Will coronavirus be the straw that [finally] breaks the camel's back when it comes to American governance?

In 2019, to be American was to be exhausted by partisan national politics and gridlock. Not even one-fourth into 2020, being American means to wonder if you are watching the national government fall apart in real time? That is my question every time I watch or read about Mr. Trump’s lies, projections, or verbal attacks on state governors, as people die or lose loved ones to coronavirus. 

All the more because Mr. Trump refuses to take action. He set the stage when he stripped the budget of the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), including a U.S. pandemic team in China, through which we would’ve known about coronavirus even before New Years’ Eve, when China first reported dozens of pneumonia cases to the World Health Organization (WHO.) Even still, Mr. Trump stalled to admit the seriousness of the situation, leaving it to state governments. In sum, his response to coronavirus is megalomaniacal apathy at best, malignant indifference to human suffering, at worst. Mr. Trump is worried about an economic downturn affecting his re-election, and his properties. While heads of national governments order their citizens to stay home, freeze rents, mortgages and utilities fees, nationalize private hospitals so no one will be without care, Mr. Trump proclaims that the U.S. economy was not built to be shut down, and his followers cry that the Democrats want to destroy the country. He’s set Easter Sunday (April 12) as an unofficial date for re-opening the economy. In the face of public health experts warning that the outbreak in the U.S. is just beginning. Things are about to get a lot worse.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay 

While other national governments announce the subsidization of wages for employees who’ve lost their jobs to the outbreak to 80% of their salary, the U.S. Congress is fighting over whether to direct even marginal financial assistance to unemployed workers, or, to bail out large corporations who already received tax cuts in 2017, and have been the beneficiaries of an increasingly unequal economic system for decades, as the gap between the rich and the poor widens to a level not seen since before the Great Depression. If a recession is inevitable, and it looks that way, there are serious questions if the U.S. Congress is up to handling it.

The U.S. Senate was able to negotiate a draft for a stimulus bill that sends $1,200 plus $500 for each child, to individuals making less than $75,000 a year. Republicans would’ve excluded those making less than $2,500 a year. Unemployment is also extended to workers who aren’t usually eligible, such as those in the gig economy and freelancers. Under the bill, Mr. Trump’s businesses would not be eligible for funds, neither would those of Mr. Pence, heads of executive departments, nor members of Congress. The bill does include a $500 billion ‘slush fund’ for large corporations who wanted a bailout, with congressional oversight. It’s a very short-term fix for a potentially long-term, deep economic crisis the country is about to go through. Even with a $100 billion to hospitals. Corporations still receive more.

And the government still has to deal with the toll of the virus itself; the number of people who will die from it, those who survive but live with its effects (experts are researching this), the mental health of the country, especially doctors and nurses caring for patients, those who cannot stay at home because their services are deemed “essential,” and those who have lost their jobs and worry about making ends meet.

The weaknesses of American governance, the American economy and the American political system were known, but now they are on full display. Yet the people with the power to help those most in need remain enmeshed in the same old disagreements while people suffer. American governance is needed now more than ever, yet it is more fragile than ever. As infections and the death toll inevitably increase, the question is at what point will Americans lose complete faith in the system? For all the desperation to remove Mr. Trump, most Americans still seem to have it. Hope centers on the November election, but will we even make it to November? No, Mr. Trump cannot unilaterally cancel the election. Only Congress can, and with a Democratic-controlled House, that appears almost improbable. But if coronavirus takes its toll with no end in sight, Mr. Trump keeps fighting with state governors, and Congressional Democrats and Republicans keep fighting with each other, all bets are off. There is no telling what can happen.

A hallmark of American governance is federalism—power sharing between the central federal government, and provincial state governments. And it’s failing. Right now, Mr. Trump is literally sabotaging states’ efforts to help their hospitals stricken with coronavirus patients. Governors like Cuomo and Newsom of New York and California are exercising the leadership that Mr. Trump should be. The threat that coronavirus poses to individuals either to their health, or their financial situation and their job, is now in the hands of state governors. It’s dependent on whether stay-at-home orders are issued, whether governors make sure utilities remain on even if customers cannot pay their bills, as New York and New Jersey have done.

Photo by Erin Song on Unsplash

Mr. Trump is also creating a situation where the virus spreads needlessly by setting a date in less than 3 weeks’ time for a possible reopening of the economy. States already vary in their responses, those not ordering their residents to stay home and implement social distancing now will be less prepared as coronavirus spreads. Hospitals all over the country could be overstretched, and if people die and/or can’t buy basic necessities in large numbers, social unrest could be unavoidable. All the more dangerous because of the recent spike in gun purchases as a result of this crisis. As chaotic as things are right now, is it the calm before the storm? How close are we to tensions boiling over?

What Brexit portends for the US–Part Three

This is the third post in my blog series on Brexit—Britain’s exit from the European Union, for now scheduled to happen on January 31, 2020.

Britons voted on December 12, and the Conservatives (Tories) had their biggest win since former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1987, with 365 seats in the House of Commons. The Labour party won 203 seats and suffered their biggest loss in decades. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Jo Swinson lost her seat, and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will step down however it’s unclear when. With a 39-seat majority, now duly elected Prime Minister Boris Johnson has a free hand to deliver Brexit. Most polls indicated the Tories would win, but not this resoundingly, and not in areas that have been Labour-strongholds for decades, some over a century. The Labour party is in shambles and while it attempts to pick up the pieces, the United Kingdom as a whole will undertake its most significant political decision since the end of the Second World War.

But Brexit, what form it will take (though most likely hard), and the political and economic effects are anything but certain. Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland and leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) continues to press for a second referendum on Scotland’s independence, saying that [PM] Johnson cannot “bludgeon a nation into accepting your view of the world when it is made very clear that it doesn’t have that view….” She says this after the SNP won 48 out of 59 Scottish seats. To Sturgeon “Scotland showed its opposition to Boris Johnson and the Tories, said no to Brexit, and made very clear that we want the future of Scotland, whatever that turns out to be, to be decided by people who live here.” Johnson told Sturgeon he will not allow a second Scottish referendum, but it’s not that simple. Out of 365 Tory MPs elected, 345 of them come from England, only 6 from Scotland. Scottish Tories ran on opposing an independence referendum and more than half lost their seats. Neither leader backing down sets the stage for a political crisis of nationalism, antagonism and alienation, if Scots feel ignored by a government in Westminster that is out of touch with them yet dragging them into a future, one outside the EU that they neither wanted nor voted for.

Across the British Isles in Northern Ireland, one of the toughest issues to negotiate is the Irish backstop. Under the current Brexit withdrawal agreement, Northern Ireland will still follow EU rules—meaning products from Northern Ireland moving into the rest of the United Kingdom will be checked. A soft border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is why the peace process has been so successful. Northern Ireland remains culturally tied to Ireland, politically tied to Britain and economically integrated between the two. A hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland ushered in by Brexit threatens to undermine the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. But it also emphasizes the economic ties of the entire island which some believe might make Irish reunification inevitable. Thus, in a few years the United Kingdom may not exist.

In the United States, centrist political pundits couldn’t wait to use Labour’s defeat to emphasize why a centrist Democrat should be on the 2020 ballot. News media headlines say this makes things difficult for Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren’s presidential bids, as the election across the pond is proof that voters will reject far-left policies. Centrist nominee Joe Biden blamed Labour’s loss on its policies being so “far to the left…” Only that wasn’t the reason Labour lost. According to a poll by Opinium, only 12% of British voters cited economic policies as the reason they voted against the Labour party. The bigger issues were leadership and Labour’s stance on Brexit—both linked to Jeremy Corbyn, and the reason why 43% and 17% respectively voters cast Tory or Liberal Democrat ballots instead of Labour. Among Labour defectors to the Tories, only 6% of them cited economic policy as the reason. Almost a third of them cited Labour’s stance on Brexit and nearly half of them cited Labour leadership. In fact, every centrist MP who left the Tory or Labour parties lost their seats.

Over the past decades British party demographics have changed. The United Kingdom is a society ruptured by social class division, and more recently education, much like the United States is fractured by race. Historically the Tory party was the party of the upper-class elite, while Labour was left-wing and more popular with the working classes. But no longer, as immigration sparks fears over a changing British identity, rural, less educated, white working-class voters are now drawn to the Tories, while educated, non-white, metropolitan citizens support Labour. This election was not about voters rejecting Labour policies. Tories ran on increasing public spending and ending austerity (though not as much as Labour.) It was about Brexit and who voters trusted to lead the country. 

Neither Boris Johnson nor Jeremy Corbyn were popular as party leaders. But Corbyn was more unpopular, and as I’ve written before, wasn’t consistent in his stance on Brexit because he never supported British membership in the EU but recognized that staying in is preferable to leaving on a Tory-agenda. His promise for a new Brexit referendum left both Labour-Leave and Remain voters unhappy. Accusations of anti-Semitism used by the British media didn’t help either. Johnson, while having a long history of racism, sexism, homophobia, and Islamophobia, stuck to basics and said his country simply needed to “get Brexit done.” A message that resonated with areas that traditionally vote Labour, mostly white, working class who voted ‘Leave’ in 2016 and in some cities. 

What happened in the UK is not fated to happen in the US, as despite having a shared history we are two different countries. But there is a lesson for Americans as we head into 2020. American political pundits saying that the British election proves left-wing policies cannot win are not merely wrong but are perilously close to a willful lie. When running against a strongman leader, as both Donald Trump and Johnson are, the opposition must understand who needs to show up for them on Election Day, and offer a simple, consistent message that speaks that voter’s language. Parties must be willing to step outside the box, and draw the appropriate lines no matter who gets upset or how it breaches the “civility” they are used to. Voters’ personal dislike of Corbyn aside, he wasn’t offering anything new that Johnson wasn’t, and didn’t appear like a principled leader, Johnson did. Much like Joe Biden isn’t offering anything new and is priding himself on keeping everything the same. But if the old way of things was so great, we wouldn’t be in the political, economic and social turmoil we are in now.

Moreover, the American voters that the Democratic party needs to turnout come November 3, 2020, Millennials, Generation Z, women, people of color, do not want the same old, same old. We want something new. We want leaders to speak our language as Boris Johnson did to British voters, no matter what feathers are ruffled. Thus, the British election should be read as a rejection of centrism not progressivism. A rejection of leaders who have yet to learn, that when you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one.

Kamala Harris ended her presidential campaign and I’m wondering if Americans are really ready for change?

photo taken Lorie Shaull

After logging onto Twitter for the first time in over two weeks, I was shocked to see the announcement that California senator Kamala Harris is dropping out of the presidential race. Per usual, Twitter is a war zone of tweets both gloating and despairing over her campaign ending after such a promising start, debating what went wrong, and what this means for the race going forward. Senator Harris had already qualified for the December debate, the only candidate of color to do so. Which means that on December 19 the presidential debate stage will likely be all-white—a disturbing image in 2019 for a party where black women are the backbone, and because if whoever comes out of the primary is to win the presidency, he or she will need massive turnout from non-white voters.

What is shocking about her campaign’s collapse is that she was a top-tier candidate almost from the moment she began, until a few weeks ago. I myself was curious how she would perform in the early primaries and caucuses. Now we’ll never know. On pure imagery, a black-South Asian woman who won multiple statewide elections in the nation’s most populous state suspending her campaign, while multiple white men with far less support or qualifications stay in feels wrong. Then you remember (if you watch mainstream news media coverage of the Democratic primary, I don’t) that Vice President Joe Biden receives more mentions and positive coverage in the news media, even compared to Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The image is more unsettling when you look at Senator Harris’ campaign’s struggling finances and then remember that billionaire Mike Bloomberg entered the race not two weeks ago and has overspent nearly every other candidate in the race for the Democratic nomination save one, fellow billionaire Tom Steyer. Senator Harris has not spent money on TV ads since September and she blames the end of her campaign on the lack of funds.

Until the final weeks, Senator Harris, perhaps misguidedly concentrated on getting to Super Tuesday in March 2020 by winning South Carolina, only to discover that voters there, mostly African American, gravitate towards Biden. By contrast, Mike Bloomberg will not be on the primary ballots for New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina, nor will he participate in the Iowa caucus. From his ad spending, he’s focusing on California, Texas and New York, states with the largest amounts of delegates. Polls would indicate this is working—he either matches or is just above Senator Harris’ level of support as of last week. Suddenly her departure from the presidential race looks less like a campaign that ran its course, and more like a casualty of a political system designed to benefit white, wealthy, centrist men, at a time when the Democratic electorate leans toward the black/brown and female, and when the country needs drastic change away from the center.

Senator Harris was under an intense amount of scrutiny compared to other candidates simply for being a woman of color. As has happened with Meghan Markle, now the Duchess of Sussex, black women know all too well that we are held to a racial double standard by the white mainstream. A standard that former Housing Secretary and presidential candidate Julian Castro called the media out for, when asked about Senator Harris’ departure. He said the media held her to “a different standard, a double standard…” that was “grossly unfair.” On the other hand, Senator Harris’s connection to the black community was questioned constantly, perhaps to overcompensate for what in hindsight, many black voters wished they did with former president Barack Obama, a topic worthy of its own discussion. Black voters did not flock to Senator Harris, just like we haven’t flocked to Senator Cory Booker, nor former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick simply because they’re black. Older black voters prefer Biden because they think he can get enough white voters to switch back to the Democrats to remove Mr. Trump; and younger black voters want a candidate who will directly challenge and change the system at a basic level.

Senator Harris also dealt with internal issues. Her campaign was torn between two factions—one led by her sister Maya Harris and the other by the campaign manager for her 2016 Senate campaign, Mr. Rodriguez. Aides and advisors struggled to see where her presidential campaign was going. Winning a statewide election in California is different from winning a nationwide general election, and the infighting in Senator Harris’ campaign closed her off to experienced advisors and consultants who could’ve helped her develop a coherent message and platform. She struggled on the critical issue of health care, despite co-sponsoring Senator Sanders’ Medicare-For-All bill in 2017 then backtracked this past summer, and she failed in addressing her record as a prosecutor. She rebuffed questions and criticisms about her record as District Attorney and state Attorney General rather than address them. A catastrophic mistake at a time when activists and young voters demand candidates address racism in the criminal justice system.

As a young black voter who hails from her hometown of Oakland, who met her as a college student when she was District Attorney of San Francisco county, I found myself less than enthused about her policies. The prospect of a black woman being President of the United States is a powerful one, but not enough for me to ignore other, yes, white candidates with strong policies directly addressing the issues that affect my life—climate change, health care, student loan debt, racial inequality and others. And that’s just on domestic issues. Her foreign policy, in particular on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, her lack of support for the Palestinians, at a time when Democrats, especially young Democrats are more critical of the state of Israel was going to be a liability for her and given her financial ties to AIPAC, any hope that she would re-evaluate her stance was misplaced.

Senator Harris could never figure out whether she was grassroots or establishment, she could never find a consistent political message, except when talking about Mr. Trump, how dangerous he is in the White House and for democracy. This is where she shines—as a prosecutor. One of my favorite moments of her in the US Senate is questioning Attorney General William Barr, with Senator Booker sitting right beside her, giving AG Barr looks that expressed the contempt many Americans feel about his actions. I’ve believed for months that she would make an excellent attorney general in a Democratic presidential administration—or continuing to serve as U.S. Senator for California. Others say she should be considered as a running mate for whoever becomes the nominee.

Senator Harris’ policies didn’t excite me but neither do those of Joe Biden, Senator Amy Klobouchar, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and the other white men running that I’ve lost track of. That is why Senator Harris ending her campaign so soon is disheartening. But it’s what this country was founded on. American politics, governance, media, the economy, our socialization is designed to give mediocre white men (and some white women too) more faith and credence than a black or brown woman with qualifications, simply for being white. It’s the reason Biden commands so much support from older black voters. And it says something about who we are as a nation; if we are really ready to progress and make changes to create a better future.

The silver lining is that replacing Mr. Trump with a Democratic president is only the first step in doing that and reversing the damage he’s caused. It’s far from a one-person show, there is plenty of room for others. I personally would love to watch Senator Harris as Attorney General completely destroy Mr. Trump and his administration in court.

The 2020 Democratic primary is toxic

Every US election since I was old enough to know what elections were, has been billed as ‘the most important election of our time’, and 2020 actually hits the mark. Considering the stakes, it is the most important election of our time, especially for Millennials such as myself, and Generation Z. We have the chance to begin addressing the horrible hand we’ve been dealt in high student loan debt, soaring housing & health care costs, climate change, and others, and to begin the pain-staking task of addressing the long-standing ills facing the entire country. 

Image by Mary Pahlke from Pixabay

I’ve long believed that the outcome of the 2020 election will be decided in the primary. The key to Democrats keeping the House, winning the Senate and presidency is high voter turnout, and the Democrats must learn from 2016 by selecting a candidate that gets the base (young people, people of color, especially black women) excited about voting, not merely rely on their candidate not being Mr.Trump. And I’ll add, not trying to ‘win back’ white voters who switched from Obama to Trump in 2016, nor former Republican ‘Never Trumpers’ who do not understand (or want to) the dire straits this country is in. Trump or no Trump, this country is in need of deep, systemic change instead of a nominal modification to the status quo.

However I find that paying consistent, daily attention to the primaries mentally and emotionally exhausting, taxing, and boring. And I’ve refrained from regularly discussing the primary candidates on social media or in real life. That’s not to say I don’t know what’s going on, which candidates I’m leaning towards, or which candidates’ policies I like. But I’m not following the Democratic primary as I have in previous cycles. I’m not on tinder-hooks curiously following what every candidate says. I don’t watch the debates live, if at all, and not in their entirety.

One reason is mainstream media coverage of the candidates. They’re making the same mistakes that they did in 2016. White, moderate male candidates like Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and until he dropped out, Beto O’Rourke, are dubbed as the face or future of the party, are given the most frequent and most positive coverage compared to candidates of color and/or women. For candidates of color, those who question white candidates on race, as Senator Kamala Harris and Julian Castro did of Biden during debates are considered ‘too aggressive.’ Senator Bernie Sanders, a white male candidate but not a moderate, does not receive the quantity or quality of coverage that he should given his level of support ranking him in the top tier of candidates. 

The narrative of black support follows that we universally support Biden, even though anecdotal evidence shows that black Millennials are more or less torn between Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris. Which brings me to the exclusion of Millennials generally from polls and surveys, which tend to focus on Baby Boomers. Even non-mainstream journalists on Twitter do this, despite Millennials being the largest voting block, Pew reports showing turnout for Millennials/X-ers/Gen Z surpassing that of the Boomers in 2018, and in 2016. The mainstream news media is not providing a truthful picture of the 2020 race.

