Your Occupation Influences Your Politics

Last year, Verdant Labs issued interesting findings relating a person's occupation to their political ideology. Using Federal Election Commission contribution records, this group looked at each reported profession and tabulated the relative percentage of donations given to each of the two major political parties. The resultant numbers give a good gauge of the ideological leanings within each occupation.

Many of the findings match occupational stereotypes. For example, yoga instructors are Democratic by a wide margin (94%D; 6%R), as are musicians (88D; 12R). Ranchers lean pretty far Republican (21D; 79R), as do truck drivers (31D; 69R).

In the 2012 Presidential election, there was a huge gender gap. 54.7% of women voted for Obama, while the President garnered only 45.2% of male vote. We would expect to see this gender gap reflected in occupational political leanings. And to some extent, we do. For example, 97.7% of preschool teachers are women, and they lean heavily Democratic (74D; 26R). Overwhelmingly male logging workers (99.8% male) are just as strongly Republican (24D; 76R).

But profession gender differences don't tell the entire story. Dental hygienists (98.6% female) are somewhat Republican (41D; 59R). Power line workers (99.1% male) lean Democratic by (53D; 47R).

The GOP is notoriously anti-union. This is reflected in heavy Democratic support in occupations with large union representation, such as longshoremen (89D; 11R), pipefitters (74D; 26R), and teachers (79D; 21R). At (99D; 1R), union organizers understandably have the most overwhelming ideological bias of any occupation. On the other hand, management tilts to the GOP. Plant managers prefer Republicans by (33D; 67R). Company Presidents and CEO's lean slightly Republican (46D; 54R).

Few current issues divide Democrats and Republicans more than global warming. This is borne-out in strongly partisan occupational leanings. People working in the fossil fuel industry, such as miners and oil workers, are heavily Republican (11D; 89R). On the other side are heavily Democratic scientific experts, such as environmental scientists (84D; 14R) and ecologists (93D; 7R).

In fact, technologists of all stripes are heavily Democratic. In finding that workers in science and mathematics contribute to Democrats by a hefty (78D; 22R) margin, the Verdant study confirms a 2009 Pew Research poll that found scientists heavily identifying as Democrats. Scientists self-identifying as working in research are even more Democratic (86 D; 14R). Engineers are only slightly less Democratic than scientists (71D; 29R).

So what fields are the most overwhelmingly Republican? The strongest GOP support is found in the mostly rural occupations of fossil fuel extraction (11D; 89R) and farming & forestry (28D; 72R). This is reflected in the fact that President Obama received only 37.4% of rural vote in 2012.

Another group of heavily GOP donors is found among occupations that are dominated by small businesses. Surgery (31D; 69R) and dentistry (37D; 63R) are pretty Republican fields. So is insurance (34D; 66R) and construction (35D; 65R).

In what fields do Democratic donors predominate? Certainly, the largely empathic fields of social & environmental work (93D; 7R) and mental health (90D; 10R) are heavily Democratic. We already mentioned the large ratio of Democrats in the teaching profession (79D; 21R).

There is another very large class of occupations that is overwhelmingly Democratic. In his 2002 bestseller, The Rise of the Creative Class, Richard Florida defined a new economic group, the Creative Class. This group acts to generate novel ideas, new technology, and new creative content. Florida described how attracting these creative individuals leads to more vibrant cities.

Each and every component of Prof. Florida's Creative Class is heavily Democratic. This includes scientists and engineers (mentioned earlier), writers (88D; 12R), visual artists (84D; 16R), performing artists (87D; 13R), planners & architects (75D; 25R) , film & stage production (93D; 7R) and academics (90D; 10R). The fact that these creative professionals are largely located in urban areas contributed to Obama carrying cities of over 500,000 people by a whopping 69.4% in 2012.

In order to understand American voting patterns, it helps to look at the political leanings of various blocs of voters. The interesting data crunched and released by Verdant Labs allows us to better examine how what you do for a living affects your political outlook. 

