|
|
Spokane Becoming Seattle?
Violence Against Women Act Renewal & CMR
|
Trump’s Media War
Dear Group,
Trump and his media act in synergy in a war for power. (The Republican faithful and corporate interests gleefully aid and abet because they see their narrow interests can ride along.)
On Monday I posted “Nadine Woodward” and discussed the strikingly positive bias with which the Spokesman announced her candidacy. I had just read a series in the New York Times Magazine on the Murdoch media empire, a series that set the stage for my irritation with the Spokesman bias. The NYTimes series is a must read.. It comes in three parts:
How Rupert Murdoch’s Empire of Influence Remade the World
Part 1: Imperial Reach
Part 2: Internal Divisions, Inside the Succession Battle for the Murdoch Empire
Part 3: The New Fox Weapon, The Future of Fox: An Even More Powerful Political Weapon
[There is even a streamlined version: 6 Takeaways From The Times’s Investigation Into Rupert Murdoch and His Family.
And a Video presentation: The Night Fox News and Trump Became One]
If you are a subscriber to the NYTimes.com electronic version these articles are available to you right now. if you are not a subscriber, reading this series is reason to become one. Rupert Murdoch and his sons Lachlan and James play by different rules than the rest of us. By steady application of power, influence, and propaganda over decades they make the rules. I have long been curious about the Murdoch media dynasty. These articles bring all the material together in a readable narrative. Get to know the players.
I consider this NYTimes series on Murdoch second only to Jane Mayer’s epic work “Dark Money” (See below under References/Deep Background). The NYTimes series covers much less territory and is less well referenced than “Dark Money,” but it is more readable in a shorter time frame.
As if the NYTImes weekend deep dive into the Murdoch media dynasty and Fox “News” weren’t enough on April 6 I received an email from DonaldJTrump.com (a Trump 2020 campaign website to which I am subscribed) with the subject line “FINAL FAKE NEWS FOUR” looking for a donation and announcing a context to name the most egregious “fake news” outlets pushing the “witch hunt” led by “liars” and naming CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post as suitable exemplars for the “FAKEST NEWS.”
That Trump continues to work his base by stoking conflict with all media that do not bow down to him I found profoundly chilling, particularly on the heels of reading the NYTimes article on the Murdoch propaganda and influence machine. This is no way to run a country. This is a way to discord and consolidate autocratic power. The Spokesman announcement of Nadine Woodward’s candidacy for City of Spokane mayor is a microcosm of the greater story of the media wars.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
P.S. After reading the story of the Murdoch media dynasty I find the Republican propaganda machine’s incessant flogging of George Soros, the right’s favorite wealthy liberal whipping boy laughable. “George Soros” has become a mantra for Republicans, a trigger meant to elicit disgust at the mere mention of his name. Ask the average Republican (including Rep. McMorris Rodgers, who uses the Soros name as a mantra) what exactly they know about the man. You will likely get a blank stare or some mumbling about Nazis. Fox focuses on Soros’ teen years as a Jew in Hungary during the Nazi occupation and on his wealth accumulation as a hedge fund manager, conveniently avoiding mention of the Open Society Foundations and the rest of his long life supporting democracy in reaction to what he lived through as a youth. I urge you to click and read the Wikipedia articles on George Soros and his foundations. You will never hear a Fox commentator discussing the Murdoch media empire or the cozy synergistic relations the Murdochs now maintain with Trump. Read about both and decide who you would rather meet.
