Jonathan P. Baird

It is utterly backward that birth control has reemerged as a controversial issue. For the last 50 years, there was no controversy about it. Cost has been a factor but its need was not widely questioned. 86% of Americans support policies that make it easier, not harder, to get birth control.

So how can it be that the Trump Administration proposes rules that will make it harder for many women, especially the low income, to access birth control?

It is a slap in the face of modernity, as well as women.

In early October, the Trump Administration released new rules that allow employers more exemptions from Obamacare’s contraception mandate. Employers can now opt out of the requirement to provide contraception if they have “religious” or “moral” reasons.

Under the Affordable Care Act, company health care plans had to cover contraception at no cost to the insured. Obamacare required that health insurance plans fully cover preventive health benefits for women.

The Trump Administration rule change will adversely affect hundreds of thousands of women. The National Women’s Law Center has stated that as of September 2017, 62.4 million women had insurance that covered contraception without having to pay out-of-pocket. There will be plenty of women, given economic realities, who will not be able to afford birth control, whether birth control pills, IUDs’ or other methods.

One study found that the Obamacare contraception mandate saved women $1.4 billion in 2013 in the cost of birth control. I think that gives a ballpark figure for the yearly economic value of the contraception mandate.The Kaiser Family Foundation found that under the mandate the percentage of privately insured women who paid out-of-pocket for contraception dropped from 20% to 4%.

Blowing a hole in the contraception mandate by allowing more exemptions effectively guarantees less access to birth control and more unplanned pregnancies. Contrary to Trump Administration assertions, there will be a widespread impact.

In May, Trump had opened the door to an attack on birth control when he signed an executive order directing his administration “to address conscience-based objections” to covering birth control. This came in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby which granted corporations with a “closely held” ownership structure the ability to opt out of the contraception mandate.

The new Trump rules do not define the basis for moral objections to contraception. The vagueness will allow all kinds of entities – public and private – to assert their personal objection to birth control. These entities could be employers, insurance plans, universities, or individuals. Under the Trump rules, these entities would have no obligation to notify the government if they stopped providing contraception coverage. They would only have to notify their employees.

This is much different from the Obamacare rules where companies with a religious objection had to notify the government as part of the accommodation.

The Trump rules use religious liberty as a license to discriminate against women. The employer’s religious beliefs are granted a higher value than their employee’s right to preventive health care service. The rules are shockingly anti-worker. They also raise constitutional questions about separation of church and state.

It is easy to take the benefits of birth control for granted. Just to be able to plan when to have children is immensely important. Family planning goes hand in hand with school, work and career planning. There is also the human benefit of having a sexual life without the constant fear of pregnancy when that is not desired.

In this context, it must be mentioned that there are an estimated one million women who use contraception for medical reasons. For example, the pill is used to prevent and treat endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome as well as treatment for painful periods, a condition called dysmenorrhea. The Trump rules do not account for women who have been prescribed birth control for non-contraceptive medical reasons.

One question that jumps out: why is the Trump Administration on its anti-birth control kick? I do not think it is a mystery. It ties in to the political marriage of strange bedfellows. You have The Donald who is a graduate of the Roger Ailes-Bill O’Reilly-Harvey Weinstein School of Sexual Predation and you have the far, far right that includes fierce anti-birth control zealots who are inspired by A Handmaid’s Tale. These folks see birth control access as encouraging risky sex and promiscuity.

Talk about an unholy alliance!

Trump made the calculation that he needs the anti-birth control reactionaries. They are part of his base and with the new rules, he is throwing them some red meat. As crazy as it may seem, the anti-birth control fringe has embedded itself in the Trump Administration, especially Health and Human Services.

Trump has systematically filled critical Administration positions with individuals who have had long track records opposing women’s health and supporting junk science. He hired Katy Talento as Domestic Policy Counsel to the White House. Talento believes birth control causes miscarriages and abortions. Trump made Teresa Manning the Title X National Family Planning Overseer. Manning, a former lobbyist for the National Right to Life Committee claimed in an interview with WBUR that “contraception doesn’t work” and she stated on C-SPAN that she does not believe the federal government should run family planning programs. The top Spokesperson for Health and Human Services, Charmaine Yoest, who spent years as an anti-abortion extremist, has supported phony claims that abortion causes breast cancer. Valerie Huber, Chief of Staff for Don Wright, the Acting Secretary of Health and Human Services, is an anti-sex education activist. She was CEO of Ascend, formerly known as the National Abstinence Education Association.

Since so many of the Trump appointees come out of the hardcore anti-abortion movement, you might think that anti-choicers would support contraception. After all, contraception is the best tool against conception and abortion. However, you would be wrong if you drew that conclusion. For these flat earthers, contraception is the devil’s workshop. There is a fringe in the anti-abortion movement that is simply anti-sex.

The president of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Dr. Haywood Brown, nailed it when he said the Trump Administration was “focused on turning back the clock on women’s health”.

The ACLU, the National Women’s Law Center, California, Washington, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts have all filed suit against the Trump birth control rules. Opponents to the rule have strong substantive and procedural grounds to object. Hopefully, the courts will stop this.

in 2017, it seems unbelievable to me that we still have to fight for birth control – but we do.

October 2, the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi, was the International Day of Non-Violence. On that day, at the United Nations, the Indian delegation sponsored an event entitled “Significance of Non-Violence in Today’s World.”

The event did not receive any public attention in the United States. It got zero publicity. While it is not surprising, no one from the United States UN delegation, from Ambassador Nikki Haley on down, even bothered to attend.

It is sad and it speaks volumes that no one from the United States UN delegation was there. We are the country with the non-violent tradition of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a shining example of successful struggle. But at the same time, we are a country drenched in violence from our endless wars to our Las Vegas massacre to our everyday domestic violence.

