Bob Schwartz

Who is the leader, the face, the identity of the Democratic Party? Simple: President Barack Obama. Who else?

If you ask Hillary Clinton’s supporters, or at least listen carefully to what they say, she is the party. And therein lies her biggest problem, at least among some number of Democrats.

No major party has, at least in modern times, had anyone other than a sitting President be the undisputed presumptive leader and face of the party, such that when the time came to pick a new nominee, it was a foregone conclusion. At least not one with a relatively modest record of public service. But that is exactly what is happening. Not once but now twice.

Politico reports on a dinner of high level Hillary donors at which they spoke their minds, particularly about Joe Biden:

The prospect of the grieving vice president’s potential entry into the race was a subject that obsessed the group over dinner, where many worried he will fracture the party….

“I’m concerned that the first bumpy road she hits – and there’s a man ready to knock her out, I’ve seen this before,” said Kounalakis, a close Clinton ally who is hosting a fundraiser in San Francisco for Clinton in November, and is viewed as potentially a major donor in 2016. “I’m worried we’re not accustomed to having a woman candidate at this level, and we don’t have the language to fight sexist attacks.”

Buell, who over the past 10 years has given $25 million to progressive groups and candidates, shook her head at the prospect of a Biden candidacy.

“Why would he want to go out on such a negative?” she asked her friends.

You have to read that carefully to dig out the premises or promises. Which are:

1. Hillary Clinton is the party, and whoever and whatever seriously stands in her way or questions her will “fracture the party.” That is, will disrupt her otherwise unstoppable opportunity.

2. Standing in her way is a negative act. Or, as noted in an earlier post, “Why would he want to go out on such a negative?” is one of the thinly veiled promises that if Biden proceeds to “fracture the party” he will learn just what negative means, and he will have to take his political lumps for doing so. Maybe lots of powerful money-fueled lumps.

Hubris is the sort of extreme and undeserved pride and self-confidence that offends the gods, and is usually punished by them. The gods don’t really care what happens in the byzantine and self-serving ways of American politics. But in the case of Hillary Clinton, a lot of Democrats do. They don’t want to be told that their preference for some other candidate, or their antipathy towards Hillary, is the shameful path toward splitting a noble party, or is disloyalty tantamount to treason. And you know what we do with traitors.

So maybe it isn’t Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden that are actually threatening to fracture the Democratic Party. Maybe the hubris of a particular candidate will do that all by itself.

Red debris
In a green sea of fall.
Monochrome to color
One at a time.
Herald for the forces
That will come
As they always do
To transform
Forest and field.
Asking us to forget
The green past
And embrace
Yellow brown and gold
And cold.

A current thought is that erasing Confederate flags is a small but effective step in diminishing racism in America. More is better, and so if the effort is doubled and doubled again, we will be just that little bit closer to racial harmony and tolerance. Not a complete solution, but at least a sign of enlightenment and progress.

The effort and the self-congratulation that go with it avoid a couple of matters.

American racism is wide and deep. Even as it seems to wane, social media and having cameras everywhere is going to put once private prejudice on bold and sometimes vicious public display. Fully acknowledging it in all its forms is something to do next, but only when finger pointers check themselves and their own for hidden vermin. It is the age of actual glass houses.

The second point is that racism may not and likely will not disappear soon as a major force, no matter how we try. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, but human nature and history give us pause. We can and should shield people from the effects of racism. The rights to do freely or be free of nasty consequence should be guaranteed. But that in no way assures evolution, and in some cases provokes nasty reaction. We might as well learn to live with racism, not so much accepting or condoning it, but digging deeper to learn what we can about the weaknesses that pervade life and self. One day that work of transcending racism may be successful. But that day is not today.

Just as we might acknowledge the prevalence of secret racism, including in ourselves, we might admit that racism is stubborn and intractable. We don’t have to punish ourselves on either count. But the rare process of candid self-examination might ultimately be more valuable than merely basking in the glow of having done the right but very tiny thing.

The Supreme Court has turned back the latest challenge to the legality of Obamacare. Republicans have returned to their mantra of “repeal and replace,” if only they can have the White House and Congress.

This is not to discuss the merits, wisdom or effectiveness of the Affordable Care Act. It is just to ask a basic and obvious question: If after five years the Republicans have replacement plans, what and where are they?

It appears, as is common in partisan politics, that a snappy slogan is meant to preempt any thoughtfulness or inquiry, let alone actual proposals. In this case, it would be great to have seen a comprehensive alternative plan. But that would mean actually devising a plan that would be politically palatable and effective. Which, as far as we can tell, hasn’t yet happened.

It’s a matter of trust, as in, trust us. But it was none other than Republican icon Ronald Reagan who said, “Trust but verify.” And it was the most recent Republican President George W. Bush who said, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice……you can’t fool me again.”

Hate is a part of our human experience, as hater and hated. We hope and try to minimize or even eliminate it, but at least a little, there it has been and there it is.

Some will say that its ugliest manifestation is the sort of thing we see in Charleston and in similar incidents. But maybe even uglier, and maybe louder and more common, is the use of hate as a political weapon, sometimes by some very high level and ambitious and otherwise respected political leaders and aspirants.

It may not look like hate. It may be clothed in high-minded rhetoric and ideology. But at its heart, the expressions of how awful, how ungodly, the persons and positions of political enemies are is nothing less than hateful. Hate and intolerance in a good cause, the perpetrators will argue. But hate nonetheless.

We can no more eliminate hate then we can its brighter correlates of love, understanding and compassion. But the least we can ask of those in positions of power and authority, and of those who strive for even higher positions, is to renounce hate as a weapon. They don’t have to go all soft and lovey. But they do have to forego spreading poison and thereby making poison acceptable. It isn’t, and when it becomes so, we shouldn’t be wondering where all the hate comes from. Politician or regular citizen, it comes from us.

The harmony between one god and no god, between this god and that god, is work that has been done and will be done. It is often blocked and prevented by something in each that relies on primary distinctions. The disappearance of those distinctions would appear to make that one god or no god, this god or that god, disappear as a particular.

But that isn’t so, since the distinction is, in all authentic cases, what is sought to disappear itself. Even those with no god will say that those with one god or this god or that god have built artificial walls that prevent them from seeing what really is. Those with one god or this god or that god also say that barriers have been built that prevent us from seeing what really is.

That is a harmony, the surrendering of walls between the believer and what is, which is the ultimate mission of those with one god and those with no god. The particulars take on too much significance, the walls take on too much significance. The surrendering of walls is the common and primary task, shared by all.