Nadine Woodward
|
Dear Group, The big local news last week was Nadine Woodward’s announcement she is running for Mayor of the City of Spokane. On Wednesday, April 3, the Spokesman published a front page article entitled “Woodward campaigning for city’s highest post”. On the same front page, shoulder to shoulder with Woodward’s announcement, was another article entitled “TV Anchorman Won Mayor’s Office In ’70s.” This gratuitous bit of history, as if to offer a parallel, presents Ron Bair’s accomplishments as a one term mayor (4 years from 1978-82). It starts with another parallel; both Woodward and Bair were, immediately prior to their campaigns for mayor, long term news anchors at KXLY. I see those juxtaposed articles as tantamount to endorsement. (If you have a digital subscription you can see that front page here. As separate articles they can be seen here and here.) The mayoral race is nominally non-partisan, but Woodward’s bona fides as a conservative Republican could hardly be more clear. The Spokesman article says, “She had long been rumored to be interested in running for office and has been encouraged to run by some prominent conservatives.” Not only has she already received the endorsement of perhaps my least favorite local politician, Michael Baumgartner (now Spokane County Treasurer), but his wife, Eleanor Baumgartner, is managing Woodward’s campaign. KXLY, where Woodward was anchor for eight years, is conservative, owned by Morgan Murphy Media,a company based in Wisconsin and owning stations there and in Texas, Missouri, Kansas, and eastern Washington. Woodward has name and face recognition from KXLY (and 19 years at KREM). Does Woodward have a platform? Well, not that you could tell from the Spokesman article. “Consensus building” sounds like the extent of the substance, while she simply mentions all the usual local concerns: homelessness, public safety, hiring more police (without raising taxes, she says). Solutions? Actual proposals? …not yet, not so much. Luckily we’re blessed in this town with another newspaper, The Inlander, a weekly that doesn’t require a subscription. Further we have Daniel Walters, who ought to be given a bigger platform. His article is entitled “Nadine Woodward is running for mayor on a platform of ‘Spokane Solutions,’ but doesn’t yet have any” You can read the original here for free, but I’ve copied it below for convenience: Right there, on the baby blue section of her campaign sign, was the slogan of Nadine Woodward’s long-anticipated mayoral campaign: “Spokane Solutions.” For nearly three decades, Woodward reported on the problems of the city of Spokane for KREM and KXLY. In that time, Woodward says, she got a “close-up view of the real challenges before us.” Flanked by the Riverfront Park pavilion and the clocktower, Woodward offered up a familiar checklist of goals for the city. Spokane needs less property crime, chronic homelessness and drug addiction, she argued, and more vibrant neighborhoods and thriving businesses. Streets still need to be repaired and stormwater infrastructure still needs to be invested in. When it comes to solving these challenges, she said, Spokane needed to move away from “second-hand ideas copied from somewhere else.” “We are not California,” Woodward said. “We are not Seattle. We are Spokane and we’re proud of it.” Instead, Woodward says, Spokane needs to come together to develop “Spokane Solutions.” “I’m not here to give you the answers to all the city’s problems,” Woodward said. “I’m telling you that I’m going to work my heart out to find the best solutions to Spokane’s problems.” But when asked to identify any specific “Spokane Solutions” she was proposing, Woodward repeatedly declined to name anything. “I have no solutions to propose right now,” Woodward said, “because they’re not mine. We’re going to work together to bring people to come up with Spokane Solutions.” So why not come up with any solutions before announcing her run for mayor, the Inlander asked. “We will develop Spokane Solutions,” Woodward said. “I’m not coming to the table with Spokane Solutions.” Woodward is offering less of a platform as much as a philosophy. She wants to be a nonpartisan consensus builder who rejects “bickering,” “political posturing” and “grandstanding.” Her vagueness made for a sharp contrast with City Council President Ben Stuckart, Woodward’s most high-profile opponent. A year ago, Stuckart announced his mayoral campaign with a blend of specificity, rhetorical intensity and willingness to wade into politically dicey territory. (Woodward, for example, did not mock an email from an indignant constituent who was angry with a building code allowing for flat roofs.) “He’s been in office for seven years,” Woodward said about Stuckart. “My approach obviously is going to be a lot different. I’m not going to come here and tell everybody what I’m going to do. I’m going to involve people. We’re going to come up with answers together.” While her supporters include former City Councilman Steve Corker, a Democrat, most of her supporters lean to the conservative side of the spectrum. Eleanor Baumgartner, wife of snarky Republican politician Michael Baumgartner, is running Woodard’s campaign. Better Spokane, a conservative-leaning pro-business lobbying group, has already thrown its support behind Woodward. “She’s got a great resume,” Better Spokane Executive Director Michael Cathcart says. “She knows the issues. She knows the community. She’s trustworthy. A complete contrast to Ben.” But how does he know that her eventual solutions would be better than Stuckart’s? “Well, you don’t have to go far to get a better solution than Stuckart’s,” Cathcart says. “She’s at least going to consult a broad group of people.” Woodward was the most specific when it came to what she wouldn’t do. She promised she will “never embarrass this city.” She said she wouldn’t be “abrasive.” She wants less drama. She said she was opposed to the City Council’s decision to ban Border Patrol from the Intermodal Center. She suggested that opening up City Hall all day to the homeless and other members of the public was a mistake. Last month, Woodward encouraged Spokanites to watch a controversial KOMO