We have become numbed and too accepting of the extraordinary violence around us.

I would not have known about the UN event if not for an old friend, Doug Allen. Allen, a philosophy professor at the University of Maine in Orono and a distinguished Gandhi scholar, was asked to speak at the UN event. Among a panel of experts, he spoke on the significance of Gandhi today.

In watching the event (it is available on the UN website), I was struck by the need for a renewal of the tradition of non-violent struggle in the United States. You do not hear much about non-violence as a political strategy. I think it is typically dismissed by cynics as the realm of hopeless idealism.

Professor Allen would dispute that perspective. The Gandhi he presented was a realistic activist. Gandhi waited on no political party to tell him what to do. Through decades of struggle working toward India’s independence. Gandhi maintained a concern about ethical questions. How do you live a moral life? How do you demonstrate care about human suffering? How do you lead a life of selfless service?

Gandhi was a moralist. He did not believe the ends justified the means. Gandhi did not want to lower his ethical standards.

At the same time, Gandhi, who was a lawyer by training, was realistic, cunning, and down-to-earth. He had been arrested and went to jail 13 times. He was very self-critical and considered himself a failure. He got depressed. As Professor Allen has remarked, he was not some Hallmark greeting card stereotype. He constantly reevaluated the best way to advance his non-violent movement. He was nuanced.

For those desiring social change and a genuine attack on income inequality in the United States, Gandhi’s history holds positive lessons. As activists here, we should not lower our ethical standards. I think of the examples of both King and Nelson Mandela. It was their moral power that drew people to their respective movements. No political party, while they have a role, can show us the way. We need movements outside our political parties.

The womens’ marches after Trump’s election are the most recent example of organizing that show how non-violence can power a massive movement. That potential needs to be harnassed. The horror that is the Trump presidency is also a powerful motivator.

I think identification with non-violence both sets a tone and prevents detractors from tarring social justice movements as “violent”.

Part of the job of a non-violent movement is raising consciousness about the violence around us. I believe we are too passive and accepting of what passes for normal violence. No shortage of items demonstrate this point.

We are in the 16th year of the war on terror. It is the 14th year since the start of the Iraq war. To quote the historian Andrew Bacevich: “On matters related to war. American citizens have opted out”. We do not pay that much attention. We have learned not to care. The wars are the equivalent of background music. As long as not too many Americans die, it is not a problem. Nobody seems to tabulate the astronomical cost.

The lack of rationale for these wars seem not to bother either political party. If we really cared about the troops, maybe we would oppose wars that lack any persuasive rationale.

The excessive bellicosity of our President also must be mentioned. While you could dismiss much of his verbiage as shtick, talk about destroying North Korea is unacceptable. Millions could potentially die in a nuclear war with North Korea. Trump’s talk about “the calm before the storm” is not reassuring.

NBC reported that Trump said during a meeting in July that he wanted a tenfold increase in the nation’s nuclear stockpile. This was the context where Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reportedly said Trump was a “moron”. Trump later denied NBC’s report, calling it “fake news”.

Gandhi would have put emphasis on challenging systemic power and not just the individual president but still Trump’s cavalier attitude toward war and violence is worrisome.

In discussing violence, it is impossible not to mention the Las Vegas Massacre. Our collective impotence in the face of this tragedy is remarkable. We are absolutely stumped about how to respond.

I think a renewal of the non-violent tradition in America is one appropriate response to Las Vegas and the broader violence. History shows that the moral power of non-violent movements can sometimes overcome opponents who are armed to the teeth.

In remembering Gandhi, I certainly did not want to say he was beyond criticism. I put him on no pedestal. However, he was a founder of the modern non-violent movement. For that alone, he deserves acknowledgment.

It has been a long time since I have featured any favorite poet of mine. I wanted to highlight Kenneth Rexroth.

I cannot remember exactly how I discovered him. I found Kenneth Patchen at the same time – the two Kenneths. Somehow I had gotten the New Directions paperback of Rexroth’s collected shorter poems. All I can still say is “wow”! The range and versatility of his poetry is impressive. I was drawn especially to his love poems and his political poems.

The West Coast anarchist tradition is very reflected in his work as is his love of jazz, his interest in Japanese and Chinese writers, and his engagement with Buddhism. I see him as a precursor to Gary Snyder and Lawrence Ferlinghetti.

For those unfamiliar with his work (he died in 1982), I wanted to offer a few of his poems.

On a military graveyard

Stranger, when you come to Washington
Tell them that we lie here
Obedient to their orders.

After Simonides

Andree Rexroth

Now once more gray mottled buckeye branches
Explode their emerald stars,
And alders smoulder in a rosy smoke
Of innumerable buds.
I know that spring again is splendid
As ever, the hidden thrush
As sweetly tongued, the sun as vital —
But these are the forest trails we walked together,
These paths, ten years together.
We thought the years would last forever,
They are all gone now, the days
We thought would not come for us are here.
Bright trout poised in the current —
The raccoon’s track at the water’s edge —
A bittern booming in the distance —
Your ashes scattered on this mountain —
Moving seaward on this stream.

