The Extraordinarily Important Midterm Elections

It is only 19 days until the midterm elections in the U.S., and since there are some who will be voting early (and some may have already voted), I am writing about those extraordinarily important elections now—although I realize that this post will not likely change how anyone will vote. Still . . . .  

John Darkow in the Columbia Missourian (10/12)

The most important elections on November 8 are those for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, although there are also significant gubernatorial and other state elections as well.

For example, each state’s secretary of state is quite important as they could skew elections, as The Washington Post clearly delineated last month in an article titled "What an election denier could do if elected secretary of state.”

By far, though, the most important elections are in the 34 states that will be voting for a Senator. The voters in those states will determine which Party will be in control of the Senate for the next two years.

And, as is true every two years, all 435 Representatives in Congress will be elected in November.

The winners of many of those 469 elections are almost certain already. In my home state of Missouri, the Republican candidate for Senator has a 99% chance of winning according to FiveThirtyEight (538), the website that focuses on opinion poll analysis

And Rep. Sam Graves in Missouri’s sixth district (where I live) will almost certainly be re-elected for a twelfth term as a U.S. Representative. So, for us Missouri (and sixth district) voters, voting is important mainly for statewide and county offices.

But there are several states where the senatorial election is of great importance. According to 538, the closest, and thus the most significant, races currently are in Nevada, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Ohio.

The most troubling elections on November 8 are those that include candidates who do not accept the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

 “A majority of GOP nominees deny or question the 2020 election results” is the title of an October 12 article in The Washington Post. According to author Amy Gardner, there are 291 candidates who have challenged or refused to accept Joe Biden’s victory—51 percent of the 569 analyzed.

In spite of warnings that citizens should not vote for candidates who deny or question the outcome of the 2020 election even though there is ample evidence that it was a fair election and there is no proof whatsoever that it was “stolen,” sadly, many will vote for those nominees anyway.

The article mentioned above links to a list of the deniers in every state. The Missouri Republican candidate for the Senate and for the sixth district are both on that list—and as I indicated above, both are almost certain to win their respective races.

The November 8 elections are extraordinarily important because the future of democracy in the USA is in grave jeopardy if those who deny or disregard election results take control of Congress.

The October 10 opinion piece by eminent columnist Eugene Robinson (b. 1954) was titled, “The 2022 midterms are the most important of my lifetime.” (Click here to read that article without a paywall.) Here is part of what he wrote:

Vital issues are at stake on Election Day. Abortion rights are gravely threatened after the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Voting rights, especially for minorities, are imperiled. Efforts to fight climate change and make the transition to a clean-energy economy would at least be slowed if Republicans took either the House or the Senate.
       But the overarching issue is what President Biden calls the fight for “the soul of this nation.” Do we continue our halting but undeniable progress toward making the Constitution’s guarantees of rights and freedoms apply to all Americans? Or do we reverse course?

“Will the U.S. Remain a Democracy?” was the title of my May 25 blog post. Now, nearly five months later, it is even more questionable that democracy will prevail in this country. To a large extent, the answer to the question depends on the outcome of the November 8—and the 2024—elections.

How will you vote?

The Feats of Clay

In February 2014 I posted an article about Cassius Clay / Mohammad Ali, who accomplished many outstanding feats. The famous boxer was the namesake of Cassius Marcellus Clay, a noted Kentucky politician and abolitionist. This article is about Henry Clay, the latter’s second cousin.

CLAY’S EARLY FEATS

Henry Clay was born in Virginia 240 years ago, in April 1777, the son of a Baptist minister. Soon after being admitted to the Virginia Bar to practice law in 1797, he moved to Kentucky, where he soon became politically active.

In 1803 at the age of 26 Clay was elected to the Kentucky legislature. Three years later he was chosen to serve briefly in the U.S. Senate even though he was not legally old enough for that position. He was then elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1811—and was chosen to be Speaker of the House when he was only 35.

Several years later, Clay proposed the “Missouri Compromise,” which allowed Maine to become a state in 1820 and Missouri in 1821. Partly because of Clay’s part in Missouri statehood, a new county formed in 1822 was named Clay County. (That is the county where I have lived since 2005).

CLAY’S POLITICAL DEFEATS

Henry Clay long sought to be President of the United States. He first ran for that office in 1824, but he lost to John Quincy Adams. There were four candidates that year, and Clay came in fourth, carrying only three states (including Missouri).

Eight years later Clay ran against incumbent Andrew Jackson—and again lost (badly) in a four-way race. But that time he came in second.

Clay strongly opposed the Jackson administration—and Jackson himself, referring to him derisively as “King Andrew.” That opposition led to the formation of the Whig Party in 1834, and Clay was its primary leader until his death in 1852.

In 1840 the Whigs elected their first President, William Henry Harrison—who died just 31 days after his inauguration. The Whigs chose not to support Harrison’s successor, John Tyler, so Clay became a candidate for President a third time—and lost (to James Polk) for a third time. 

CLAY’S INFLUENCE

While he never became President—and in 1840 he famously said, “I’d rather be right than President”—Clay had considerable influence as a Representative and then as a Senator. In 2000 the Senate adopted a resolution naming the seven greatest senators of all time. Clay was one of those seven.

Clay also had considerable influence on Abraham Lincoln, a young member of the Whig Party. “Honest Abe” joined that Party in the year of its formation and was a Whig during his years in the Illinois legislature, 1834-41.

When Clay died in 1852, Lincoln delivered a eulogy at his funeral. After Lincoln became President, he continued to praise Clay and to quote from his speeches.

Sam Graves is the current U.S. Representative for much of north Missouri, including most of Clay County. In his March 20 “e-newsletter,” Rep. Graves wrote, “On March 20, 1854, a group of former Whig Party loyalists came together . . . to replace the failing Whig Party—plotting a new path forward during a perilous and uncertain time in American history.”

Then he went on to write, “What emerged from that meeting was the modern-day Republican Party.”

Rep. Graves’s first statement is historically accurate. His second assertion is very questionable. The primary political positions of Clay and Lincoln, the first Republican President, were certainly not the same as held by today’s Republican Party.

Rep. Graves needs to learn more about the feats, and political ideas/ideals, of Henry Clay.

Seeking to Reduce Gun Violence

This week President Obama has announced concrete steps seeking to decrease gun violence in the U.S. Incomprehensibly, even before he announced what those steps were, his political opponents were denouncing his proposed actions.

Why, why is there so much opposition to efforts to reduce gun violence in this country? I just don’t understand it.

Yes, I understand that many people own guns and like the feeling of security they get from gun ownership.

Yes, I understand that many people think that the Second Amendment guarantees gun ownership by every American citizen (maybe with a few exceptions).

Yes, I understand that some people fear federal control and want to be free of government regulations.

But why, why is there so much opposition to the President’s efforts to reduce gun violence?

 On Monday, prior to the President’s announcement of his plans, Representative Sam Graves in his weekly email to us, his Missouri 6^th District constituents, promised that he will “aggressively oppose the President as he seeks to limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American people.”

But really, Sam, is that what the President is seeking to do?

Some right-wing rhetoric was even stronger. For example, on January 4 Fox News commentator Todd Starnes declared, “President Obama is plotting with his attorney general to get our guns.” And a little later he blatantly said, “This president ultimately wants to disarm the nation.”

Then Starnes charged that the President was “declaring war on law-abiding citizens.”

 But Graves and Starnes, as well as the Republican presidential candidates who also ripped into the President’s proposed plans before even listening to them, are incorrect and (willfully?) misleading in their charges.

Unfortunately, many people heard only the criticism by the President’s political enemies rather than listening to what the President actually said.

In his Tuesday speech, as well as in his town hall meeting yesterday evening, the President emphasized shoring up holes in the federal background check system for gun purchases, kick-starting so-called smart gun technology, and devoting millions of additional dollars to mental health services.