 (first published by Paul Adair August 11, 2015 in Germantown NOW, Just Sayin' blog)

The Brainwashing of My District

A new documentary, The Brainwashing of My Dad, tells the story of a once well-adjusted man who was sucked into the right-wing propaganda bubble. Exposed to a steady diet of Fox News and hate radio, his personality changed drastically. His views became racist, homophobic, angry, and fearful. However, this tale is certainly not an unusual one. You can find similar sad cases all across the W.O.W. counties.

Congressman-for-life Jim Sensenbrenner holds frequent town hall meetings around the 5th District. He takes great pride in hosting more of these than any other member of Congress. Being an incorrigible political wonk, I try to attend at least a couple of town halls every year.

Most questions aimed at Sensenbrenner, either from the right or the left, are well-reasoned and rational. However, there are usually one or two folks that have clearly been brainwashed by right-wing media. There are a few that obviously have drunk too deeply from the fountain of swill that is Fox News and hate radio.

I remember one especially sad and frightened old man in Richfield who used a town hall visit to vent. While trying to control his anger at (and fear of) the world, he said:

“I guess as a lot of Americans are pretty much upset with what's been coming out of this administration-all of the deception and untruthfulness, and lying-the money taken out of Medicare, and the Obamacare situation, the things involving Benghazi, the NSA/IRS, the retribution aspects involved with that, firing of military people kind of indiscriminately. I don't know what's going on, ….and it doesn't create a sense of happiness amongst the population or the fact that we have fears of what's going on, the things involving the Soviets (sic) doing their war games, coming-up with silos and missiles ..., China's bombers and missiles can reach US targets-you read stuff like that and you don't feel secure"

At almost every Town Hall, some afflicted questioners call for the impeachment of Obama because a) Benghazi b) executive orders c) Obama is a foreign-born Muslim, or  d) something, something... Sensenbrenner hears this request so often that he has a canned response, "If Obama is impeached and removed from office, who becomes President? Is that going to be any better?" This reply always seems to diffuse the situation without alienating the Congressman's base.

One sputtering woman in Oconomowoc implored Sensenbrenner to "do something about the radical President who is doing everything he can to tear-down our country”. Another fellow went on a rant about the President attacking “American values”. He was especially angry about “political correctness” and disturbed by Federal standards on drinking water and energy-efficient light bulbs.

Others in New Berlin fumed about de-funding the EPA and “Obama's Czars”, taking the US out of the United Nations, and abolishing the Federal Reserve. And of course, nothing incenses the fringe more than Fox News' never-ending Benghazi “conspiracy”.

Most of the rage is aimed at progressives, especially President Obama. But the right also eats their own. Before retiring, John Boehner was often the target of anger because he sometimes compromised with Democrats to keep the government running. I have heard Sensenbrenner, himself called a RINO by some of the most addled.

Recently in Menomonee Falls, a guy in a greasy gray ponytail ranted, "The House and Senate need to stop Barack Obama for what he's done. The stuff that happened-stuff that's Socialist and Communist. The less Democratic platform that I see, the better. People don't like gridlock-I love gridlock ! People don't like the government shut-down-I love the government shut-down ! If the government is shut-down, no more bad things can happen ! If you just let this ride out until Obama's gone, what steps will be taken in the future to try to repair his eight years of damage?"

I am sure that the fringy folks asking nutty questions at the Sensenbrenner Town Halls are just the tip of the iceberg. Many folks in the 5th District (and all over Wisconsin) have been brainwashed by propaganda TV and the legions of Limbaugh-wanna-be radio shows. 

The afflicted develop a personality full of fear and paranoia, ignorance and anger. Like the father in The Brainwashing of My Dad, they become crotchety old haters. But maybe like the father in The Brainwashing of My Dad, their families can help to deprogram them back to reality. 

What a Great Gig !

Suppose you are a corrupt state politician. You were just elected to office in a once-in-a-lifetime wave that swept your party into power. You find your new position to be a very nice one. You get paid pretty well for doing little actual work. There are many ways to bring-in money on the side, if you don't get caught. And the benefits are great.

You need to keep this great gig going. Your number one priority is to keep getting elected. Your number two priority is to get rich people to give you money so that you can keep getting elected. And you are not alone. Many other newly-elected officials in your party want to keep their job, too. You decide to work together to reach your common goal of self-preservation.

One of the first things you do is to weaken the opposing party. Weaken them in every way possible. You attack their major contributors. You introduce "tort reform" to punish the trial lawyers. You all but demolish public sector unions. After that dust settles, you go after private sector unions by jamming-through Right-to-Freeload.

You go after the opposing party's voters, trying to lower their turn-out. You increase residency requirements to curtail student voting. You push through photo ID, making it more difficult for students and the poor to vote. Because the opposing party has effectively used early voting, you drastically cut the number of days that early voting is allowed. Because the opposing party has effectively used voter registration drives, you eliminate Special Registration Deputies.
 
And you negate as many of your opponents' votes as you can through blatant and gross gerrymandering.

OK, so you've locked-in as much of an advantage for your party as you can through voting law changes. You have neutered their big donors. You've tipped the playing field to an unbelievable advantage through shameless gerrymandering. Now what?

You attract as many political contributions as possible by courting big-money lobbyists. You please the NRA through an array of all-guns-all-the-time-anywhere laws. You gain the gratitude of the school privatization lobby by starving public schools and expanding school vouchers statewide. You elate the WMC by implementing a series of anti-worker laws. And you change the state rules by which lobbyist money is regulated.

But lobbyist money is not enough. You need to get corporate and individual donations, too. You abolish your Commerce Department and replace it with a public/private organization. Away from public scrutiny, this group can offer unvetted loans and tax giveaways to your corporate donors. And to reward individual donors, you can give away state jobs to their relatives. However, first you need to eliminate with the state civil service system.

Since you can never have enough money, you rewrite state law to allow corporations to donate directly to your party and campaign. While you are at it, you allow outside groups to spend unlimited amounts of untraceable money to support your election. You allow yourself to directly coordinate with them on how to spend that money. 

Whenever vast amounts of money are involved, there is always the chance of the occasional slip-up. You don't want to end-up behind bars. A corrupt State Supreme Court might not always be able to bail you out. You had better change some laws. You make it much more difficult to investigate any alleged wrongdoing. 

You end John Doe investigations for lawbreaking by politicians. And you abolish that darned independent GAB and replace it with a toothless board headed by people you appoint. No investigation of legislators will be allowed to go forward unless your fellow legislators approve it.

Yes, if you completely stack the deck, you might be able to keep this great job the rest of your life. Forget the people who elected you. Forget the tradition of clean government in Wisconsin. So what if this all leads to the most corrupt state government in the nation? You've got yours. That is all that matters. 

(originally published by Paul Adair in Germantown NOW, Just Sayin' blog, October 20, 2015)

There is a Better Way

US voter participation rates are pretty dismal. During the off-year election of 2014, only 36.7% of eligible voters bothered to cast ballots. The presidential election of 2012 had a somewhat better 58.6% turn-out. Still, of 34 economically developed countries, only three had poorer voter participation than the US. The top countries in voter turn-out are Belgium (89%), Turkey (86%). and Sweden (83%)

Despite poor American voter participation, Republican-dominated legislatures across America have been on a coordinated campaign to make voting even more difficult. Since 2010, twenty-two GOP-led states have enacted laws that make it harder to vote. Democratic-leaning groups such as the poor and students have been especially targeted for suppression.

Since gaining the majority in 2010, Wisconsin GOP legislators have been in the vanguard of this national drive to block the vote. They have severely curtailed early voting, implemented the strictest photo-ID law in the country, abolished special registration deputies, and increased residency requirements. Scott Walker even suggested ending same-day registration, a move that would heavily discourage first-time (mostly young, mostly Democratic) voters.

All of these changes have been made under the guise of eliminating non-existent voter fraud. But the GOP's actual motivation for voter repression is far more self-serving. After photo ID was passed in 2011, State Senate Republicans let the real cat out of the bag. Some were reportedly "giddy about the ramifications and literally singled out the prospects of suppressing minority and college voters."

On a personal level, I volunteered as an election inspector in Germantown in 2014 and 2015. During that time, the strict Wisconsin photo ID law was tied-up in court. However, the burdensome regulation was allowed to go into effect this year. Being morally opposed to the law, I resigned as a poll worker. Since I had volunteered my time to help people exercise their voting rights, I could not in good conscience participate in restricting those same rights.

However, despite the voter-suppression efforts in Wisconsin and across the deep South, there is hope. In many progressive states, legislatures are actually making it easier for people to vote. According to the Brennan Center, access to voting has been increased in 23 states since 2012.

Some states are making it easier for former felons regain their voting rights. Others are allowing on-line voter registration. Some are adopting same-day registration. Others are facilitating data sharing between other government agencies and voting registrars. The drive to increase voting rights is now stronger than that to repress voting. During the 2015 state legislative sessions up to May, Brennan counted 133 pending bills that would restrict voting, but an overwhelming 464 bills that would increase access to voting.

Oregon is an exemplary state in the push to make it easier for citizens to vote. It was one of the first states to allow on-line registration. Oregon voting is by mail, with all registered voters receiving and returning their ballots through the postal system. This voting system has been in place since 1998. With an overwhelming 81% approval, it has been a wildly popular program. In 2011, Washington followed Oregon to become the second state with all mail-in voting.

In March of 2015, Oregon once again led the nation by making voter registration automatic. All citizens are registered using data from the DMV and people are given 21 days to opt out. California also signed a similar system into law last October. The California law will make a huge dent in the estimated 6.6 million of eligible Californians who are not registered. Earlier this month West Virginia became the third state to implement the reform, with many other states actively considering it.
 
America is rapidly dividing into two separate groups of states. On one side, states controlled by Republican majorities, such as Wisconsin, are making it much harder for their citizens to vote. In an attempt to lock-in power, politicians in these states are curtailing voting hours, implementing restrictive photo ID laws, making voter registration drives impossible, and increasing voter wait times.

On the other side, progressive states are protecting and extending the right to vote. They are making registration easier, allowing on-line registration or even automatically registering everyone. Some are ending hour-plus line waits by implementing mail-in voting. Progressive states are attempting to make our right to vote free, fair, and accessible to everyone. How great is that?

The Overton Window

The Overton Window is a political concept developed during the mid-1990's by Joseph Overton at the far-right Mackinac Center for Public Policy. The basic idea is that potential public policy in an area such as labor law, social security reform, or healthcare can be defined as a continuum, from far-right positions to far-left ones.

Somewhere between the two extremes is a "window" of policies that politicians can feel comfortable espousing and implementing. Policies in this comfort window are not necessarily the best ones, but are the ones that are sufficiently in the mainstream of public opinion. Elected officials who advocate policies within the Overton window don't greatly risk being thrown out of office because of those stances. Since politicians tend to put self-preservation above all else, most would theoretically restrict their views to ones within the moderate "window of political possibilities".

The successful implementation of polices outside the current window requires an actual shift of the entire window rightward or leftward. These shifts of acceptable policies can happen in many ways. Sometimes, the window shifts through generational change. Sometimes the window shifts due to grassroots activism and education of the public. Too often, the window shifts due to a relentless barrage of propaganda from a network of well-funded think-tanks and media pundits.

Let's look at a few examples. After reelection, George W. Bush pushed for privatizing Social Security, saying he would spend his "political capital" on the idea. Similarly, the first version of Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity manifesto advocated privatization. These initiatives went nowhere. Politicians stampeded from the concept like a herd of buffalo. Privatization of Social Security was something that the public simply did not want. Privatization was outside of the public's Overton Window on the issue.

Another example is gay rights. During the (first) Clinton Administration, no politician was advocating same-sex marriage. To do so would have been political suicide. Even an executive order implementing "Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell" was met with much gnashing of teeth by the public. Fast forward to 2011, when gays were first allowed to openly serve in the military. And today, same-sex couples are allowed to marry. Gay rights are now mainstream public policy. The Overton Window for gay rights has shifted dramatically over 25 years away from government-legislated morality and toward personal freedom.

The Overton Window concept should, in principle, lead to moderate and bipartisan policies. When legislation is based on a limited range of acceptable policies, it should be easy for legislators to find political common ground. It should be easy for politicians of all stripes to join together to realize the will of the people, right ?

On the contrary, Washington has never been so divided. We have never had such a grid-locked, do-nothing Congress. There is little agreement on anything. It is seen as a major accomplishment just to keep the Federal Government open. So why the breakdown? What accounts for the political train-wreck that is the US Congress? Why is the Overton Window concept not working to bring Congress together to pass popular bipartisan laws?

The Overton Window concept does not always apply. Some highly popular policies, such as a minimum wage increase, common sense gun laws, or campaign finance laws cannot be passed on a national level. These policies are comfortably within the public's acceptance, well within the Overton Window. Yet they cannot seem to gain traction. In many cases, big money from corporations and lobbyists trumps the will of the people.

Political self-preservation overrules all other factors. When confronted by a choice between acting on the will of constituents or obeying big donors, the donors win every time. Politicians are more than willing to promote radical policies that are outside of the Window in return for campaign cash, or to avoid a well-funded primary challenge. Pols are more obsequious to their donors than to the people they are supposed to represent.

A second reason that the Overton Window concept does not give us a more productive Congress is that there is not just one set of windows, but two. There is a set of acceptable policies for the right and one for the left, and these windows seldom overlap.

Due to gross Congressional gerrymandering, there are few competitive House races. There are only a few competitive Senate races. Almost every political district tilts strongly left or right. In order to get re-elected, politicians only need to keep "their" electorate happy. They only need to promote policies within the Overton Window of the majority of their voters. This leads to little compromise on major issues and an absurdly partisan Congress.

The Overton Window concept is an interesting filter through which to view politics. In its simplest form, it states that politicians tend to support ideas that are acceptable to most of their voters. It can explain why some policies are implemented and some are not. It sheds some light on the divisive partisanship in Congress. However, the Overton Window is not the entire story. When big money or powerful lobbyists speak, politicians are more than willing to vote against the aspirations of their constituents. 

 First published by Paul C. Adair in Germantown NOW, Just Sayin' blog, January 5, 2015.

My Faith Renewed

My faith in America's youth has been renewed. I am used to thinking of the young as self-absorbed and superficial. Maybe that is just a symptom of my ever-advancing years. However, the response of many young people to the blatant racism of the neo-fascist Trump movement has been beyond inspirational.

Trump has taken the once poorly-hidden racism of the right and exposed it for all to clearly see. No longer speaking in dog-whistles, Trump's unique blend of hate, fear, and divisiveness has brought-out the very worst in his followers. He has made Muslims and Mexicans the favorite scapegoats for his supporter's pathetic lives.

The whipped-up Trumpites are incited to act in a very ugly fashion. Everyone has seen the geezer who sucker-punched a protester being being escorted from a rally. Other brave protesters have been hit, kicked, and spit-on by the irate mobs. In Janesville, a 15-year old girl outside of a Trump rally was accosted by several adult men. One of the cowards squirted pepper-spray directly into her face.

