Whither Goes America?

I moved my phone from the bedroom so I wouldn't be tempted to look at it during the night. Before going to bed, I checked a few races from our old state of New Hampshire.

At 5:25, my wife’s phone dinged, indicating a message from our daughter. I went back to sleep, not knowing whether she was relaying joy or horror.

Shortly after 7, I got up to see the outcome. My wife asked me to read the results to her. My daughter's text read, "Gutted this morning." My response: "Stunned. Deeply saddened. Fearful."

We walked downtown to pick up a coffee order at Mama Mochas and lamented the outcome with Papa Mocha.

I'm avoiding diving into the post mortem, instead cherrypicking the results from a few of the races. Shomari Figures won, a relief since he was behind when I went to bed. It seems many of the abortion referendums passed: Arizona, Missouri, Montana. That's some compensation for the losses in Florida and Nebraska.

Trying not to think much beyond today. Trying to contain my deep disappointment, keeping it from running into despair.

Yesterday, we volunteered with the NAACP, giving rides to the polls. This morning, I'm trying to recall the satisfaction of giving one person a voice, even if not sufficient to change the nation.

This morning, the NAACP chat group is processing the results. Someone shared this poem by Venice Williams, which reminds me of my privilege and the need to do more.

You are awakening to the
same country you fell asleep to.
The very same country.

Pull yourself together.

And,
when you see me,
do not ask me
"What do we do now?
How do we get through the next four years?"

Some of my Ancestors dealt with
at least 400 years of this
under worse conditions.

Continue to do the good work.
Continue to build bridges not walls.
Continue to lead with compassion.
Continue the demanding work
of liberation for all.
Continue to dismantle broken systems,
large and small.
Continue to set the best example
for the children.
Continue to be a vessel of nourishing joy.

Continue right where you are.
Right where you live into your days.

Do so in the name of
The Creator who expects
nothing less from each of us.

And if you are not "continuing"
ALL of the above,
in community, partnership, collaboration?
What is it you have been doing?
What is it you are waiting for?

Election Day — Finally

Last night, I posted the following to Mastodon:

The texts and emails keep coming, more urgently asking for contributions. I'm skeptical that dollars now will change the outcome — more likely contribute to the next race. The cards for 2024 are dealt. It's in the hands of the voters to play their tarot cards.

I've given money — more than I have ever contributed to political campaigns. I've written postcards and letters. Tomorrow, I'll help provide rides to the polls for those without transportation. Then, we await the future.

— Gary (@garylerude) 11/4/2024, 5:46:30 PM

This morning I voted around 9 — in and out in five minutes. The lady welcoming us at the door said the line was long during the first hour, and the turnout had been steady. Yet the organized process was efficiently keeping the line to just a few people deep.

Vote early and vote often.

I first heard that line associated with the corrupt Democratic machine in Chicago, when Richard Daley was mayor. According to Perplexity AI, it was actually used first in the 1850s by pro-slavery voters in Kansas. (See the footnote if you want to go down that path.)

I was able to double my vote today — legally — by providing a ride for someone with no transportation. I was one of a dozen who volunteered for a Lee County NAACP program to provide free rides for anyone needing transportation to vote. Although my rider and I did not discuss how either of us voted, I suspect we are supporting the same candidates.

Historical Footnote

John Van Buren is associated with the phrase “Vote early and vote often” due to historian James Morgan’s identification of him as its originator. This association is supported by Laurence Urdang and Janet Braunstein, although there is limited direct evidence linking him to the phrase. The phrase itself became popular in the mid-19th century, particularly among pro-slavery voters in Kansas who were trying to influence elections. Source: Perplexity AI

Washington Post Part 2 — Jeff Bezos Misses the Point

Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post has admitted he killed the paper’s endorsement of Kamala Harris. Responding to reader outrage and canceled subscriptions — 250,000 according to NPR — Bezos penned an opinion piece that ties presidential endorsements to the public’s distrust of the media.

The bitter pill he sees:

We (a newspaper) must be believed to be accurate… What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias.

While I feel that bitter pill of bias, it’s not because of the editorial team. Their opinions clearly state the bias and what informs it. It’s the “news” side that slants articles with pejorative words and headlines that go beyond a neutral reporting of facts or that create a “false equivalence” between two arguments that don’t have equal weight.

Ironically, Bezos acknowledges the decision won’t add much trust — quite the opposite — and the poor timing:

By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it’s a meaningful step in the right direction. I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.

Then why do it now? Why not wait until after the election, with a four-year runway to build support within and outside the paper?

Bezos’ argument is unconvincing, inviting speculation of Machiavellian motivations.

Thankfully, The New York Times did not equivocate:

You already know Donald Trump. He is unfit to lead. Watch him. Listen to those who know him best. He tried to subvert an election and remains a threat to democracy. He helped overturn Roe, with terrible consequences. Mr. Trump’s corruption and lawlessness go beyond elections: It’s his whole ethos. He lies without limit. If he’s re-elected, the G.O.P. won’t restrain him. Mr. Trump will use the government to go after opponents. He will pursue a cruel policy of mass deportations. He will wreak havoc on the poor, the middle class and employers. Another Trump term will damage the climate, shatter alliances and strengthen autocrats. Americans should demand better. Vote.

Washington Post Snuffs Out the Light Protecting Democracy

The Washington Post editorial board — more likely the management above it — has announced it will not endorse a presidential candidate in this year’s historic election.

William Lewis, publisher and CEO, wrote in a note from the publisher,

We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects. We also see it as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions — whom to vote for as the next president.

Lewis, with The Post for just a year, ironically justifies the decision by implying a long history of the Post not making endorsements in presidential elections:

We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.

Correction: In my original post, I wrote that the exceptions to not making endorsements were for Eisenhower in 1956 and Jimmy Carter in 1975. Fact checked by Perplexity Al,

The Washington Post has had a varied history of presidential endorsements since 1960:

1960-1972: The Post did not endorse presidential candidates during this period.

1976-2020: The Post endorsed presidential candidates in every election during this period. Specifically, the Post endorsed Jimmy Carter in 1976, marking the beginning of their modern endorsement era. From 1976 through 2020, the paper consistently endorsed presidential candidates. In 2020, the Post endorsed Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

I was too young to recall Eisenhower’s election, but I have followed every election since, beginning with Kennedy’s in 1960. This election is by far the most dangerous to American democracy of any in my lived experience. That The Post should ignore this and hide behind a so-called long tradition of independence is unconscionable.

Lewis also seems to confuse a newspaper’s editorial and news functions. The news side is supposed to be neutral, just reporting the facts, while the editorial side is supposed to argue positions, providing a variety of voices. The editorial board making a recommendation based on its collective judgment is expected. If that’s out of line, then the editorial board should not make recommendations on any topic.

Lewis argues we readers are best left to make up our own minds, implying we won’t if we see an endorsement from The Post. I assure you we will, although we will consider the collective wisdom of the editorial team, which offers much more access to and history with the candidates.

Lewis further claims the Post stands for “character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.” Donald Trump as president and candidate violates all these values, surely justification for the Post to take a stand.

At least acknowledging that the decision will be criticized, Lewis writes,

We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility.

It surely is an abdication of responsibility, and I suspect it’s a political move to appease a man who has promised revenge and retribution should he be reelected.

The Post should recognize the risk to the country after the chaos of Trump’s presidency, his denial that he lost, his demonizing rhetoric during this campaign, and the comprehensive plans of Project 2025. By not being clear about this choice, the management of The Washington Post is blowing out the light that you claim protects democracy.

I have cancelled my subscription to the newspaper.

A Broken America

I first noticed Donald Trump when he claimed Barack Obama was not born in the U.S. Seriously? It seemed like a racist publicity stunt.

Then, he came down the escalator and announced he was running for president, disparaging Mexico and Mexicans. Seriously?

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best… They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. (Source: Time, Here’s Donald Trump’s Presidential Announcement Speech, June 16, 2015.)

Donald Trump’s campaign was a rant of negativity about the state of the country, claiming he alone could fix the ills and “make American great again.”

I didn’t take him seriously, wondering how anyone could. So I was stunned when he won and became president — he actually lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, 65,853,514 (48.2%) to 62,984,828 (46.1%) but won in the Electoral College. Seriously?

Trump’s presidency was tempestuous, violating norms of civic discourse and ethical governance. He has refused to concede the 2020 election to Joe Biden and hatched illegal schemes to remain in office, culminating in the attack on Congress on January 6, 2021. Arguably, an attempted coup.

So I’m stunned that he’s back on the ballot after being impeached twice, convicted and accused in multiple indictments, and promising revenge and retribution if reelected.

That we’ve come to this crossroad truly reflects a broken America.

Post by @garylerude@mindly.social

View on Mastodon