Climbing Milestone Mountain, August 22, 1937

For a month now, wandering over the Sierras,
A poem had been gathering in my mind,
Details of significance and rhythm,
The way poems do, but still lacking a focus.
Last night I remembered the date and it all
Began to grow together and take on purpose.
We sat up late while Deneb moved over the zenith
And I told Marie all about Boston, how it looked
That last terrible week, how hundreds stood weeping
Impotent in the streets that last midnight.
I told her how those hours changed the lives of thousands,
How America was forever a different place
Afterwards for many.
In the morning
We swam in the cold transparent lake, the blue
Damsel flies on all the reeds like millions
Of narrow metallic flowers, and I thought
Of you behind the grille in Dedham, Vanzetti,
Saying, “Who would ever have thought we would make this
history”?
Crossing the brilliant mile-square meadow
Illuminated with asters and cyclamen,
The pollen of the lodgepole pines drifting
With the shifting wind over it and the blue
And sulphur butterflies drifting with the wind,
I saw you in the sour prison light, saying,
“Goodbye comrade.”
In the basin under the crest
Where the pines end and the Sierra primrose begins,
A party of lawyers was shooting at a whiskey bottle.
The bottle stayed on its rock, nobody could hit it.
Looking back over the peaks and canyons from the last lake,
The pattern of human beings seemed simpler
Than the diagonals of water and stone.
Climbing the chute, up the melting snow and broken rock,
I remembered what you said about Sacco,
How it slipped your mind and you demanded it be read
into the record.
Traversing below the rugged arete,
One cheek pressed against the rock
The wind slapping the other,
I saw you both marching in an army
You with the red and black flag, Sacco with the rattlesnake
banner.
I kicked steps up the last snow bank and came
To the indescribably blue and fragrant
Polemonium and the dead sky and the sterile
Crystalline granite and final monolith of the summit.
These are the things that will last a long time, Vanzetti,
I am glad that once on your day I have stood among them.
“When these days are but a dim remembering of the time
When man was wolf to man.”
I think men will be remembering you a long time
Standing on the mountains
Many men, a long time, comrade.

With the latest Republican attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare going down in flames, health care policy is at a crossroads. We can either act to improve Obamacare and move in the direction of universal coverage or we can backslide into an abyss where we leave millions more without access to any health care.

I believe Bernie Sanders showed the way forward when he recently proposed his Medicare-for-All bill. Sanders had sixteen Senate co-sponsors including such perceived 2020 presidential contenders as Kamala Harris of California, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Cory Booker of New Jersey. This was drastically different from the experience Sanders had in 2011 when he introduced a similar bill. Then he had no Senate co-sponsors.

Not surprisingly, even as the bill was released, Republican and some Democratic naysayers popped up. It is entirely predictable that something genuinely progressive would draw heavy fire. Any plan of consequence would automatically be subjected to intense scrutiny and criticism.

The idea that Democrats would propose a visionary, bold plan is actually novel. For so long the Democrats have been the timid party, unwilling to stake out more than minimalist, incremental change.

Say what you will about the Republicans but they cannot be accused of timidity. They, without hesitation, try to move forward a maximalist, extreme right wing agenda, no matter how humanly destructive that agenda is.

Sanders’ bill proposes extending Medicare to all Americans, regardless of their age. It would be phased in over a four year period. Initially, in the first year, everyone under 18 and over 55 would be covered. Medicare now covers those over age 65. In the second year, it would expand to cover those over age 45. In the third year, it would cover those over age 35 and in the fourth year, it would cover everyone else.

The Medicare-for-All plan would also be far more comprehensive than current Medicare. It would include dental, vision, and hearing care.

Dental care in America is an unspoken scandal and as an issue it deserves far more attention than it has received. The fact that an estimated 130 million Americans have no coverage for dental care is a national disgrace. Nearly 50 million Americans live in places where it is difficult to access dental care. With this record, you might think we were some backwater Third World country instead of the great nation we are.

One-quarter of U.S. adults age 65 or older have lost all of their teeth. About 17 million low-income children do not see a dentist each year. Only 45% of Americans age 2 and older saw a dental provider in the past 12 months.

Untreated dental problems can have very serious health consequences. Medicare-for-All would be a revolution in dental care, greatly improving access. Sad to say but there are many people living with rotting teeth and dental pain who cannot afford any care.

Medicare-for-All would put an end to co-pays, deductibles, and the need to fight with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges. In this plan, health care would be a right, not a for-profit business, and it would be guaranteed to all Americans.

Medicare-for-All would build on the success of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Affordable Care Act, more than 17 million Americans have gained health insurance. This has cut the number of uninsured to an all-time low. Among other things, through the Affordable Care Act, millions of low-income Americans in 31 states gained coverage through expanded Medicaid. Young people up until age 26 can stay on their families’ health plans. The Affordable Care Act also protected against exclusions for pre-existing conditions and life-time limits. All these gains are essential.

At the same time, there are still an estimated 29 million Americans who lack any health insurance. Many are underinsured or have to pay exceedingly high co-payments and deductibles charged by private insurers. It does not disparage the Affordable Care Act to acknowledge both its strengths and weaknesses. It was a step but health care for all requires new steps.

There is no contradiction in fighting to maintain existing gains and advancing progressive reforms while struggling toward Medicare-for-All. Those who say it will not pass now are correct but they fail to see that Sanders’ bill opens the conversation. It may be years before Medicare-for-All can be enacted but Sanders’ bill puts it on the national agenda and starts a critical dialogue. When there is a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress, the bill could pass.

The fact that there will be no instant results is hardly a reason to avoid this fight as this fight is worth it.

Certainly, the biggest question about Medicare-for-All is how it will be funded. There is no exact plan yet although Sanders released some proposals: a 7.5% payroll tax on employers, a 4% individual income tax and an assortment of taxes on wealthier Americans and corporations. At this stage, I think it is okay that no funding formula is nailed down. There is a need for more creative discussion about funding formulas.

Those predisposed to oppose the idea will focus on the funding and it is impossible to deny that the issues are real. The challenge is immense. Still, there is much evidence that a single payer system can ultimately get runaway spending under control.