Another reason I’m not paying attention to the Democratic primary is because of the length of the election cycle. I’m quite taken with the British election happening on December 12, simply because its happening so quickly—the minimum amount of time for an election in the United Kingdom is five weeks. That’s five weeks for candidates to get their act together, five weeks for political parties to give the public a reason to vote for them, and only five weeks of incessant media coverage to the exclusion of everything else. In the US, media coverage of an election cycle begins as soon as the previous one is over. Considering the multitude of issues that deserve coverage—climate change, fears of a global recession, anti-government protests sparking up all over the world, and others, such prolonged media coverage is superfluous to the point of exhaustion.

The third reason, is the prevalent toxicity in social media discussions about the candidates. Many voters who’ve already made their decision display a deep antipathy for other candidates and their supporters that surely will not end when only one candidate is left standing. Bernie supporters criticize Warren as a ‘fake progressive.’ Some African-American supporters of Kamala Harris question why a black person would support any other candidate aside from her. Black voters who are more critical of her question her blackness on a scale that Barack Obama was not subject to in 2008. A dislike for Buttigieg because of his age, white maleness or even his policies is dubbed as being anti-LGBTQ, especially from the black community. 

Former president Barack Obama has waded into the primary, cautioning the left that bold ideas “have to be rooted in reality” and that “the average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system to remake it.” Considering roughly half of eligible Americans consistently do not vote in elections, I doubt that. If anything, Mr. Trump’s election demonstrated that faith in the system is dangerously low and voters want a candidate who pledges to disrupt the status quo. The desire to blow up the system is why voters were drawn to Mr Trump, it’s why voters are drawn to Bernie Sanders and why Sanders voters either voted for Mr Trump or didn’t vote at all in 2016, after Bernie lost the Democratic primary. The dividing line is what kind of system voters want their candidate to embrace.

Image by Simaah from Pixabay

Other reasons I’m not paying attention to the primary are that it’s too long until the first votes are cast, there are too many candidates running and in the meantime too many other more immediate issues to focus on. Plus, winning the presidency is one thing but who controls the Senate is key. A Democratic president will not be able to do anything of consequence without Senate support, and no the Republicans will not experience ‘enlightenment’ and work with the Democrats should Mr. Trump be out of the Oval Office come January 2021.

American election cycles are too long to be covered so intensely, polls are given too much credence and the level of fear and irrationality among some voters make discussing the candidates more taxing than its worth. As the Iowa Caucus and Super Tuesday get closer this will change but until then I’ll keep my attention on the Democratic primary at minimum, for my own sanity.

What Brexit portends for the US Part Two–Revised 11/10/19

This is the second post in a series I will be doing on Brexit—Britain’s exit from the European Union.

Halloween was last week, on the same day as Brex—oh wait. Right. Brexit did not happen last week. Nor will Brexit be happening this year. Brexit has been officially delayed until January 31, 2020 and in the meantime a general election will be held on December 12, 2019. This is the third general election in four years, in a country that normally has general elections every 5 years. Certainly, a sign of political chaos.

In short, the way we got here was Britain’s prime minister Boris Johnson needed to pass a Brexit agreement through parliament by October 19, 2019 or the Benn Act would require him to ask the European Union for an extension until January 31, 2020. October 19 came, and parliament never voted on PM Johnson’s deal (it likely wouldn’t have passed anyway), but did agree to the Letwin amendment, as an ‘insurance policy’ to prevent a no-deal Brexit. Prime Minister Johnson reluctantly asked the EU for an extension, which briefly hedged but granted it, and even waited a bit to make it official, to give Britain more time to figure out what it’s going to do. 

In the meantime, PM Johnson was able to clear the first hurdle for passing his withdrawal agreement, but parliament rejected his attempt to fast-track it. Now the battle over Brexit will be fought on the front many observers ultimately believed it would be—in a general election. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn calls it a “once-in-a-generation chance to transform our country”, aims to position Labour as the true ‘party of the people’, and promises to resolve Brexit within 6 months if he’s elected prime minister in a second referendum with ‘Remain’ as an option. The Liberal Democrats still want to stop Brexit, the Tories and Brexit party want Brexit over and done with.

Things are going pretty much how I thought they would. I never thought Britain would leave the EU on October 31, and I never thought PM Johnson would be able to get a plan through parliament by October 19. There’s too much division and opposition, even in his own party. And despite polls giving the Tory party an edge, Labour can turn it around if it forms a unified cohesive message about Brexit. But already there’s fighting between Labour and the Liberal Democrats which some fear helps the Tories. As a side note, this is very similar to conflict between centrist Democrats or Never Trumper Republicans, and more left-wing Democrats. An inability to form a cohesive consensus helps the Right, which can.

However there are no coalitions in American politics, and it’s very likely the winning party on December 12 will not be able to govern without a coalition, so the Brexit party, Liberal Democrats, Scottish National Party and others will be critical whether Labour or the Tories come out on top.

Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon is preparing to make another bid for Scotland’s independence. Scots voted to remain in the EU and arguably it was one of the reasons they voted to remain the United Kingdom in 2014. PM Johnson has ruled out granting another Scottish referendum, Labour says it wouldn’t stop Scotland from taking its future into its own hands, and an MP from the Liberal Democrats says Labour can’t be trusted to preserve the Union. Clearly what happens on December 12 will be fateful day for Britain’s relationship with Europe, and its relationship with itself.

But when it comes to Brexit, Britain needs to make up its mind what it’s going to do. The EU has been very patient as Westminster sorts this out and nearly 3 and a half years after the referendum, they’re still in a holding pattern. Brexit will be painful whenever it happens, however it happens, and the EU’s desire to get it over with is understandable. It’s a breakup you know is coming, that you know will be painful, but you want it done so you can move on. The anticipation is unbearable. France is getting frustrated.

On the other hand, I can understand why Britons are so divided over their biggest issue since World War II. Especially when you consider how and why the EU started to begin with. The EU’s mantra is “united in diversity” and was intended to bring Europe together after World War II. After centuries of competing nationalisms culminating in two mass conflicts, Europe realized it could not sustain a third such conflict. It began in 1950 with France and Germany, two bitter rivals, forming the European Coal and Steel Community, then the European Economic Community (EEC), then the European Union. The single (common) market was created along with the European Parliament and the Schengen agreements after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which allows travel between EU states without passport checks.

But Britain’s relationship with the EU has always been ambiguous and uneasy. It was one of the last major European powers to join what was then the EEC, in 1973. And it had a referendum on its membership two years after that. Britain’s history with its near neighbors has for millennia been a charged one. With France especially rivalrous. Even after two world wars, when they were allies. Britain attempted to join the EEC in 1963 and 1967 but was rejected by France’s president Charles de Gaulle. The French leader believed Britain’s economy was incompatible with that of the EEC, and that the UK needed a transformation. De Gaulle believed British membership could mean the break-up of the EEC. De Gaulle lost power in 1969 and died the next year.

Europe’s economic path was murky after World War II. Germany realized its economic dream of being a leading industrial power in western Europe lie in collaboration with France and other economic partners. Britain and France clung to their imperial colonies. While France abandoned that approach, Britain did not, and was wary of facing economic competition in a common European market.

But interdependence and greater integration was and is a key part of the European single market, which means free movement of goods, services, money and people, and one of the most significant drivers of Brexit is for Britain to have more control over who comes to the island nation. The problem, many point out is it’s not 1914 or 1940. Britain is ‘a small island in a big world’ and needs to be interconnected with the rest of Europe to be competitive. The idea that Britain would be better off negotiating trade agreements on its own instead of part of a 27-member bloc is nonsensical. Britain’s economy has already suffered and Brexit hasn’t happened yet.

On the politics side, Britain leaving the EU signals a possible resurgence of the far-right nationalist politics that the supranational organization was intended to prevent. There was talk of a Frexit by France, and concerns others would follow suit. But that went away when Britain’s dysfunction set in. While European elections earlier this year showed that far-right nationalism isn’t representative of the majority of Europeans, Europe itself is politically fractured. An increase in migrants coming from the Middle East and North Africa, and the global financial crash of 2007-08 reveal an intolerance to globalization, in a new age of multipolarity and rising economic powers such as China. The only way for Britain and Europe to stay competitive is to be global, and accept what comes with it. Britain struggled to compete economically as Europe’s economies integrated, and Britain will not be able to compete now, should they leave the EU.

After the 2016 referendum many pointed out the irony that after hundreds of years of colonialism and imperialism—taking advantage of other countries, Britain now decides it wants to be left alone. Europe in general has a brutal history of colonialism, imperialism, and its policies in the more recent past have left people but no choice but to come to the West. Britain, like continental Europe, needs immigrants to come and work and live. This yearning for cultural purity, a fear of foreigners, including other Europeans will be Britain’s undoing.

The election that will happen on December 12, 2019, like the U.S. election on November 3, 2020 will be consequential for generations and decades to come—the final choice between reality and progress, or illusion and regression. 

PG&E blackouts amidst wildfires: A Product of Late Capitalism or the Beginning of the Apocalypse? Or both?

I was pleasantly surprised when I received a text message last evening that the power at my house was back on. For nearly 48 hours my family was unable to turn on the heat, lights, use the internet, microwave or oven. Like many families, everyone has a cell phone so while we still have a landline, there’s only one and it can’t call long-distance. Thus, not having power means we can’t make phone calls. I wrote most of this blog from a café outside my immediate neighborhood because there was no power in the immediate vicinity save the fire station. The smell of smoke was apparent as soon one steps outside. I cannot recall my neighborhood ever being so pitch black as I drove home Sunday night. The morning commute was more chaotic than usual as the traffic lights were not functioning. Not even a flashing red light.

Image by skeeze from Pixabay 

If you haven’t heard, California is dealing with a series of wildfires in both the Bay Area and Southern California. The fires have caused forced evacuations from homes, including professional basketball player LeBron James. Northern California’s gas and electric utility PG&E has shut off power across the Bay Area for millions of residents and today has announced further blackouts as firefighters struggle to contain multiple wildfires because of strong winds. Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency on Sunday because as state lawmakers debated the future of PG&E, the country’s largest public utility, as it moves through bankruptcy proceedings, which it declared earlier this year, after being ordered to pay at least $30 billion in liability for previous wildfires. Its total debt is over $50 billion. Earlier this month it lost control to make its post-bankruptcy plans. A federal judge ordered the utility to use money originally intended for stockholders’ dividends, to wildfire prevention. Meanwhile, 16 million customers are constantly wondering if or when a blackout will be imposed. This marks the second time this month that PG&E has announced blackouts to reduce fire risk amidst a dry fall season and heavy winds, exacerbated by higher temperatures in climate change. 

The thing is, planned blackouts actually don’t reduce the risk of fires, which are normal and natural. I remember wildfires around this time last year and the year before, but no blackouts. In 2018, humans were responsible for 96% of wildfires in California. Shutting power off actually increases the risks of fire, and makes it more difficult for the public and fire departments to respond. If there is an evacuation notice, people in an area under a blackout won’t receive messages to leave. Yesterday a wildfire in Lafayette led to forced evacuations, however some people in those areas didn’t receive notices because of the blackouts. Diverted traffic means more cars in risky areas. Residents without power might use home generators which carry their own fire risk. Blackouts shift responsibility from PG&E to residents and small business owners who cannot operate, costing the state economy billions. 

Still, since 2015 half of the ten most destructive fires in California were linked to PG&E, which says two of the fires ignited in the past couple days could have been because of their power lines. The utility could’ve taken steps before now to reduce the risk of fire that do not involve shutting power off and causing chaos for hundreds of thousands of residents. The main one being to upgrade its power lines. PG&E estimates the mean life expectancy for its transmission towers is 65 years old. The average PG&E transmission tower is 68 years old, as the majority of them were installed between 1921 and 1960. PG&E refused to conduct upgrades, even as employees voiced concerns. From 2000-2010 PG&E’s revenues were $224 million dollars higher than what was authorized, it spent $93 million less than its budget between 1997-2000. Stockholders received two dividend increases within a year’s time between 2016-2017. PG&E asked to raise customers rates in 2020, to which Governor Newsom, a harsh critic of PG&E had stern criticism. In light of recent events he renewed his call for Warren Buffett to buy the utility.

What’s happening here is a clear example of why a billionaire, a for-profit corporation or shareholders should NOT be in charge of a public utility. When making a profit is the objective, that inevitably takes precedence over everything else, including the welfare of its customers. And gas and electricity are too vital to everyday life, in both function and safety to put in profit-seekers’ hands without proper state oversight.

Another layer is California’s housing crisis. California is not alone, many places in the U.S. and around the world face a shortage of affordable homes. But California also faces a crisis in the sheer number of homes available. There is not enough housing to sustain all the people who live here nor enough space to build housing. My native Bay Area is the toughest housing market for first-time buyers. Those of my generation, Millennials are forced to move out if we desire a home to raise a family in, as many of my friends and my significant other’s friends have done. For those who remain we’re caught in the middle of a maelstrom of economic extremes. On the one hand we have new apartment and condominium towers being built everywhere there’s space. But tent cities and homeless encampments are commonplace. It begs the question when will the bottom fall out?

Image by ArtTower from Pixabay 

It is expensive and difficult to obtain permits to build homes in Bay Area, but the only other option is to build housing in hilly areas or close to mountainous areas and forests—most vulnerable to wildfires, again, which are normal and natural. But increasing the population density beyond what nature allows against a backdrop of state governance unable or unwilling to 1) regulate its public utilities, nor 2) deal with a housing crisis effectively, makes the state, the Bay Area and Los Angeles particularly vulnerable. Another reality is the fact that powerful fault lines run through the Bay Area, reaching San Jose and Los Angeles. It’s easy to picture a scenario where damage from an earthquake sparks a fire which causes mass destruction and loss of life. It happened in San Francisco in 1906, causing $8.2 billion worth of damage in today’s dollars and killed 3,000 people.

It’s obvious why the Bay Area is such a draw for people. California is the 5^th largest economy in the world, the Bay Area grows twice as fast as the rest of the country, the state has incredible racial, ethnic, religious and sexual diversity, and state political system is near unanimously opposed to Mr. Trump. But progressive or left-wing politics is not a shield against poor governance. Nor is it a cause. California has deep, long-standing problems not unlike the rest of the country. What’s happening in the Bay Area is a microcosm for what’s happening elsewhere. The beginning of the NBA season saw the opening of the new Chase center in Mission Bay, San Francisco for the Golden State Warriors, which was described to me as ‘having the same feel as the Apple Store.’ Yet only a few blocks away are homeless encampments. In a city where median rent for a one-bedroom apartment reaches $3,700 and the price of a single-family home is $1.7 million, the Chase center is a symbol of the increasing economic polarization throughout the country.

While Washington D.C. stands on a political precipice as the acrimony over Mr. Trump’s impeachment rises, California and the Bay Area is on an economic precipice on a collision course with nature, both of capitalism and the natural environment. The stage is set for potentially mass devastation. As someone close to me shared: “as goes California, so goes the nation.”

What Brexit Portends for the United States — Part One

from Pixabay

This is the first post in a series I will be doing on Brexit—Britain’s exit from the European Union, for now scheduled to happen on October 31.

Image by Thanks for your Like • donations welcome from Pixabay

Tick tock! Britain’s Day of Destiny is fast approaching. Ever since June 23, 2016 when 52% of the British electorate voted to ‘Leave’ the E.U., the British Parliament has been unable to decide just how to do it, leaving Western governments stunned in how British democracy, once a standard-bearer for democratic governance, unravels before our very eyes. The vote itself was considered by some as non-binding, but the then-Prime Minister David Cameron promised to respect the result. Since then, the country has been through two heads of government and the current Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who publicly lost his 1-seat majority in the House of Commons, might be replaced before this is over. Much of the country, whether they voted ‘Leave’ or ‘Remain’ is outraged by Prime Minister Johnson’s actions since assuming power in July, in particular his asking the Queen to suspend parliament until October 14, seen by many as an attempt to trap the country in a no-deal Brexit by default.

Until this happened a month ago, the only thing British lawmakers could agree on was that the deal former Prime Minister Theresa May was able to procure from the E.U. was unacceptable. Soon after Prime Minister Johnson announced parliament would be suspended, British MPs united to force Prime Minister Johnson to ask the E.U. for an extension, until January 31, 2020, if Parliament cannot agree on withdrawal arrangements by October 19. This was passed into law as the Benn Act,and would be the third requested extension as former Prime Minister May asked for two during her premiership. 

The government remains deadlocked because Members of Parliament strongly disagree over how Brexit should happen, and whether it should happen at all. Some in the Labour Party, the main opposition, would rather reverse Brexit all together. But their leader Jeremy Corbyn, (known in the U.S. as Britain’s version of Bernie Sanders), has never liked the E.U., tried to have a Brexit referendum in 2011, and publicly hinted that a Brexit-deal under a Labour government might leave the country better off. Other opposition parties, like the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party have vowed to stop Brexit. The party in power, the Conservatives are heavily divided. Last month, 21 Tory MPs were expelled from the party, including Winston Churchill’s grandson, for voting for a bill opposing Prime Minister Johnson their party’s leader, who is under pressure from the Brexit Party to deliver Brexit on October 31, deal or not.

Most of Britain’s lawmakers want to prevent a no-deal Brexit because indications are it could potentially be disastrous for the country, even as their economy is already weakened since the ‘Leave’ result came out in 2016. A no-deal Brexit means that Britain leaves the E.U. without an agreement, and normal free trade ceases between the U.K. and E.U., meaning tariffs and checks are imposed where there were none previously.

According to government documents released by parliamentary act, this could result in food and medicine shortages and/or price increases, using debit/credit cards to purchase items from the E.U. may be more expensive for Britons, when traveling to the E.U. Britons will be subjected to extra security checks, visa requirements and may have to pay for health care while abroad. Given these scenarios it’s understandable why British lawmakers want to avoid no-deal. There’s also concern about massive public unrest and hate crimes increasing more than they already have. Much of the concern is fear, perfectly legitimate, over what could happen under a no-deal Brexit. No full EU member state has ever attempted to leave the supranational institution, nor was it designed for a member state to leave.

Taken by TeaMeister on Flickr
https://www.flickr.com/photos/158710843@N02/32566081597

What I’m impressed by, is how quickly British lawmakers, Tory, Liberal Democrat, Labour and Scottish National were able to unify against Prime Minister Johnson’s dissolution of parliament AND take concrete action to stop him. The Benn Act was passed in a week. Not to mention the protests that were quickly mobilized within hours of the announcement, and a speech Prime Minister Johnson gave at 10 Downing Street mere days after announcing parliament would be dissolved, where the screams of opposition were so loud you could barely hear him. Then the unanimous court ruling that parliament’s suspension was ‘unlawful’, meaning that MPs had to return to session.

The opposition hasn’t stopped. Just Monday, a Scottish court rejected a request for a court order to mandate the prime minister to abide by the Benn Act. The same parties are now asking the Scottish court to send a letter to the E.U. formally requesting an extension if the prime minister side steps the law, on the grounds that talks between Britain and the E.U. are breaking down. As the clock winds down, British citizens and lawmakers are gearing up for a fight and they are using every tool they have.

Perhaps, this is in part because of the way parliamentary democracy works. In Britain, power is concentrated in its parliament, to which the executive branch is directly accountable. MPs appoint the prime minister and can remove him/her through a vote of no-confidence. The executive and legislative branches are fused together and the judicial branch is separate.

In the United States, a presidential democracy, the three branches are separate and distinct from each other. While the U.S. Congress is mandated by the constitution to conduct oversight on the executive, this is not inherent in presidential democracies the way it is in parliamentary democracies. The intent is that the three branches don’t interfere with each other. Thus, Prime Ministers Theresa May and Boris Johnson were/are subject to scrutiny in a way American heads of government are not.

A good thing maybe during the Obama administration but a liability in the Age of Trump. The closest thing we have is a congressional override of a presidential veto which requires two-thirds support in both houses of Congress and has been successful against fewer than 10% of all presidential vetoes. Even removing May and Johnson’s governments, British lawmakers defeating the prime minister’s legislation appears to be more common.

Maybe that’s why the Democratic party in the U.S. has been slow to directly oppose Mr. Trump. For one, they don’t really have tools to do it save impeachment proceedings. And two, a political system that provides the legislature with few tools to contradict the president except through a process that could result in the president’s removal has created a reluctance to oppose the president, also known as “civility.” Whatever the reason, observing British democracy shows that there’s room for American democracy to evolve. We need to if we are to salvage what’s left of it.

Falsely Blaming Millennials for Economic Troubles Prevents Us From Having a Much Needed National Discussion

Photo by Brooke Cagle on Unsplash

As a Millennial I’m used to seeing articles about how we’re destroying everything—from marriage, to canned tuna, homeownership, department stores, cruises, the list goes on. But an article published yesterday on CNBC theorizing that we’re to blame for the ‘sluggish U.S. economy’ takes the cake. According to investment banking company Raymond James, Millennials are saving as opposed to spending the way our parents did and it’s causing an “economic imbalance” because of the laws of supply and demand. If people are saving, they’re not spending, and this creates an oversupply in the market which drags down the economy. The article cites the St. Louis Federal Reserve, which said the personal savings rate was at 8.1% as of this past August. In 1996 it was 5.7%. Raymond James’ analysts blame Millennials because we are the largest spending generation.

Let’s be clear who we’re talking about when we say Millennials, also known as Generation Y. Millennials, were born between 1981 and 1996. We are currently between the ages of 23 and 38. Let’s go back a decade, to 2009 when the world was reeling from the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression. How old were Millennials then? Between 13 and 28. More than half of us were over 18 and whether we went to college or not, were facing a job market where getting hired was infinitely more challenging than it was for our parents. If we did get hired, the odds were, we weren’t paid enough to live on. And even today, many Millennials still rely on our parents for financial support. For those of us who went to college like were told, we have the additional burden of paying back our student loans.

Younger Millennials who weren’t in college at the time entered the same economically austere environment we did. Perhaps they, along with Generation Z have the benefit of not being caught off guard but given that the costs of a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle are increasing but wages haven’t been commensurate since the late 1970s, it’s safe to say they have the same economic challenges we do.

Image by Maklay62 from Pixabay 

What it ultimately comes to is, my generation literally does not have the same amount of money that our parents, mostly Baby Boomers did when they were our age. This has been documented by the Federal Reserve. Our coming of age was marked by the financial crash. You might call it our generational trauma. It’s foreseeable then, that our response was to save what little money we can, and take fewer financial risks. And we are. In an age of historic economic inequality in the U.S., Millennials are saving at twice the rate of Boomers, especially if we’re married with children and even if it means cutting back on other things, like eating out, entertainment and vacations.

I get that CNBC went with a title they thought would get people to click on the article and it worked because I clicked on it, and now I’m writing about it. But “blaming” Millennials for something continues a narrative in the news media that I am beyond tired of. One reason being, it’s not the truth, and framing a situation so inaccurately keeps a false narrative going, and prevents us from having the truthful conversations we need to have about the system, and our problems. Millennials are not responsible for the current economic troubles. We’re victims of the economy, and a system that made promises to our generation. And the system has not only failed to deliver but punishes us. As the title for an article Derek Thompson wrote for The Atlantic goes, “Millennials didn’t kill the economy. The economy killed Millennials.”

Impeachment isn’t just about holding Donald Trump accountable, but allowing the public to hold our government accountable

photo by Gage Skidmore

Thanks to a whistleblower complaint about a phone call between Mr. Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky in July, when Mr. Trump allegedly pressured President Zelensky to investigate the Biden family in Ukraine, for information that Mr. Trump could use against former Vice President Joe Biden in our upcoming election, last Wednesday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry against Mr. Trump. 

I must admit, I never thought Speaker Pelosi would pull the trigger.

To make clear, impeachment is the formal process of a public official being charged with misconduct. It can result in the official, in this case the president of the United States, being removed from office. The first step is an impeachment inquiry where the relevant House committees gather evidence for the Judiciary Committee. If the Judiciary committee believes there is evidence of impeachable offenses, articles of impeachment are sent to the full House of Representatives for a vote. If a majority vote in favor of impeachment, the articles move to the Senate. Presuming the Senate does not vote to dismiss the articles outright, the Senate holds a trial, with senators acting as a jury, and the SCOTUS Chief Justice as the judge. If at least two-thirds of the Senate votes to convict the president, then Mr. Trump would be removed from office.

Impeachment originates from the British, as a way for Parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable to the public. It’s inclusion in the U.S. constitution makes sense when you consider that the country was created out of a war to fight off the perceived tyranny of the British crown. The Framers had every reason to prevent such a situation from happening again. And yet when writing the constitution, the Framers disagreed much like our leaders today do, or did. Should elections be the sole way to punish the leader of the country? Does allowing the legislative branch to adjudicate the chief executive damage the separation of powers? In the end the Framers said it didn’t. 

With a vocal minority of exceptions, until now Democrats have viewed impeachment like opening Pandora’s Box, and insisted the way to defeat Mr. Trump is in an election. If we didn’t have a special counsel investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election, investigate whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice to that end, who warned that Russia will likely interfere in our next election, and if a major party was not actively using voter-suppression to implement minority-rule, dealing with Mr. Trump that way might make sense. But that’s not the case. Don’t get me wrong, everyone especially Millennials and Generation Z needs to vote in 2020. But Democratic leadership has long disappointed voters, myself included with their tepid opppostion to Mr. Trump. 

One of the themes of 21^st century governance is citizens’ desire for those in power to be held accountable. That is why mass protests are occurring all over the world, whether in the United Kingdom over Brexit, yellow vests in France, weekend protests in Hong Kong, protests in India over Kashmir, in Egypt for the removal of el-Sisi, or against dictatorship in Sudan, just to name a few. Given the cruelty, greed, violence and damage happening under the Trump Administration, putting all my hopes a fragile election to excise one of the most malignant tumors from the country seems like putting all my eggs in one basket, nor is it working smart. The longer Mr. Trump goes without being held accountable for his actions, the more enabled and emboldened he’ll be and the more damage he’ll cause.

Impeachment actually removing Mr. Trump from office is not the point. It’s about bringing to light what is going on, (what would happen in the House) and forcing every member of Congress to go on the record and say if he/she is okay with it. The fact that former Republican senator Jeff Flake and former Republican strategist Mike Murphy have both said if impeachment votes were secret, between 30-35 Republican senators would vote to impeach Mr. Trump is telling. Republicans have been able to distance themselves from Mr. Trump yet endorse his actions by staying silent. An impeachment trial in the senate would remove that, which is what we need. In that sense, impeachment proceedings would hold allow the public to hold Congress responsible as much as Mr. Trump.

I still see posts on social media saying impeachment proceedings are pointless, will hurt the Democrats in 2020 and divide the country more. #CancelNYT was trending late last week when the New York Times revealed personal information about the whistleblower, who Mr. Trump hinted should be executed as a spy. Last night Mr. Trump threatened civil war if he’s impeached, and this morning suggested the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) should be arrested for treason. While we may not officially be in a “hot” open conflict, we are already at war with each other. But for someone who claims he is innocent of wrongdoing, Mr. Trump seems very scared. Moreover, impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. If he is convicted by the Senate, the most that will happen to Mr. Trump is his removal from the presidency. Even if a Democrat wins the presidential election next year, there are fears Mr. Trump will not leave office. And why would he? Other than the democratic norms that Mr. Trump has already shown contempt for, what reason does he have to defer when he hasn’t to this point? And what are Democrats prepared to do if he doesn’t? What are we as the American people prepared to do? 

The reason I support impeachment is because it’s the constitutional tool the Democrats have to show Mr. Trump they are not playing around and this is serious business beyond a mere censure or condemnation. Democrats and Republicans have been locked in political deadlock in the name of “civility” while our problems mount, and lawmakers do everything except what they were elected to do—serve the people. Maybe this will be what breaks it.

Candace Owens is right.

I’ll explain.

photo credit to Gage Skidmore

Candace Owens took part in a debate panel on the 2020 election, Donald Trump, voting and the future of black people, along with T.I., Killer Mike and others. If you don’t know who Candace Owens is, she’s a black conservative pro-Trump political activist and commentator. Earlier this year she got into a verbal spat with Rep. Ted Lieu D-CA while testifying before Congress in a hearing on white nationalism. She believes that Donald Trump is the savior of western civilization and the free world. Her platform centers on the belief that racism and white supremacy are side issues that the Democrats exploit to brainwash black people for political gain. She implores black voters to ‘throw off their chains’ by not placing our loyalty with a party that hasn’t earned it.

On that note, I agree with her. As much as I vehemently disagree that conservatism is the key to “making black America great”, the Democrats have not earned the loyalty we give them. And if the Republicans weren’t trying to impose minority rule, they would see that black Americans could be some of their most loyal supporters. Were it not for the racism, black voters would embrace small government and fiscal conservatism. Black voters, especially older voters already embrace social conservatism. But Black Americans have been so focused on being accepted by white Americans that we haven’t held the Democrats responsible for their wrongs against us.

Where I part ways with Candace Owens is her belief that Republicans, especially in their current form, deserve black support. She believes that the real threat to black Americans is undocumented immigrants who provide cheap labor at black people’s expense. She is ignorant to fact that the war between the 13 original colonies against the British crown was in part the result of national mobilization intentionally motivated by wealthy white colonists to preserve their wealth against a backdrop of resentment by poor whites amid economic inequality that had deepened since the end of the Seven Years’ War (aka the French and Indian war.) These same white elites used racial classification to separate poor whites from black slaves to the same end. There has never been a time when the United States hasn’t had a permanent economic underclass. African slaves and their descendants were merely the first. Undocumented black and brown immigrants are the new underclass. The problem is with the American system.

About halfway through the panel, T.I. asked Candace Owens ‘when was America ever great, that we’re now trying to replicate?’ She didn’t respond with a time period but proceeded to talk about the enslavement of black people worldwide, presumably to say that the U.S. was one of the first countries to end slavery. Which is not true. Compared to other countries, the U.S. was quite late. And if ending formal slavery makes a country great, then that is an extremely low bar. 

But let’s stay on the idea of American greatness. Americans still believe in it. Even in the face of what was done to indigenous- and African-Americans—something I find difficult to reconcile. I don’t understand how a country can call itself the greatest nation the world has ever seen, and hold its Consitution sacrosanct for the protection of liberty, when that same document sanctioned a permanent class of people explicitly prohibited from exercising said liberty. Historians correctly point out that slavery was so divisive among the political elite that it threatened to tear the new country apart just as soon as the war was over. Historians also say that it is unfair to judge people who lived centuries ago, by today’s standards. But that’s neither a justification nor an adequate response.

Candace Owens is right. The enslavement of black people did happen all over the world. But how ever you judge the morality of the Founding Fathers, their unwillingness to address slavery and race then has created a social problem now that threatens a national implosion and deprives the American economy of $1.5 trillion in economic growth, to start. So, let me posit a theory. The Founding Fathers knew the ‘American experiment’ was fragile and imperfect. Our issues today around race and social class are foreseeable when you consider how we started. The Founding Fathers knew this and proceeded anyway. Since then the United States has had many opportunities to confront white supremacy and didn’t. Again, the Founding Fathers knew the nation would have to confront slavery at some point. But what if they questioned the value of creating a country based on a broken promise? What if they realized that building a country on a false foundation would force generations of Americans to pay a heavy price later?

If they had, maybe racism and economic inequality wouldn’t be threatening to tear the country apart. Maybe our political system would truly be among the greatest democracies. Maybe, just maybe, the United States would be worthy of a fraction of the greatness Candace Owens believes it to be.