documentary on drug addiction and homelessness in Seattle. Toward the end, the KOMO reporter suggests turning the largely abandoned prison on McNeil Island into an involuntary drug treatment center for addicts. But at her press conference today, Woodward insisted that she hadn’t praised the video. “We’re not Seattle,” Woodard said. “But we need to get a handle of the situation before we become a Seattle.” When pressed, Woodward didn’t identify anything that Spokane should do to avoid that fate, besides working together. “We’re going to work together to find solutions,” Woodward said. “We’re going to bring people together. There’s no silver bullet, Daniel. But anyone who tells you they’re going to solve it right now — there’s just no way. It’s going to be a collaboration of people, who work one-on-one with the homeless who are going to help come up with a solution.” Other than her objection to opening up City Hall, Woodward doesn’t identify any mistakes the city of Spokane has made in handling homelessness. “I can’t think of anything right now, exactly,” Woodward said. “But I think we’ve seen it get out of control. You can’t just throw money at a problem and think that it’s going to, you know, resolve itself.” I asked her to identify what she saw as the biggest mistake the city of Spokane has made in the past decade. She declined. “Daniel, I’m not going to go that route,” Woodward said. “I’m not going to berate what the city has done. I love this city.” Still, some of Woodward’s comments appeared to allude to the sexual harassment scandal involving former Police Chief Frank Straub. “No one should be bullied or harassed at work, and that includes City Hall,” Woodward said. “I intend to take a hard look now at the ethics and employment standards to protect city employees, especially women, from bullying and harassment.” Woodward once sued her former employer, KREM, over age and sex discrimination. Still, the former reporter largely refused to be pinned down on issues by the city’s current reporters. Woodward refused to say how she voted on a city initiative — supported by Stuckart but opposed by Mayor David Condon — to raise property taxes in order to pay for firefighters and police officers. After a handful of questions, Woodward excused herself. “I’ve got to go to the bank,” Woodward said. “We’ll do it another time, how about that.” Keep to the high ground, Jerry |
The Anti-Democratic Electoral College
Dear Group,
I was ten years old when my father introduced me to the mathematical mysteries of the Electoral College. He was a high school graduate, but a man who read widely and a man with sixty years experience at the time of the introduction. I remember him explaining how, in our “democratic” country it was possible a majority of Americans could vote for President and yet the other candidate, with fewer votes, could win the election. I understand now, more than half a century later, my father was echoing controversy that followed two elections engraved in the memory of his parents and grandparents. In 1876* and 1888 the Electoral College voted in a President against the will of the voters. My dad was still marveling at the irony of those elections in this “democratic” country.
For context, remember the last two Republican Presidents were once elected by the Electoral College with a minority of popular vote, George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016. Criticism of the Electoral College is not just an academic exercise. The Electoral College system produces massive downstream effects.
So how is it that the Electoral College has produced these anti-democratic results on four occasions in our history. Here’s the math: Each state is awarded “electors” to be sent to the Electoral College equal to that states number of Representative and Senators added together. The number of Representatives from each state is determined by population measured in the census every ten years. The number of Senators is, of course, fixed a two for each state.
What does that mean in terms of representation? Wyoming, with one Representative (the minimum) and two Senators (therefore already wildly overrepresented in Congress, too) gets three electors, one for every 192,579 people. At the other extreme, California with 20 House seats and two Senators, gets 22 electors, one for every 1,539,620 people.That gives the people of Wyoming eight times the voting power in the Electoral College than Californians. In a country that calls itself a democracy or even a “representative democracy” or a republic, that is a crazy imbalance.
One might be tempted to think of the Electoral College as a venerable, quasi-sacred institution, a pillar of American greatness, a bit of genius set forth by divinely guided “Founders.” If that viewpoint is even remotely tempting, spend a few minutes reading about the U.S. Electoral College as ir was originally written in the Constitution, the breakdown of the system, and the 12th Amendment (1803) that patched up parts of the original plan. Then read of the 14th Amendment, Section 2 (1866) prescribing a penalty for denying the right to vote for electors.
In 1961, with ratification of the 23rd Amendment, the country further acknowledged the anti-democratic bent of the Electoral College by authorizing one elector to the citizens of the District of Columbia, citizens recently numbering 672,228. These citizens were previously denied any say whatsoever in electing the President, a President who holds court in their district. People of Wyoming.are, even after the 23rd Amendment, three times better represented than people of Washington, D.C., in electing the President. (It is worth noting these citizens of Washington, D.C. still have no voting voice in Congress, no Senator or voting Representative. How is that for “representational democracy?”)
The Electoral College still denies the approximately 4 million U.S. Citizens resident in U.S. Territories(Puerto Rico is the largest) any voice at all in the general election for President. Puertoriqueños, full citizens of the United States, only have a vote if they have and maintain residency in one of the States(or D.C.) And we have the gall to call ourselves a “democracy?”