Medicare could set fees and pay health providers in much the same way it does now. Billing could be much simpler. There could be a single billing form and a single fee schedule. The administrative costs of Medicare are at 2% while the administrative costs of U.S. private insurers averages 17%. This would save much waste and excessive administrative cost.

I know there are some who will see Medicare-for-All as some extreme socialist plot. Honestly that is such a parochial view. Nearly every industrialized country besides the United States guarantees universal access to health care. Think Canada, England, France or Germany. They all spend less on health care and have far better outcomes than we do. Medicare-for-All would lead to less out-of-pocket cost for the average family.

To quote Bernie Sanders:

“We remain the only major country on earth that allows chief executives and stockholders in the health care industry to get incredibly rich, while millions of people suffer because they can’t get the health care they need. This is not what the United States should be about.”

Polls show that support for single payer began increasing around the start of the 2016 campaign. More people now believe that health care is a government responsibility. A June 2017 poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found 53% support for the idea of single payer health care.

I see Medicare-for-All offering the Democrats both an attainable long-term goal and an energizing vision that can garner huge grassroots support and unite disparate factions. For a party lacking coherent identity, that is no small positive. The effort will likely take years but it certainly can happen.

Probably like many readers, I was shocked by the Claremont, New Hampshire incident where an 8 year old bi-racial boy was nearly lynched by a group of teenage boys. You have to ask: how could that be happening?

The boy’s grandmother told local press that he and others were playing in a yard in their neighborhood when the teenagers who are white started calling racial epithets and threw sticks and rocks at his legs. Then the teens decided to hang the little boy, putting a rope around his neck and pushing him off a picnic table. According to published accounts, the boy swung back and forth by his neck three times before he was able to remove the rope. None of the teens came to his aid.

The story is beyond disquieting. It is impossible to see it as “boys will be boys” or as simple teen mischief. Somehow it connects to the larger racial zeitgeist reflected by events in Charlottesville and the growth of the alt-right. Hate seems to have a green light.

When was the last time there was a lynching in New Hampshire? Never.

Lynching is an act with deep historical roots in America. The act dredges up a history that is ignored, minimized, and buried. In my own school experience, lynching barely rated a mention. I do recall, from my own outside reading, seeing pictures of large crowds of white people surrounding the body of a black man hanging from a tree or a makeshift gallows.

In 2015, the Equal Justice Initiative, a non-profit organization based in Montgomery Alabama and started by the lawyer Bryan Stevenson, author of Just Mercy, produced a report on the history of lynching in America. Equal Justice Initiative staff had spent 6 years researching and documenting terror lynchings in America.

They documented 4,084 racial terror lynchings in twelve Southern states between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and 1950. They also documented 300 racial terror lynchings in other states during the same period. This was significantly more lynchings than had previously been recognized.

They define a terror lynching as a horrific act of violence (not just a hanging) where perpetrators were never held accountable. The murders were carried out with impunity, often on a courthouse lawn. These acts were tolerated by both state and federal officials who allowed a bypass of the existing criminal justice system. The terror lynchings were designed to create a fearful environment where racial subordination and segregation were controlling.

Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, and Arkansas had the highest number of lynchings. Right behind were Alabama, Texas, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia. Outside the Deep South, Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, West Virginia, Maryland, Kansas, Indiana, and Ohio also had lynchings.

Equal Justice Initiative analyzed the pattern of these lynchings. They found nearly 25% of lynchings of African Americans in the South came from wildly distorted fear of interracial sex; more than 50% were killed under accusation of committing murder or rape; many others were based on minor social transgressions such as speaking disrespectfully, refusing to step off a sidewalk, using an improper title for a white person or bumping into a white woman.

From 1915 to 1940, lynch mobs targeted African Americans who protested being treated as second-class citizens.

Particularly horrifying were public spectacle lynchings in which large crowds of white people gathered to witness murders that featured prolonged torture, mutilation, dismemberment and burning of victims. Equal Justice Initiative says these events had a carnival-like atmosphere with vendors selling food, printers producing postcards for sale featuring photographs of lynching and corpses, and body parts being collected as souvenirs.

It was not unusual for public spectacle lynchings to have large crowds numbering in the thousands. The killings were not conducted by Klansmen hiding in a swamp. They were typically very public, advertised events implicating entire communities.

Equal Justice Initiative documents numerous terrifying stories. In one story, in Paris Texas in 1893, a 17 year old black man named Henry Smith was accused of killing a 3 year old white girl. About a week after the child’s death, a posse located Smith in Arkansas and returned him to Paris by train. Two thousand men had combed the countryside looking for Smith. When they found Smith’s stepson and he failed to reveal Smith’s location, the stepson was lynched.

When Smith was returned to Paris on February 1, 1893, a mob of over 10,000 white people from all over Texas met the train. Smith was placed on a carnival float where he was paraded through town to the county fairgrounds. A parade of citizens followed the float, including children who had been dismissed from school for the event.

When Smith made it to the fairgrounds, the mob leaders forced him to mount a ten-foot-high scaffold to allow maximum visibility. The mob ripped Smith’s clothes off and proceeded to torture him for the next hour. Red-hot iron brands were placed against Smith’s feet, then up his body until they reached his face where his eyes were burned out. The mob then poured kerosene on Smith and set him afire. Smith was burned alive.

It must be noted that Smith pleaded his innocence until the end according to the great anti-lynching crusader, Ida B. Wells. After these events, Wells hired Pinkerton detectives to investigate what happened. While Wells did not find evidence that exonerated Smith, she did discover that Smith was mentally imbalanced

Twenty-seven years later, Paris, Texas hosted a second lynching. Two brothers, Irving and Herman Arthur, decided to leave their jobs on a white-owned farm. They wanted better working conditions. The farm owner tried to stop them. The conflict resulted in the arrest of the brothers. Shortly after the arrests, local whites posted signs advertising an impending lynching.

On July 6, 1920, 3,000 people watched as both men were tied to a flagpole at the county fairgrounds, tortured and burned to death. After the lynching, the Arthurs’ corpses were chained to a car and driven through Paris’s black community.

Today there is no historical marker to document either lynching. However, there is a large Confederate memorial on the courthouse lawn in Paris. Equal Justice Initiative reports that of the 4,084 Southern lynchings they document, the overwhelming majority took place on sites that remain unmarked and unrecognized.

I do think the absence of a prominent public memorial acknowledging the brutal lynchings is a public statement that America does not think black lives matter. Equal Justice Initiative points out that the South is littered with statues, markers, and monuments celebrating Confederate leaders who perpetrated violent crimes against black citizens.

As a country, we still seem unable to face the dark side of our own history. There is a continuing culture of silence about our history with lynching. This is particularly true in the states where lynching occurred. There is an absence of acknowledgement.

While we cannot yet know exactly why the Claremont near-lynching happened, the context is concerning. The growth of white supremacist movements, the increase in vicious internet bullying by racists and anti-semites, and our past American history of lynching all situate it. We can only hope what happened in Claremont was a freakish aberration that could never happen again.

Since their election defeat last November, the Democrats remain in a rudderless, traumatized state of disbelief. Losing to Trump was unthinkable but then the unthinkable happened.

At this point, the Democrats still show little sign that they grasp the reasons for their defeat. Being in the political wilderness can be confusing. Like being lost in the woods, it can be hard to know which way is the way out.

Early signs are not promising that Democrats will figure the best direction to go. In late July, after doing months of polling and after consulting focus groups and enlisting political consultants, Democrats came up with a new slogan: “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future.”

As was pointed out in the media, the slogan bore a strong resemblance to Papa John’s Pizza: “Better Ingredients, Better Pizza. Papa John’s”.

The slogan appeared to have its origins from a May 24 USA Today op-ed authored by Sen. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s running mate. Sen. Kaine had used the phrase “Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Wages”.

The slogans are an embarrassment. They were rightfully mocked on social media. After a historic defeat, after no shortage of soul-searching, the Democrats came up with something so uninspiring. Is a faux pizza ad the best that can be offered up?

The truth is that since the Bill Clinton era the Democrats have run on what I would call a minimalist change agenda. They want to make clear they are not Republicans but all too often, they look like Republican-lite. They have a history of feeding at the same corporate trough as the Republicans.

It has been very hard to know what Democrats stand for. The Hillary Clinton campaign was the absolute embodiment of this approach. The belief was that it was enough to be anti-Trump because he was so uniquely disgusting.

The Hillary campaign slogan was “Stronger Together”. That has to be the apogee of meaninglessness.

Let me offer a suggestion: the Democrats must be the party of progressive change – not a status quo party. We already have one conservative party, the Republicans. Democrats need to provide a stark contrast to the Republicans. Clintonian triangulation is not a progressive vision of the future.

One of the most maddening aspects of the last election was Trump’s ability to seize the mantle of being a change agent. The Democrats mistakenly ceded that territory because they were caught up in defending the progress made under President Obama. In touting the status quo, the Democrats utterly misread the public and its anxieties.

Even though Trump is a fraud and a pathological liar, he had the political horse sense to know people were hurting badly. Siding with “forgotten” Americans was smart politics. The Clinton campaign lost touch with the public mood at the same time as it played it safe.

While he did not win, Bernie Sanders had a much more accurate read on the public. His populist message attacking Big Money did strike a nerve. He showed the possibility of running without reliance on millionaires and billionaires. His millenial support grew, in part, because of his awareness of crushing student loan debt and the need to address that.

Democrats need to learn from what was positive about the Sanders campaign. The America Sanders described was much closer to the mark than Clinton’s take. The Democrats’ continuing cluelessness about the reasons for Sanders’ popularity is sad. Maybe they should not be so ready to dismiss the candidate who has the highest approval rating of any politician in the country.

I know this will be unpopular to say but, along with Hillary Clinton, I blame President Obama for the Democratic defeat. Obama bailed out banks more than working people. His justice department never prosecuted the white collar criminals who crashed the economy. Nor did he do much to help the five million people who lost their home to foreclosure.

During the 2016 election campaign, President Obama and Secretary Clinton emphasized all the economic progress made. They praised the recovery made from the recession, saying 15 million jobs had been created.

The problem is this narrative did not ring true to millions of working people across America because it wasn’t true. Much of Middle America remains a post-industrial wasteland. Many worry their jobs will be automated or shipped to the Third World. The jobs created are typically a far cry from the jobs lost. A college degree now guarantees nothing and people are legitimately anxious about the future. They have been screwed by the system and the future hardly looks rosy.

Too many jobs do not pay enough. And they lack good benefits. Twenty-somethings cannot make enough to move out of their parent’s homes and fifty-somethings are put out to pasture early. Health insurance is too expensive (if people have it) and now looks even more tenuous. Student loans are a killer, like carrying a second mortgage payment. Contrary to Clinton and Obama’s assertions, it is not a pretty picture.

The Democrats need to look at where in America they have done poorly. This includes small cities, towns and rural America. The Democrats need a respectful and compelling message that can appeal nationally. Too often, to the rest of America, the Democrats look like an economically ascendant coastal elite, disconnected from working class people.

Message to the Democrats: not everybody went to Harvard and Yale.

If they want to win, the Democrats need to totally overturn their present leadership. It needs to be said: that leadership failed. It does not denigrate past leaders like the Clintons and Pelosi to acknowledge that they are the past. It is time for a new generation of Democratic leaders who can make a fresh start. Whatever the merits of past leaders, they all have too much baggage and they are heavily implicated in the wave of Democratic defeats leading to the Trump debacle.