That certainly doesn’t sound like infringing upon the Second Amendment. And Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S., has publicly stated that the President’s proposals are “consistent with the Second Amendment.”

In his Jan. 5 talk, the President stated his position very clearly: “Contrary to the claims of what some gun rights proponents have suggested, this hasn’t been the first step in some slippery slope to mass confiscation. . . . this is not a plot to take away everybody’s guns. You pass a background check; you purchase a firearm.” 

He went on to state that the steps he is taking “will actually lead to a smoother process for law-abiding gun owners, a smoother process for responsible gun dealers, a stronger process for protecting the public from dangerous people.”

Oliver Munday, New York Times 

 The editorial board of the New York Times explained in a Jan. 4 article that most of the executive actions of the President “are aimed at making it harder for criminals and other dangerous people to get their hands on a firearm.”

They also emphasized that his actions are what even gun-rights activists want: “keeping guns from people likely to use them in crimes, and enforcing gun laws already on the books.”

That sounds like a reasonable plan and something Congress should have done long ago, but didn’t—and still doesn’t seem to want to.

So my perplexity remains, Why is there so much opposition to the President’s efforts to reduce gun violence? It just doesn’t make any sense.

Who Are "the Crazies"?

He probably wished later he had used a different word, but last month the President made reference to “the crazies.”

According to Associated Press,

At a Democratic fundraiser Monday night [Aug. 24] in Nevada, Obama declared himself ready for the challenges he faces this fall in dealing with a Republican Congress that disagrees with him on the budget, energy policy, education and much more.

Obama said that as he’d ridden to the fundraiser with Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, they’d done some reminiscing and spent some time “figuring out how we are going to deal with the crazies in terms of managing some problems.”

He didn’t identify exactly who the two of them had defined as “crazies.” 

Although he was by no means the only one to do so, Missouri 6th District Representative Sam Graves took it personal, for he thought the President was referring to those who opposed the Iran nuclear deal.  

In his September 14 email to his constituents (of which I am one), Rep. Graves wrote, “A few weeks ago, President Obama said that those of us who oppose his Iran deal are ‘crazies.’ What’s actually crazy is that our President trusts Iran with a nuclear weapon.”

Well, the opponents of Iran deal may or may not have been who the President had in mind, but that is not what he said. But it is clear, and disturbing, what Rep. Graves said.

According to the whitehouse.gov website,

After many months of principled diplomacy, the P5+1 — the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia and Germany — along with the European Union, have achieved a long-term comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran that will verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and ensure that Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful going forward.

So, on what basis does Rep. Graves, and his many Republican cohorts in Congress, say that the President trusts Iran with a nuclear weapon?

And why would we think that a farm boy from northwest Missouri (as I am also) knows more about this deal than the President, the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Chancellor of Germany, and the presidents of China, France, and Russia?

In addition, the Iran nuclear deal has been praised by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as well as 29 of “the world’s most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control” (according to the New York Times).

Of course, maybe “the crazies” the President had in mind are those, such as Sen. Ted Cruz, who (again) are threatening to shut the government down next month—this time because of opposition to Planned Parenthood.

Cruz and most of the Republican presidential contenders, especially Carly Fiorina, are so opposed to Planned Parenthood because of their opposition to abortion.

But according to Planned Parenthood’s 2013-14 financial report, more than 95% of their expenditures went for STD/STI testing and treatment, contraception, cancer screening and prevention, and other health services.

Three per cent of their expenditures went for abortion services, but none of the funding for that came from the federal government. 

Planned Parenthood's 2013-14 Financial Report

So maybe those who want to shut down the government over this issue can be thought of as “the crazies.”

Or, perhaps the President was thinking of those who still, after all these years, think that he is a Muslim and not born in America. According to a recent poll, 29% of the U.S. population—including 43% of Republicans and 54% of Trump supporters—believe Obama is a Muslim.

There is, sadly, no shortage of “the crazies.” 

Dignity Votes

Tuesday is Election Day here in the U.S., so that is surely something worth considering in this last blog article before then. 

 

First of all, I encourage you to vote. (I trust you are duly registered.)

This year I have been an active part of the Northland Justice Coalition (NJC). (Northland refers to the area in the greater Kansas City area that is north of the Missouri River.) For the past couple of months NJC has been making telephone calls and going to people’s homes urging them to vote.

This activity is being called the Dignity Votes Campaign. Part of the dignity referred to is that of the people we have been contacting. 

Here is part of what I wrote for a flyer for the canvassers to hand to people they talk to or to leave at places where no one was home:

You are important. Voting is important. And it is important for you to vote on Nov. 4. Unfortunately, some people don’t think they are important or that their voice matters. But they are important—you are important. And their voice matters—your voice matters. That is why we urge you to vote on Nov. 4.

The NJC is also encouraging people not just to vote but to be “dignity voters”; that is, people who, for example, cast their ballots for candidates who will support raising the minimum wage so everyone can earn enough to live on.

Dignity voters will vote for candidates who support universal health care so everyone can get needed medical treatment.

In Missouri and 22 other states that means raising the income bar so more low-income people can get Medicaid.

Dignity voters are for candidates who will seek to put limits on the exorbitant interest rates charged by payday lenders.

In short, a Dignity Voter is one who votes to enhance the dignity of everyone in our community, in our state, and across the country.

The NJC is affiliated with the Kansas City organization known as Communities Creating Opportunity, which is a 501(c)(3) organization. Consequently, those who work with NJC are required to be nonpartisan. That is, when we contact people we cannot mention any political party or any candidate’s name.

Largely for that reason, after canvassing on Oct. 18 I decided to stop working with NJC in their voter campaign. I still very much believe in Dignity Votes, but I am afraid many people don’t know who to vote for even if they want to be a dignity voter.

As I live in the 6^th congressional district, my representative to the U.S. House of Representatives is Sam Graves, who is running for re-election. But it seems clear to me that a dignity voter would need to vote for Bill Hedge, his main opponent.

In the past Rep. Graves has voted against raising the minimum wage, and his present stance seems to be the same. He also has repeatedly voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Hedge, however, is clearly for raising the minimum wage and for supporting and improving the ACA. So even though Sam will probably be re-elected, still I am going to cast a dignity vote for Bill Hedge.

Those of you who live in other congressional districts, or in other states, will need to determine which candidates would be most acceptable to dignity voters.

Please join me in seeking to be a dignity voter on Nov. 4. Let’s vote for those candidates who will do the most to help, and enhance the dignity of, the poor, the disadvantaged, and the most vulnerable persons in our society.

What About Common Core?

Sam Graves is the U.S. Representative from the Sixth Congressional District of Missouri where I live. His “Straight Talk with Sam” e-magazine article for Aug. 25 was titled “Putting a Stop to Common Core.”

Sam’s article got me studying about a matter that, perhaps like many of you, I had heard a lot about but didn’t know much about. Since Sam’s against it, I figured it was time for me to learn more about it and why he, along with many other (mostly Republican) politicians, is trying to stop it.

The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) is an educational program in the U.S. that details what K-12 students should know at the end of each grade. The initiative is sponsored by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Basically, it seeks to establish consistent educational standards across the states as well as to ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to enter college programs or to the workforce.

CCSSI establishes expectations in three academic areas: mathematics, English language arts, and literacy. The latter sets reading and writing expectations for students in social studies, science, and technology.

Implementation of Common Core started in 2010, and 45 states soon adopted it. Since then three Republican-controlled state legislatures have voted to repeal it and two others, including Missouri, have voted to review and possibly replace it.

In July, Gov. Nixon signed legislation that provides for a task force to write new education standards that could eventually replace the Common Core in Missouri.

Rep. Graves, though, wants Common Core to be replaced not only in Missouri but nationwide. But is that really necessary or desirable? Probably not.

In case Rep. Graves hasn’t noticed, the school situation in the Sixth District that he represents, and all across the nation, is much different now than it was years ago when there was considerable local control of the schools, which is what he still wants.

Many years ago, few people went to college, and those who did usually didn’t travel far to get their education. The same was for true for those who entered the workforce: most stayed fairly close to home. But things are much different now.

High school graduates now literally go to college all across the nation. Also, it is also not uncommon for people to be sent by their employers to places far away from home.

With this changed and constantly changing situation, what could be wrong with having national educational standards so a student from any part of the country would have the same math and vocabulary skills as students from any other part of the nation?

Why should it be necessary for each state to have to figure out what math and vocabulary skills they want the students in their state to acquire?

Opponents say they object to the “one size fits all” mentality. But when it comes to basic academic skills and knowledge, why does there need to be local decisions about those basics?

Regrettably, Common Core has become a political issue more than anything else. Parents across the nation were basically satisfied with it until the politicians got involved.

Now even governors who were strongly in favor of Common Core, such as Gov. Jindal of Louisiana, are opposed to it—most probably for political reasons.

Increasingly, opposition to Common Core has become a litmus test for gauging a candidate’s conservatism. Some Republicans are trying to stigmatize it by calling it Obamacore.

But sorry, Sam (and your naysaying cohorts), Common Core needs to be supported, not stopped.

The Current Immigration Crisis

Representative Sam Graves from the Sixth District of Missouri is my U.S. Congressman. To keep up with his ideas and work in the House, I get his weekly email called “Straight Talk with Sam.”

Rep. Graves’s July 7 email article was titled, “Enforce U.S. Law to Secure Our Borders.” The article begins with an attack on the President. Sam writes,

Today, Missourians and people around the country are witnessing one of the most aggressive attempts to expand executive power in history. President Obama would prefer to go around Congress to enact his agenda.

The first sentence, however, is highly questionable, and the second sentence seems to be patently false.

The end of last month I heard the President say, and emphasize, that he would like to work with Congress. “I don’t prefer taking administrative action. I’d rather see permanent fixes to the issue we face. Certainly that’s true on immigration. I’ve made that clear multiple times,” the President said.

Why should we assume that Rep. Graves is correct about what the President prefers when we have the President’s own clear statement about the matter?

Rep. Graves is certainly right in pointing out that there is a current humanitarian crisis caused by tens of thousands of “unaccompanied alien children” who have crossed into the U.S. illegally in recent months.

There are highly conflicting opinions, however, about what has caused this immigration crisis and what to do about it.

Rep. Graves declares, “The reason we are witnessing the surge along our southwestern border is because the President and his Administration have refused to enforce existing immigration laws. Instead he has implemented policies, which have not passed Congress, that encourage more illegal immigration.”

Again, the Congressman’s statements are quite problematic.

During each of President Obama’s years in office, the number of undocumented (illegal) aliens who have been deported has been far more than the number deported during each of the years President Bush (W) was in office.

True, concessions were made by President Obama for children who had been brought in by parents who came without documentation. And it is true that such concessions did not have the approval of Congress.

But they were approved by the Senate, so it wasn’t exactly the President acting on his own.

A major part of the current immigration crisis has been caused by the Republican-controlled House, with members like Rep. Graves, who have refused, and who continue refusing, to act for immigration reform.

Rep. Graves is requesting “an explicit public commitment from the President that he will not extend legal status to newly arriving illegal aliens–regardless of age.”

To the consternation of some people, this seems to be what the President is going to do.

A week before Rep. Graves’ email, it was publicly announced that the President was trying to get a 2008 law changed in order to make it possible for unaccompanied children to be sent back to their home countries more quickly.

Most of the children who have sought refuge in the U.S. have been living in terrible conditions—otherwise they would not have risked trying to get into the U.S. No doubt many of them will be killed, injured, or raped if they are forced back into their country of origin.

Seeking to provide for so many needy children in this country is clearly a problem. But isn’t indiscriminately sending them back too callous and too lacking in compassion?

In 1980 alone, about 125,000 Cubans came to the U.S. and found refuge here. Can’t more be done to help the children coming to this country now?