Trump and his ugly movement have inspired a wave of openly-racist behavior. For example, a few high school kids brought shame on Elkhorn,Wisconsin by their Trump-inspired racist taunts. During a girl's soccer game, a heavily-minority Beloit team was subjected to racial slurs and repeated shouts like "Donald Trump, build that wall.". The visiting girls were clearly upset by the revolting incident. Similar racist episodes have happened at schools in Indiana and Iowa.

Racists everywhere have been emboldened by Trump's rhetoric. The former KKK Grand Wizard, David Duke has even encouraged other white-supremacists to join Trump's neo-fascist campaign. He said that to vote against Trump is "treason to your heritage."

How have progressive young people resisted this grave threat to our democracy? How have they fought back to preserve America? We first heard of a few brave souls who went into the rallies, either to disrupt the proceedings or to simply hold-up signs. These kids were roughly escorted out of the building, frequently with Trump egging-on the crowd to do violence to them.

As bigot-in-chief Trump has become the G.O.P. front-runner, crowds protesting his evil movement have grown exponentially. In cities and towns across the country, the candidate cannot give a hate-speech without being met by hundreds of sign-wielding Americans. In Phoenix, traffic was blocked en route to a Trump rally. In St. Louis, mass arrests were made. In Wisconsin, hundreds of our fellow citizens showed up in Milwaukee and Madison and Janesville to push aback against Trump's new Know-Nothing movement.

I was especially impressed by the student-led protesters that shut down last month's Trump rally in Chicago. That kind of racist crap might play in Alabama, but not Chicago. Hundreds of brave young patriots of all races and religions entered the hall, with thousands more outside. Citing safety concerns, Trump was forced to cancel his speech. Chalk one up for the righteous.

The young protesters facing-down Trump's neo-facist movement risk getting arrested, beaten, or even killed. One is reminded of the 1964 Berkeley Free Speech Movement leader Mario Savio, who so passionately argued, "There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels…upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all! "

From Kansas City to Chicago ...from New York to Milwaukee... from Phoenix to Janesville, protestors are showing-up to disrupt Trump's hate & fear fests. America's young people are making it clear that they are not going to sit idly by while America succumbs to this evil neo-fascist movement. They are willing to risk physical danger to stand-up for principle. They are willing to put their bodies upon the gears to make it stop. Their bravery has given this old man renewed faith in the youth of our country.

Neither an Adjective Nor an Adverb

Some highly partisan Republicans frequently refer to their opposition as the “Democrat” Party". This phrase sounds as ignorant and as grating as some hayseed saying “I done that” or “I seen that”. An advisor to President Clinton likened it to “fingernails on a chalkboard”.

The term “Democrat” should only be used as a noun, not as an adjective nor an adverb. When an adjective is needed, the correct term is “Democratic”. When an adverb is needed, it might be best to use a work-around instead of the awkward "Democratically". For example, say "vote for Democrats" instead of the wrong "vote Democrat" or the unwieldy "vote Democratically".

Republicans have used “Democrat” as an adjective for years to both annoy Democrats and to try to dispute big-D Democratic claims to small-d democratic values. William Safire traced use of the term as a slur to the 1940 Presidential campaign of Wendel Wilkie.

The infamous 1950's Communist witch-hunter Senator Joe McCarthy (R-WI) always used the term Democrat as an adjective. He explained that he didn't think the Democrats really represented democratic ideas, and should not be allowed to call themselves democratic. As if Ol' Tail-gunner Joe was any great judge of democratic ideas!

During the 1976 Vice-Presidential Debate, Bob Dole famously spoke of “Democrat Wars”. Never accused of being a grammarian, George W. Bush used the term constantly and unconsciously. One Bush campaign e-mail mentioned “the Democrat Party”, the hazards of “a Democrat victory”, and “if you want the Government in your pocket, vote Democrat”.

Bush was also called out by the press after he used the term in his 2007 state of the Union Address. In his usual goofy-jocular manner, the President explained in a later speech, “Now look, my diction isn't all that good. I have been accused of occasionally mangling the English language. And so I appreciate you inviting the head of the Republic Party."

Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich often used “Democrat" as an adjective. The 1996 Republican platform referred to "Democrat schemes," "Democrat presidents," and "Democrat Congresses". However, the party relented in the 2008 platform and has since used the term in the correct way.

Right wing bloviators such as Limbaugh and Frank Luntz use “Democrat” as an adjective almost exclusively, going out of the way to purposely annoy their opponents. One writer compared incorrect usage of the term as a wink to their party faithful, a partisan equivalent of a gang sign.

But even Democrats are not faultless. The irritating sign pictured above is actually displayed on the wall of one of the local Wisconsin County Democratic Party headquarters !

Any G.O.P. politician who claims that they want to work across the aisle, but insists on calling the other side the “Democrat Party” or worse, is being disingenuous. Use of two little letters can speak volumes. In the interest of improving political civility, each party should be referred to by its actual name. 

 

(edited from article first published by Paul Adair in Germantown NOW  Just Sayin' blog December 18, 2012)

Ron Johnson Won't Do His Job, Asks Us for Another Term

It has been 21 days since President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the US Supreme Court. Yet Senate Republicans, including our own Ron Johnson, have done nothing to fill this critical vacancy. No hearings. No votes. Johnson has not even met with the nominee.

Future-former Senator Johnson is taking his marching orders from Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump in his refusal to allow America a full Supreme Court. He is certainly not following the wishes of his constituents. According to a PPP poll, 62% of Wisconsinites think that the Senate should fill the vacancy this year. In spite of the GOP propaganda machine, only 35% of Wisconsinites think that the Senate should stall confirmation until 2017.

President Obama's nominee, Garland, is both less liberal and older than I would prefer. I would rather have a progressive firebrand who would be on the court for the next 40 years. However, by nominating a moderate, the President is being realistic. If obstructionist Senate Republicans were truly interested in governing, confirmation of the well-qualified Garland would be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, Ron Johnson has no brain.

Johnson just wants the whole issue to go away. He doesn't even mention the Supreme Court vacancy on his official senatorial website, or try to explain his intransigence. In a 3/7 radio interview, he complained, "This is blown way out of proportion." In another interview, he whined that “I have never had the press press me so hard to make a change of position."

Speaking to reporters in Madison in February, Johnson stated, "This is what we're going to do, now get over it. Let’s move on. The Senate has spoken, a coequal branch of government. We’re not going to consider the nomination. ... So now let’s start moving on with the other important things we must do for the American people." No, Ron. This will not go away. You need to act on this nomination. Now.

Johnson keeps echoing the Republican talking-point mantra of "letting the people decide ^TM". However, he let the cat out of the bag in a March radio interview. Asked if he would be for immediate hearings if Mitt Romney were President. Johnson walked into the trap, stammering "It's a different situation. Generally, and this is the way it works out politically, if you're replacing — if a conservative president's replacing a conservative justice, there's a little more accommodation to it."

A spokesperson quickly tried to walk-back RoJo's statement. But his on-air confession made it perfectly clear. Johnson has no interest in "letting the people decide ^TM". His sole brazenly partisan motivation is to foist another extreme conservative judge onto the American people. He wants to ensure a conservative majority on the court, no matter who the American people elect as President.

Johnson further showed his hypocrisy in a 3/18 interview on one of the horde of far-right Milwaukee radio talk shows. The ass-clown-Limbaugh-wannabe host asked RoJo what he makes of the notion,"Well, in the lame duck session in December, if Hillary wins, we could take this more moderate guy, because Hillary would nominate someone worse. Are you pondering that?"

Johnson replied, "Well, that may not be a bad idea, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it." So while Johnson claims to want to give the us a choice on a nominee, if we decide (again) that we want a more progressive justice by (again) electing a Democrat, he feels it is not a bad idea to take that choice away from us. If it is in his partisan interest to negate the will of the people, he will do it.

Johnson feels that conservatives are somehow entitled to a permanent majority on the Supreme Court, no matter how many progressive presidents the American people elect. If the Republicans retain the Senate, it is unlikely that we will ever see a confirmed Justice from a Democratic President. They will simply delay indefinitely, as the Court slowly dwindles to seven to six to five....

At this year's extremist CPAC conference, Johnson ominously promised the audience, "Let me assure everybody because I know there are some concerns. The Republican majority in the Senate will not allow the Supreme Court to flip. Take that one to the bank." And further, "We want to confirm a Justice Scalia replacement who is like Justice Scalia."

Ron Johnson thinks that the far-right is entitled to a permanent majority on the US Supreme Court. He will do anything, say anything to keep that majority. He will disrespect the President's obligation to fill Court vacancies. He will ignore his duties of advice and consent. He will ignore the will of the people. We cannot allow this hyper-partisan hack to remain in the Senate. He must go come November.

What We Believe

 

During the increasingly rancorous Democratic primary battles, it is important to remind ourselves that many common beliefs bind all Progressives together. Both Bernie and Hillary share those beliefs. There are many more policy similarities between Hillary and Bernie than differences. In November, it is imperative to support the Democratic nominee for President, no matter who wins the nomination.

As Democrats, we believe that all companies must pay their share of costs for educating their workers, defending the country, and providing basic infrastructure. Allowing companies to pay little or no federal income tax is not acceptable in times of huge US deficits.

We believe in fiscal responsibility in government. Borrowing money to give tax cuts is an unsustainable insanity. Income must balance with outflow, as it did during the Clinton administration. Elected officials should only pledge to our country, our flag, and to the people who they represent. They should never sign a pledge to a Washington lobbyist named Grover.

We want a government that works for all citizens, not just for a few ultra-rich donors. And certainly not just for corporations. The Citizen's United decision was wrong and should be overturned through a constitutional amendment. We need to get our government back.

We believe that Social Security and Medicare are benefits that were earned by taxpayers throughout their working lives. These earned benefits are not to be taken away, privatized, or replaced with discount coupons.

We believe that there are things that the government can do better than for-profit corporations. These include teaching our children, incarcerating our prisoners, maintaining public safety, and waging our wars. Funneling taxpayer money to private companies to conduct these critical functions should not be tolerated.

We believe that health care is a basic human right, not a privilege for the well-off. The Affordable Care Act was a compromise position, but is a good start at joining the rest of the First World in providing universal care for our citizens. Returning to the prior status quo is not an option.

We believe that people should be able to make personal decisions without interference from Big Government. A woman should control her own reproductive destiny. Adults should be able to marry who they want. People should not be arrested for smoking marijuana.

We believe that investment in our people leads to a more prosperous and affluent country. Public schools, universities, and technical schools should be adequately funded. Loans and grants must be available for higher education. Teachers should be heroes, not scapegoats or villains.

We believe that government should work to build a strong middle class, not destroy it. This includes going after other countries for predatory trade practices, working with rather than busting unions, legislating a living minimum wage, and providing tax incentives to keep jobs in the United States.

We believe that financial companies and polluters cannot be relied on to police themselves. We need strong regulatory watchdog agencies to protect the economy and environment.

We believe in the importance and veracity of science. World scientific leadership is one of America's greatest strengths. We must maintain that leadership. Policy decisions must be made based on scientific facts. The Republican/Tea Party anti-science platform is not healthy for our survival.

Either Hillary or Bernie will continue to move a progressive agenda forward for America. Either one deserves our support in November. We cannot afford a Republican President. Not this time.

Our critical choice in this election is between two opposing world views. In one, there are important roles for government. In the other, government would be shrunk to non-existence. One party believes in an affluent society of mutual cooperation. The other party would implement an Ayn Randian, social Darwinist dystopia. One party reflects the “social contract” of Hobbes, in which each individual operates under enlightened self-interest. The other party's policies would result in the Hobbesian nightmare of every man against every man, in which life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”