The Democrats need to stop pretending they can simply repackage their failed timid policies. Those policies never seriously challenged income inequality.

The scope of Democratic defeat requires a new humility. Considering all the defeats, there may be nothing more ridiculous and obnoxious than self righteous posturing by progressives. I hope the party advances in a far more progressive direction but the party must have no litmus tests and it should be welcoming to a wide range of divergent views.

I believe the Democrats can turn it around. But, without self-critical evaluation of their mistakes, they could very well repeat them.

I grew up in Lower Merion, a largely Jewish neighborhood outside Philadelphia. Both my parents were Jewish. I was raised in the reform Jewish tradition and I was bar mitzvahed and confirmed at Main Line Reform Temple in Wynnewood, Pa.

Like many American Jews, my family was pretty secular. My dad had been raised Orthodox but he rebelled against that. He and my mom felt more comfortable in a reform congregation. Honestly, we did not go to synagogue very often. Still, after ten years of Hebrew School, I had some background and knowledge in things Jewish. I was also a reader, so as I got older, I read widely in Jewish history and literature.

For me, being Jewish is, in part, about identification with the historical experience of the Jewish people. It also ties in with love and appreciation of Jewish culture and tradition.

Growing up, anti-semitism was a seeming distant reality. Philadelphia has a large, diverse and secure Jewish community. My dad had a business friend who was a Holocaust survivor. I remember the concentration camp number tattooed on his forearm. In seventh grade, I got into a fight with a kid who called me “a dirty Jew”. Other than that, anti-semitism was something I read about. It was not part of my daily existence.

So I have to say that the recent events in Charlottesville were jolting. Seeing that many people identify as Nazis and Klansmen, while chanting “Jews will not replace us” was surreal. Not to worry: I would never want to replace the likes of you. It would be impossible to be that gross.

Then to hear President Trump’s unscripted comments after Charlottesville was, without a doubt, the low point of his presidency. Photos of the Charlottesville march show so many in the crowd wearing “Make America Great Again” hats as they apparently dream of that white ethno-state. You now have to wonder: how low can the President go?

Trump mentioned all the “very fine people” who were marching along with the Nazis and Klan. According to Trump, they just oppose taking down those “beautiful” Confederate statues.

These people are Nazi collaborators. Anyone who finds themselves in an alt-right march, carrying tiki torches and chanting “blood and soil”, needs to take a good look at themselves. Whether they have explicitly joined any white supremacist and anti-semitic group or not, they have aligned themselves with hatred. They are not passively going along. They are far worse. They are abetting the evil.

I have seen some people on the internet explain these Nazi collaborators as losers who cannot get a date to save their lives. That seems overly generous to me. They are making an active choice to align with something monstrous.

Supposedly, Trump’s ratings actually jumped from a 34% approval rating to 39% last week. All you Trump supporters out there who love how politically incorrect he is, maybe you need to ask yourselves: did you sign up to collaborate with Nazis?

Going back to Germany in the 1930’s, there were many conservatives who thought they could use the Nazis to advance their ends. History shows that the Nazis ended up using people like that far more than they used the Nazis.

And as for the “beautiful” Confederate monuments, Trump said that taking such statues down was “changing history”. He tweeted that taking down statues of Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson would lead to demands to take down statues of Washington and Jefferson since they also owned slaves.

Given Trump’s earlier comments about Frederick Douglass, you have to wonder what he knows about Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson. Are they also doing a fabulous job?

James Grossman, the executive director of the American Historical Association, said that Trump’s comments failed to recognize the difference between history and memory. Grossman said when you alter monuments “you’re not changing history. You’re changing how we remember history”.

Most Confederate monuments were built in two periods: the 1890’s to 1920’s and the 1950’s. In the 1890’s, Jim Crow was being established and consolidated. In the 1950’s, the South was massively resisting the early civil rights movement.

It is not an accident that Confederate monuments were built then. They were built to commemorate and glorify the Confederacy and white supremacy. They were also built in passionate opposition to the Black freedom struggle. They were sending a message of intimidation to Black people and all civil rights supporters. That message was: get back!

Whatever their merits as military tacticians, Lee and Jackson fought to maintain a vicious social system founded on the institution of human slavery. They were leaders of a secessionist rebellion against the United States government.

After the Civil War, Lee never spoke up against those who lynched Black people. Nor did he ever support black voting rights.

Jackson’s family owned six slaves in the late 1850’s. After the Civil War, he appears to have hired out or sold all his slaves. Jackson’s biographer, James Robertson, wrote that Jackson never apologized nor spoke in favor of the practice of slavery. Robertson felt Jackson probably opposed slavery but he also felt that God had sanctioned slavery and man had no moral right to challenge its existence.

Interestingly, Jackson’s great-great grandsons, Jack Christian and Warren Christian, just wrote an open letter to the mayor of the city of Richmond Va asking for removal of the Stonewall Jackson statue as well as all other Confederate statues there.

There is a big difference between Founding Fathers like Washington and Jefferson and leaders who led a treasonous revolt against the government they helped found. While you can find people who advocate taking down Washington and Jefferson monuments, I think Trump’s comments were simply a red herring. It is only Confederate monuments which are seriously under scrutiny now.

This last week has been the least reassuring week of this bumper-car ride of a presidency. As a Jewish American, I have to say I have never experienced a president in my lifetime who made me wonder if he really was a Nazi sympathizer. Up until now I did not think Trump believed in anything – only money. Now I am not sure.

Players have reported to NFL training camps, exhibition games are underway, and we are already back to football. Along with the players reporting, we also get new updates on the grim toll of brain injuries. The two are now inextricably linked.

The big news for this season is the major new study of football’s effects on the brain. A team of researchers led by neuropathologist Anne McKee examined the brains of former NFL players and found that almost all – 110 out of 111- showed signs of chronic traumatic encephalopathy or CTE.

As Daniel Engber, a writer for Slate has pointed out, that statistic can be misleading. The brains in Dr. McKee’s study were not randomly selected. They were donated by family members who suspected that researchers might find evidence of damage.

Still, even if the numbers are not as spectacularly high as show up in the new study, it is hard not to see them as significant.

CTE has cognitive symptoms like memory loss, violent mood swings and attention deficit; behavioral symptoms like depression and suicidality; and inflated rates of Alzheimer’s and dementia.

In a recent series, the Associated Press put a human face on many previously undisclosed CTE stories. The AP reporters talked to family members of many former players who were diagnosed with CTE after they died. One story I would mention is Ollie Matson’s. Matson was an Olympic medal winning sprinter in the 1952 Helsinki games, a College and Pro Football Hall of Fame player, and a very great running back for the Cardinals, Rams and Eagles. He played pro ball from 1952 to1966.

Matson’s story is remarkable. He played college football for the University of San Francisco. In 1951, Matson’s team went undefeated but they were not allowed to play in any bowl game because Matson and another teammate were black. In that era, the Orange, Sugar, and Gator Bowl committees would not invite any teams that had black players. Matson was the prototype big back before that was common. He was a great receiver, punt and kickoff returner, and open field runner. When Matson retired from the pros, he was second only to Jim Brown in all-purpose yards.

In the AP story, Matson’s son said his father barely spoke in the last four years of his life. He only said “hi” and “bye”. He could not tell a $10 bill from a $100. The dementia symptoms worsened in the years before he died. Matson needed a wheelchair and a nurse for the final five years of his life. The family did not know what to make of his symptoms. Matson’s son now says he now feels robbed of his father’s last years. No one knew about CTE then.

Unfortunately, science still does not have a way to test the prevalence of CTE among living players. That would tremendously improve the science but we do now know for a certainty that there is a neurodegenerative brain disease that is found in individuals who have been exposed to repeated head traumas. The disease is pathologically marked by an increase in abnormal tau protein in the brain. We now know that some significant percentage of players are adversely affected.

With that knowledge, we need to look at how the NFL has responded to the increased awareness of CTE. While the League has taken some steps, especially a concussion protocol, what they have done is grossly inadequate.

Not nearly enough has been done to protect the players. The concussion protocol is a good idea but in practice it has been less than effective. Too often players who are clearly wobbly on their feet end up staying in games.

I think Sally Jenkins, a sports writer for the Washington Post, has most clearly explained the complex reasons this happens. Jenkins explains that the NFL’s compensation structure forces players to play hurt or get cut.

Most NFL players are not superstars with eye-popping contracts. Many are relative unknowns fighting to have a career. The average NFL career across all positions is about two and a half years. Players need playing time to have a chance to succeed. Concussions can get in the way of the opportunity to play. That is a strong disincentive against reporting any injury.

Jenkins argues that the NFL shifts responsibility for head injuries onto the players and away from management. If a player commits a vicious helmet-to-helmet hit, he will get a heavy fine and even a suspension. Think Kam Chancellor of the Seahawks who got a $23,152 fine for spearing. When the medical and coaching staff ignore the concussion protocol, the NFL typically looks the other way.

Jenkins uses the example of Case Keenum, a backup quarterback for the Rams. In a very close 2015 game, with one minute left, the Ravens sacked Keenum and his head bounced violently off the turf. Keenum immediately clutched his head. He could not get up for a while after the play and was down on all fours.

The protocol required Keenum to be removed from the game and to be examined by an independent concussion expert. That did not happen. A Rams trainer briefly talked to a wobbly Keenum. The Rams coach, Jeff Fisher, said Keenum “felt he was okay” and he also said “it was a critical point in the game”. Keenum never was pulled from the game. After the game, doctors diagnosed Keenum with a concussion. The NFL had a conference call about what happened but decided to do nothing. No coach or medical staff got fined or punished for leaving Keenum in the game.

This type of scenario, which is not uncommon, is an occupational health and safety issue which requires further regulation. The League will fine players for spearing and for roughing the passer but it has not fined coaches, trainers, and team doctors for flagrant violations of the concussion protocol. Nor has it penalized owners for countenancing health and safety violations.

Maybe if management took a serious financial hit, more attention would be paid to the correct implementation of the concussion protocol. Now it seems like only the players get fined.

Jenkins calls it “blame-shifting”. The League skates through its own liability by placing all consequences on the players.

There is a need for harder-edged rules that mandate a protocol where players are automatically pulled off the field and examined by an independent concussion expert. The doctors who make the call about a player returning to the game must not be connected to any team or the NFL power structure. The desire to win at all costs is corrupting.

In the realm of occupational health and safety, I think of NFL players as equivalent to coal miners. People may say players or miners assume the risk of their jobs but both occupations are inherently dangerous. Where the players face CTE and orthopedic injury, the miners face black lung, not to mention the danger of mine accidents and cave-ins.

Since the late 19th century, the federal government has regulated coal mining. As fatalities in mines increased (between 1900-1910, coal mining fatalities exceeded 2,000 annually) federal coal mine health and safety law became more comprehensive and stringent. Not surprisingly, with the tougher laws, mining fatalities dramatically dropped.

Football owners have the same kind of control over their business that mine owners have had over the their industry. A big difference is that the NFL owners patrol themselves without much interference. Indifference to player health and safety is a by-product of this brand of laissez-faire capitalism.

I would suggest that NFL owners are modern-day equivalents to 19th century robber barons. According to Forbes Magazine, the NFL’s ten richest owners are worth a combined $61 billion. I probably do not need to say that is an astounding figure. With those kind of resources, it is wrong to assume that far more could not be done to make the game safer. Safer equipment, more protective rules, consequences for coaches, trainers and owners, and better medical research into harms to players could change the game in a very positive way.

I remain doubtful the League will adequately police itself. After all, a few years ago the League denied the very existence of CTE. Now it pushes sole responsibility on the players. Over the history of the NFL, you have to wonder how many thousands of former players suffered from CTE who we will never know about. That is a legacy of suffering that goes far beyond the concussion lawsuit.

No one can deny football is exciting and supremely athletic. But, the human cost remains needlessly high. It does not have to be that way.

Since Donald Trump became president, one focus of his administration has been a crackdown on undocumented immigrants. As has been widely reported, the crackdown goes much farther than deporting violent criminals, gang members and drug dealers.

Any undocumented immigrant, regardless of circumstance, can get deported.

This shotgun approach has provoked widespread fear of deportation in immigrant communities in the United States. In that community, no group has been more adversely affected than domestic violence survivors.

Like other undocumented people, domestic violence survivors are afraid to come forward and draw any attention to themselves. They legitimately fear they will be deported if they show up on any radar screen so they decide to live with the abuse. Considering the actions of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) this year, the fear is understandable.

In February, there was a domestic violence case in El Paso, Texas, that drew national attention. A woman known by the initials IEG sought a protective order alleging she was a victim of domestic violence. IEG had filed three police reports in the preceding year alleging that she had been punched, kicked and chased with a knife. The Family Court granted IEG a protective order based on the domestic violence.

On the way out of the courtroom, six federal immigration agents arrested IEG for her immigration violations. The El Paso County Attorney, Jo Anne Bernal, whose office represents domestic abuse victims when they seek court orders against their abusers, said:

“We suspect it’s the (alleged) abuser who tipped off ICE about the woman.”

Bernal said that IEG’s offense appeared to be re-entering the country illegally after being deported.

Judge Yahara Lisa Gutierrez, who oversees the court that issued IEG’s protective order, stated that ICE agents should avoid effectively assisting domestic abusers by acting on their tips against their partners. It creates a collaboration relationship between the government and the abuser.

Because the story was widely reported, it had a seismic impact in immigrant communities across the country. It drove victims further into hiding. Now many victims are even afraid to call 911.

IEG’s case is not isolated. In Denver earlier this year, four domestic violence victims did not go forward on their cases because the victims refused to cooperate with law enforcement. A video had surfaced showing ICE agents poised to make arrests at a Denver courthouse. The victims were afraid of drawing the attention of ICE and then subjecting themselves to deportation.

Cases like IEG’s can fan the flames of fear so that victims and potential witnesses are more reticent to talk to the police or cooperate in criminal cases. Even under the best circumstances, domestic violence victims are often afraid to seek restraining orders because the perpetrators of their abuse threaten retaliation. Add the fear of deportation into the mix and you have a recipe for continuation of domestic violence.

It is quite common for abusers to use a victim’s undocumented status to control her. The abuser typically threatens to tell ICE and turn the undocumented partner in if she tries to escape the relationship.

The abuse can take many forms besides threatening to report her to the authorities to get her deported. The abuser will tell the victim no one can help her and that as an undocumented person, she is a nobody in America. He will isolate her from friends and family. He will not allow her to learn English. He will threaten to report her if she works under the table. He will destroy her important papers. He will call her a prostitute and a mail order bride. Belittling and emotional abuse are universal abuser tactics designed to wear down and immobilize the victim.

It is no wonder many women feel trapped. Lack of financial resources and language barriers play a role. The fear of having children taken away in the context of deportation also acts as a major disincentive from escape.

Unfortunately, there is more than anecdotal evidence that the Trump crackdown is moving domestic violence victims further into the shadows. In May, a coalition of national organizations focused on domestic violence and sexual assault surveyed 700 advocates and attorneys from 46 states and the District of Columbia about the issues confronting immigrant survivors seeking services.

78% of respondents said that survivors expressed concerns about contacting police due to fears it would open them up to deportation. 75% said that survivors had expressed concern about going to court for a matter related to their abuser. 43% of respondents said that the survivors they have worked with have dropped criminal or civil cases related to their abuse because they are fearful of potentially opening themselves up to deportation.

In light of the immigration crackdown, there is likely confusion about what protections remain in place for domestic violence victims. Under the Violence Against Women Act, immigrant victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking can qualify for special protection. They can possibly get immigration protection through a U visa, which is reserved for victims of abuse. To obtain a U visa, a law enforcement official must certify that the U visa applicant has been helpful to an investigation or prosecution of criminal activity. I would be surprised if the immigration crackdown has not had a chilling effect on the number of victims willing to seek a U visa.

One disturbing thing that happened in May: the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s new Victim Information and Notification Exchange – an online database created to track when criminals are released from or into ICE custody – publicly listed the names and detainment location of victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking who have applied to stay legally in the United States on special protective visas. The Department of Homeland Security is legally prohibited from releasing identifying information about immigrants seeking these visas.

It took a couple months for this error to be corrected so that protected names were removed from the database. While the error was almost certainly inadvertent, it could not have reassured victims.

While I know there are many who may not care what happens to undocumented domestic violence victims, I believe that view is short-sighted. Federal law has long recognized our communities are more secure if crime victims can come forward. Survivors of domestic violence should not face dire consequences for contacting law enforcement.

It is dangerous to create a strata of subterranean crime victims who are without any legal protection.