joys and the political climate cannot suppress that.

Reminded me of my father, returning from a visit to Spain, years ago, when the dictator Franco was still in power and he was laughing in dismay.  "I was wandering around in Madrid and seeing all these happy people, having a wonderful time, laughing, sitting at sidewalk cafes--didn't they know they lived in an oppressive dictatorship?" He had to laugh at his own ignorance. He expected life in a dictatorship would be all grimaces and sloped shoulders.

Of course, a glimpse over Mr. Inskeep's shoulder should not convince me life is fine in Iran, but when I listen to Mr. Trump and his bombastic band of brothers talking about Iran and the Iranians, I have to think of the possibility these people have their side of the story to tell.

Which brings me to pythons. Another story on NPR about the opening of python hunting season in Florida, where pythons are "destroying" the everglades, eating up raccoons, alligators, deer and Bambi.  They are an "invasive species."
We don't like them.

I really hate that idea of "invasive species."  
In New Hampshire, Norway maple trees are legally an "invasive species" even though they are nearly sterile, are not seen outside of all the house lots, church yards, or planted along median strips as landscaping.  
But somebody at the Horticulture Department of the University of New Hampshire testified before a committee of retirees who comprise the New Hampshire House of Representatives and called these trees an invasive species and poof! No longer can you buy or transport these trees or plant them in New Hampshire, under plenty of law in the Live Free or Die state. 
Unlike the pythons which have spread out and occupied territory, Norway Maples are simply not seen in any of the woods or forest surrounding Hampton or, to my knowledge, anywhere else in New Hampshire.  They are the most rooted invaders one can imagine. They simply do not move. 
Far as I can tell, the prime offense of these invaders is they have offended the aesthetic sense of the UNH faculty of Horticulture. The UNH faculty simply does not like purple leafed trees and took offense at how many people had planted them in their front yards, churches and town spaces and so they called them "invasive."

The fact is, there is nothing scientific about the notion of "invasive" species. A new bug arrives, finds a niche it can exploit and devours the stuff people living in the area like and that becomes an "invasive species."
We don't like them.
But this is a value judgment. We like trout. Trout are pretty and fun to catch. 
We do not like the snake fish, which can walk on land and devour all the trout in the lakes and  streams and so they are new and invaders and should be eliminated. 

Same thing for some insect or virus or fungus that kills the chestnut trees or the elms we love or the birch trees we love or the corn we plant or the apples.

We value certain things we like to look at or eat and these are good. These are not invasive. Cornfields in Iowa which replaced the grassy plains are not invasive. They are good.

We draw borders around what we like and what we want to defend: Our green sunlit lawns, and anything in nature which crosses that line is an "invader."
Fair enough. But remember, this is not nature or evolution. This is our imposition of our values within a territory of our own choosing.

When England voted for Brexit, Mr. Trump summarized it succinctly: "People want borders."

And he was right--the Brits were aggravated about their white, rosy cheeked children, now being displaced by immigrants from the Caribbean, the Middle East and Eastern Europe, all those "invasive species."
Globalization means that rats carrying plague from Singapore can jump ship in London or New York. 

But it also means we might meet new people with new virtues we had never really thought about. 

New Blood

Let me first say I have never met Ray Buckley or heard him speak. I have only heard of his positions and exhortations second hand from my fellow Hampton Democrats, who, for the most part really like him.

But what I have heard lately is, in the wake of our crushing defeat by Donald Trump, Buckley has been insisting is what we need in the upcoming elections is more of the same, more local, grassroots efforts on the part of neighbors talking to neighbors, the old back yard, across the fence New Hampshire thing.

Let me also say, having read his Wikipedia profile, the guy strikes me as a man who has suffered for his party, has worked longer and harder, first as a state Representative and later as a party chairman than I have, by a country mile. And he had a tougher upbringing than I did. All the cards were stacked against him, while I had a lot of support from my family and friends. He had to work for everything he got.

But then again, Hillary worked longer and harder than anyone else and that did not make her a winner.

Here is what I would like to say to Ray when he comes to Hampton to speak to our town Dems, who are still licking there wounds.

"Mr. Buckley, I don't know who first said it, but it's attributed to Einstein: The essence of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again and to expect a different result.  
What I have heard you say is we need to get back to the knocking on doors, telephone calls and all the in town techniques--cookouts, clambakes, cake sales, yard sales. 
You say you have studies which prove this works, and you say that politicians in the know say you don't know which of these work but some part of them work so you have to do them all.
Well, let me tell you, when studies don't match what you see in the field, they are likely not true.

For one thing, neighbors don't talk over fences about politics  in towns like Hampton any more, if they ever did. My neighbors will raise a hand and say, "Hold on. Let's not talk politics or religion. We can talk lawns and kids but not politics. It'll only sow bad blood on the street and it won't change anyone's mind." 
The fact is, people who love Trump will  not have their minds changed by their neighbors. They got that love from somewhere and it's in their brains and you have no chance of dislodging it by knocking on their doors, if they would answer them, or by calling them on the phone, even if they see you on their caller ID's and answer. 

The fact is none of those techniques worked last time. 

Even when people answered their doors last time, they didn't  know you, even if you are both from Hampton. Hampton's too big for that. You had to explain you lived in the town. And you didn't change anyone's mind. And people were determined to get to the polls so you didn't really increase turnout.

And phone calls--forget that. You just got people angry bothering them at home. 
And the stark fact is, in 2016 from summer until November, we did phone calls and we walked the neighborhoods and never saw a single Trump person canvassing, never saw Trump literature on the door knobs, but we saw overwhelming Trump lawn signs. 
Trump found a better and more effective way without using any of those grassroots techniques.
He was said to have no real political organization, as Mr. Buckley would recognize a political organization. But he won without one. He was outspent in every county, and sometimes by 9:1 and still won.

The fact is Trump crushed us, beat Hillary and from what I can see, nobody from the top (Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Kane, DNC chairmen) on down has any idea how he managed to unleash a tsunami of resentment which washed away all our efforts.

You can deny it. You can say, we won New Hampshire for Hillary using canvassers, but that was 1000 vote margin in a state of 1.3 million and if we rely on that again, it will likely not even be  close.

The fact is, if you have nothing new to offer. If nobody at the DNC has anything different, any better analysis, we need to clean house, starting with you.

It was clearly the judgment of the folks in power at the DNC from Debbie Wasserman Schultz on down that Hillary was the safe choice, the intelligent choice. It is understandable they cleaved to this idea--the polls supported that idea.
But the fact is, they were dead wrong.

Trump counties in red.

I don't know if Bernie could have beaten Trump, but it seems pretty clear in all those counties that went from Obama to Trump, Bernie would have stood a much better chance than Hillary and our leaders, based on all their studies missed that.

You say the Dems spent a million dollars on focus groups and market research to come up with a new and better message and failed. 
Trump spent no money on any of that and he came up with a winning message, if we could just figure out what the hell that message was.

I'm not saying we can simply ape and imitate Trump and out Trump Trump, but Bernie saw the way last time. He had a few simple messages and pounded them through. 

If that's the formula, when we need a new leadership to embrace it and go with it.
Thanks for your service, Ray. But it's time for a change."

Will No One Rid Me of this Vexatious President?

How very pathetic to see the effete editors of the New York Times and others agitate themselves over the news du jour, each day bringing fresh hope the Donald will cross some line which will spell his downfall. 

Watch them now, listen to them on NPR,  voices rising through the octaves, as they imagine themselves before the House Committee on Oversight, bringing forth the words which will undo the election of 2016! All is not lost. 

Those in bred ignoramuses of the Rust Belt, those dull eyed, slack jawed dullards will not have the final word.

We will catch the President in some ultimate faux pax and bring him down!

Sadly, no. 
The President is here to stay. 
You cannot undo the will of the voters with clever maneuvering or verbal elegance. 
You reveal yourselves in this frenetic display of wishful thinking cum righteous indignation.  You think you can stir up a groundswell, provoke an earthquake with your adjectives--you are like that king of old who commanded the incoming tide to retreat. 
Recall those crimson fields of Trump signs riffling in the breeze from Pennsylvania to Ohio, to Michigan to Wisconsin.

As Mark Shields noted, you could have driven from Maine to California along interstate highways throughout the Rust Belt Mid West and on to the  Great Plains, over the great Rocky Mountains and never seen a break in Trump signs.