The Electoral College system is a complex, anachronistic tool leveraged to achieve electoral domination by a minority of voters. It is not sacred. It is all about power.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
P.S. In 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes “won” the election in the Electoral College by one vote, 185 to 184, while losing the popular vote 4,034,311 to 4,288,546. The story of that election, now faded in the country’s memory, is as complicated as the recent elections of minority Presidents. (Teaser: the resolution of that election, made necessary by the Electoral College, ended Reconstruction. That produced multiple grievous downstream effects. Most of us don’t learn these stories in school…)
A Tale of Senates, Part II
Dear Group,
I closed Monday’s post, A Tale of Senates, Part I, with:
The U.S. Senate stands unique among senates in the United States: 1) The U.S. Senate is the only senate in the U.S. with a term of office of 6 years (the longest term of any elected official I can think of) and 2) The U.S. Senate is the most anti-democratic senate in the country by representation.
There’s more to the story. Until 1912 the U.S. Senate was even more anti-democratic than today.
Article 1, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution as written in 1787 specifies a Senate even less representative than what it is today. Originally, Senators were to be chosen by the State legislatures not directly by voters. It took nearly a hundred years of agitation and speeches to move in a more democratic direction with ratification of the 17th Amendment to the Constitutionin 1912. The 17th Amendment mandates election of U.S. Senators by the voters of each State, taking away that power from the state legislators. Decades of perceived state government corruption and cronyism were finally enough. (Click 17th Amendment to the Constitution for some interesting reading about the history of the 17th.)
In my primary and secondary education I was taught to think of the U.S. Senate as the more august and deliberative body than the House of Representatives. U.S. Senators have to be older, 30 years, as opposed to 25 years for Representatives. Senators serve for six years, as opposed to two for House members, so they are freer of the “political whims of the common folk.” (The electorate might forget a perceived faux pas by a Senator when facing re-election nearly six years later.)
Now I see the U.S. Senate in more nuanced fashion. Individual U.S. Senators, stand out prominently in my mind in part because they are simply there longer (six years) and in part because there are fewer of them (100 v. 435 voting Representatives), Their generally greater longevity in office and fewer numbers makes it the easier for me to mentally attach a Senator than a Representative to a particular State.
More importantly, I now see the U.S. Senate as awarding inordinate power to a minority, a distinctly anti-democratic institution shaped by slavery (Three-Fifths Compromise) and state-based tribalism (Connecticut Compromise), an institution that gives undue power to a Mitch McConnell (representing 4,468,402 Kentuckians) over a Charles Schumer (representing 19,542,209 New Yorkers) or a Diane Feinstein (representing 39,557,045 Californians). See Control by the Minority.
Our governance is a product of a history of which many of us are largely unaware. The U.S. Senate is far more anti-democratic than the Electoral College (a topic for another day), but the peculiarities of the Senate get far less ink.
The history of senates in the U.S., both state and federal, shows general movement toward more direct representational democracy. State senators now represent approximately equal populations determined census rather than fixed geographic areas. State senators are elected by the voters of their district. U.S. Senators are now elected by the voters of their respective States (17th Amendment, 1912) rather than state legislatures. Regardless, the U.S. Senate stands as a model of unequal representation.
The U.S. Senate may be the older, more deliberative and thoughtful of the two chambers of Congress, but it is also a device for rule by a minority.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
Foley Dinner! Friday, March 22
Dear Group,
Just 9 days from now on Friday, March 22nd, The Spokane County Democrats hold their Thomas S. Foley Legacy Dinner at the Mukogawa Fort Wright Institute. On line ticket sales close tomorrow, Wednesday, March 13th. Click here to reserve tickets.
Featured speakers and guests are Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Director of the Washington State Department of Commerce Lisa Brown, King County Executive Dow Constantine, and Chair of the Washington State Democratic Party, Tina Podlodowski. These are people with years of service in government. (Tina is a former member of the Seattle City Council.) Contrast that with the featured speaker at the Spokane GOP’s Lincoln Day Dinner, Charlie Kirk, a 24 year old hustler and provocateur who recently declared in a speech at CPAC:
One of the things that Donald Trump has done is he has not changed the left—he has revealed them, This is who they have always been. They have always hated this country.
The speakers for the Spokane GOP in recent years all fall nicely in line with the likes of Charlie Kirk: Dinesh D’Souza in 2016 (according the Redoubt News) stem-winding conspiracy theorist and provocateur; Tomi Lauren in 2017; and Jason Chaffetz and Deneen Borelli in 2018, both Fox News commentators. Common thread: propaganda, not governance. (To be fair, Chaffetz once served as a Representative from Utah. I know of zero experience with real government among any of the rest of them.) It is no wonder the Spokane GOP found itself briefly in hot water last year when its chairwoman, Cecily Wright, invited James Allsup, infamous white supremacist, to speak at her gathering of Northwest Grassroots. It appears this craziness is endemic to the local party.
It is time we to assemble some friends, sign up and attend The Spokane County Democrats’ Thomas S. Foley Legacy Dinner. Support those who stand for responsible governance, not propaganda and division. There is too much at stake to sit at the sidelines.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry