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?

Liberally Criticizing Libertarianism: The Case of Sen. Rand Paul

In the summer of 1959, June and I (with our young son) moved from Missouri to Kentucky where we lived for the next seven years. We soon became quite fond of Kentucky and most of the Kentuckians we came to know—there are always exceptions—and we still are.

However, two of my least favorite U.S. Senators now are the two from Kentucky.

Opposing Libertarianism

Although there are many negative things I could say about Sen. Mitch McConnell, who became a Kentucky Senator way back in 1985, this post is mostly about the junior Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, who was first elected to that post in 2010.

Please note: I am not criticizing Sen. Paul as a person. He is probably a fine man in many ways. He has long been an active member of a Presbyterian church and of Lions Club International.

But I oppose many of Paul’s ideas and political positions. Specifically, I am critical of his libertarianism, which seems to be the basis for his political views.

Libertarianism, according to Britannica.com, is the “political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value.”

Two weeks ago (on Aug. 4), FoxNews.com (here) published an opinion piece by Sen. Paul. He forcefully spoke out against mandates for covid-19 vaccinations and the wearing of masks.

In his strongly-worded article, Sen. Paul implored his readers to “choose freedom” and declared, “We don’t have to accept the mandates, lockdowns, and harmful policies of the petty tyrants and feckless bureaucrats.” And, specifically, he criticized “Petty Tyrant Pelosi.”

This wrongheaded libertarianism, even when not so labeled, is prevalent among numerous Republican politicians. As eminent columnist Eugene Robinson wrote in an August 5 opinion piece, “Too many Republicans are taking covid-19’s side in the fight against the pandemic.”

Robinson asserts, “Public enemy number one is Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis,” who “has signed legislation barring local governments from imposing covid-19 restrictions and prohibiting businesses from requiring that patrons be vaccinated.”

Kearney protester

Further, “DeSantis has taken the position that pandemic public health measures are an intolerable assault on personal freedom.” This libertarian position is the same as Sen. Paul’s and seems to be “a message many rank-and-file Republicans apparently welcome.”

And this libertarian view, even when not recognized as such, is seen in local protests across the country. For example, in the small town of Kearney, Mo., about 15 minutes from where I live, there was a contentious school board meeting with some parents vociferously protesting mandatory masking.

Advocating Liberty

As you regular readers of this blog know, I have long advocated four foundational words beginning with the letter L: Life, Love, Light, and Liberty. But in writing/talking about liberty, I have regularly linked it with responsibility.

Liberty must always be tied to responsibility, so perhaps libertarianism would be all right if accompanied by an emphasis on responsibilitarianism. (Yes, the latter is a word used in several sites found by a Google search.)

It must also be recognized that there are variants of libertarianism: not all libertarians are as objectionable as Sen. Paul. But, in general, libertarians seek to live with freedom as individuals without external restrictions, especially by the government.

Even though they may not be Republicans, as Sen. Paul is, most libertarians agree with Pres. Reagan: “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” A few years ago, that was a basic position of the Tea Party Movement, of which Sen. Paul was a part.

But I agree with Pastor Preston Clegg, who (here) wrote an August 10 opinion piece titled “Freedom Without Responsibility is Moral Adolescence.” Clegg asserts,

People are—quite literally—protesting what would save their lives and cheering their own death, all in the name of liberation from what they perceive to be an overreaching government that is advocating for nothing more than our safety from a deadly pandemic.

Such protesters are egged on by people like Sen. Paul, so that is one strong reason I liberally criticize libertarianism and ardently advocate liberty with responsibility. 

The Problem of (Teaching) History: “1619” or “1776”?

This post is closely related to my June 19 article regarding critical race theory (CRT). Most of the legislation seeking to curtail the teaching of CRT has included criticism of The 1619 Project as well. CRT and “1619” both raise the question of how history is understood and taught.  

The Problem of Microhistory

Each one of us has our own personal history, which should, one would think, be rather straightforward and non-problematic. But in writing my life story, now available in print, some historical “facts” came under question. June did not remember some of our family history the same way I did.

The two siblings in Ann Patchett’s intriguing book The Dutch House (2019) discuss their family’s microhistory. One asks, “Do you think it’s possible to ever see the past as it actually was?” The other reflects on how we humans

overlay the present onto the past. We look back through the lens of what we know now, so we’re not seeing it as the people we were, we’re seeing it as the people we are, and that means the past has been radically altered (p. 45).

The Problem of Macrohistory

Recently I also read The Sense of an Ending (2011) by British author Julian Barnes. In that novel, one “high school” student remarks, “History is the lies of the victors.” The teacher retorts that “it is also the self-delusions of the defeated.”

At that point, the most brilliant student in the class says, rather cynically, “History is that certainty produced at the point where the imperfections of memory meet the inadequacies of documentation” (pp. 16-17).

If that is true in personal or family history; it is especially true in writing macrohistory. But the problem is more than just the imperfections of memory and the inadequacies of documentation.

The most serious problem is the biases of the historians and the conscious or unconscious interpretation of past events for the benefit of a particular segment of society.

Thus, the squabble over The 1619 Project continues.

U.S. History: “1619” or “1776”?

In 2019, The New York Times Magazine published The 1619 Project, developed by journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones and others.

The year 1619 was when the first African slaves set foot in North America. The 1619 Project, then, “aims to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of the United States’ national narrative" (from this link).

The 1619 Project was strongly criticized by politicians such as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (see here) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who proposed the Saving of American History Act of 2020 (see here), and especially by former Pres. Trump.

On the day before the 2020 presidential election, by executive order DJT established the 1776 Commission. Republican politicians continue to praise the flawed 1776 Commission report and to castigate The 1619 Project.

The “1776 Pledge to Save Our Schools” is being signed by numerous politicians, such as the two current Republican gubernatorial candidates in Kansas, who were rebuked by an editorial in the June 28 issue of the Kansas City Star.

There are some obvious problems with The 1619 Project, including some historical inaccuracies (as noted in this 3/6/20 Politico article). It also fails to link the beginning of U.S. history to the mistreatment of Native Americans (as this 9/26/20 opinion piece explains).

But most who oppose teaching CRT and “1619” want to shield students from much of the “ugly” history of the past. They need to consider, though, the truth of the following meme. (The painting depicts some dreadful history of Canada’s First Nations children, similar to what happened in the U.S.) 

_____
**Of the many articles I have read related to this post, I am linking here to only one, Eugene Robinson’s 6/28 opinion piece in The Washington Post, which is accessible here without a paywall. The sixth paragraph on is directly about The 1619 Project.