He won. 
We lost.
The banjo boys are now in charge. 

Let us now accept we cannot wish the ogre away--we must plan to deal with him. 

The Pendulum

Speaking strictly for me, I'm enjoying Mr. Trump's presidency. I heard Mr. Sessions on the radio talking about hunting down illegal aliens who are preying on innocent American citizens, and the virtues of executing people, and I thought, "The worst thing for a bad product is good advertising." A couple more years of Sessions and DeVos and Sean Spicer and Trump Tweets and even the hillbillies in Kentucky will have had more than enough.

My sons got to frothing over my shoulder shrugs regarding Trump's likely "collusion" with the Russians during the election, and all I could say was everybody was colluding with someone during the election--that's what elections are all about. Did they think the Germans had no favorite pick in that election? Did they think the Koch brothers were not trying to influence the opinions of the American electorate. Or Fox News? Or Rush Limbaugh? 

But for Trump to work with the Russians--that's Treason!

Actually, Article Three of the United States Constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
I suppose one might argue Trump might have given Russia's Putin, "aid and comfort," but unless we were actually at war with Russia, one can hardly call that treason. In fact, many would argue, much as we find Putin distasteful, he cannot be called, officially, an "enemy," insofar as Mr. Trump said, during the election, he hoped for good relations with Russia, and he did not consider Russia an enemy. 
So who is allowed to define Russia as an enemy?

Even if Trump knew the stolen emails from the Democrats were stolen, there is no law against using the text. It's not like receiving stolen goods, if Wikileaks floods the internet with them. You are free to speak your mind about what someone else puts out there. And he made the most of it: Crooked Hillary! Lock her up!
Did Hillary not do the same with the "Grab them by the pussy" tapes?

So, no. Let us simply listen to Mr. Trump and his demented cabinet and enjoy Saturday Night Live and all those who can help us see them for what they are.

Let Them Tweet Fake

Last night I listened to a former New Hampshire Democratic Congressman talk about how Obamacare came into existence.

Today I read Thomas Edsall's analysis in the New York Times of the impact of the new Republican healthcare act, AHCA (Trumpcare)  most of which will not kick in until after the next Congressional and Presidential elections.


The fact is, I have never read the Obamacare law which I gather may be as long as 1,000 pages. Same is true for the new Republican plan.


These plans are very complicated because they are not Medicare nor any sort of government run healthcare, like the systems in England or Canada. They are complex as insurance policies, not simple like Social Security.


The basic flaw in the American system, Obamacare or Trumpcare is that it is not really designed to deliver health care; it is designed to provide profit for health insurance companies. Some healthcare occurs as a result of each law, but that healthcare is not  the basic feature. There is a difference between health insurance and healthcare.  Obamacare was, in many ways, a health insurance industry rescue act. Along the way, it provided health and dental care to a lot of folks who never had much of either.

Republicans have sold enough American voters on the notion that government=bad to make any government administered plan, like Medicare, become an anathema. All Republicans have to say is, "Oh, you don't want some government bureaucrat controlling your health care, do you?" and people groan, "Oh, no!"  Of course, the alternative is you have some health insurance employee, whose motivation is to be sure you are a profit center for her company.
 The truth is, most people complain about Medicare, but like a longtime spouse, for all the complaints, they would be devastated without it.


Ultimately, as the Edsall article shows with a stunning map, the people who will suffer most from Trumpcare are the very voters who put him into office. If there is any Schadenfreude connected to this, it is some comfort.

Blue is where premiums will fall; brown is where they rise, the darker the bigger the increase

Those folk who were simply clinging to their guns, religion, hate and fear will never know what hit them or who hit them. They will believe it was all Obama's fault or the Democrats' fault or anyone's fault except their own fault or the fault of their cherished surrogate, Donald the Trump.

They are Trump chumps.
The Orangatan rules.

They will love him forever.

After World War II, magazines were forbidden to run a cover photo of Adolph Hitler because the authorities knew if they allowed that they would see those photos framed and hung all over Germany from bars to home parlors.  Parts of Germany were in ruin, reduced to rubble. Photos from the concentration camps were shown. Sons and husbands had been lost. But Germans who loved Hitler still loved Hitler.

 

The will of the people.  Democracy in action.