Some predictions, less than a month before our 2020 elections

A plausible Biden/Harris landslide victory, one possibility

 I haven't been paying close attention to the 2020 elections in the United States because I've been so busy with work and some family projects.  Today I checked up on the Senate and House races, and studied the map to see how the Presidential election is likely to go.  Here is a summary of what I've learned.

Will the Democratic Party take control of the Senate.  Probably yes. Here is how:

In the Senate, The Republican challenger Tuberville will defeat Jones and take back a seat for the Republicans in Alabama. It is very unlikely that Jones can hold his seat, but it would not be a miracle if he somehow did.

But the Republican incumbents Collins in Maine, Tillis in North Carolina, Gardner in Colorado, and McSally in Arizona will all lose their seats to the Democratic challengers (Gideon in Maine, Cunningham in North Carolina, Hickenlooper in Colorado, and Kelly in Arizona).  This gives the Democrats four new seats. Colorado and Cunningham are the closest of these races; Maine and Arizona are pretty obviously going Democratic.

The result is a net shift of three seats from Republican to Democratic.  The Republicans will control 50 seats and the Democrats will control 48.  Two independents caucus with the Democrats, so the Senate will be split 50-50, with the Vice President casting the deciding vote. 

There are four races to watch which, if the Democrats win any one of them, they could get up to 49 seats and put the Republicans down to 49 seats, so that the two independent Senators would give the Democrats a 51-49 advantage.  Here are those races:

Iowa, where the Democratic challenger Greenfield could possibly defeat the Republican incumbent Ernst.  If this happens, the Democrats will have the majority in the Senate without needing the Vice President to break tie votes. Iowa is the tightest and most significant Senate race if you think the Democrats are pretty sure of taking Colorado and North Carolina (and of course they will take Arizona and Maine). 

Montana, where the Democratic candidate Bullock might possibly defeat the incumbent Daines, is another opportunity for the Democratic Party.  Bullock would be a conservative Democrat, and his chances of actually defeating Daines are not very good.  It's still a close race, however.

In Georgia, Ossoff could possibly defeat the Republican incumbent Perdue, but I’m not counting on it.  The Republicans are spending a lot of money to keep Perdue in office, but if the Democrats pull off a landslide in the Presidential race, maybe Ossoff could win in Georgia.

In South Carolina, Harrison has a slight chance of defeating Graham.  It would be a huge victory for the Democrats to take a seat in South Carolina. It is not likely, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility.

So, if you hope Democrats really get control of the Senate, be looking to the returns from South Carolina, Georgia, Montana, and Iowa.  Iowa is the best chance for giving Democrats control (assuming they win in Colorado and North Carolina as well as their fairly certain wins in Arizona and Maine).

If you want Republicans to keep control of the Senate, you need to hope that somehow the Democrats don’t win in Arizona, or Maine, or North Carolina, or Colorado. In all four of those races, it looks like the Republicans will probably lose, but the races are close enough to imagine that the Republicans might hold on to one or more of those seats.  So, the Republicans can still hold out hope.  Republicans often point out that polls tend to underestimate support for Republican candidates, but most polling experts have tried to improve their sampling remove the systematic bias that made the 2016 elections such a surprise.

If the Democrats totally dominate the election, they could even pick up the seat in Kansas where Bollier seems pretty far behind the Republican Marshall, but an upset does look possible.  Likewise it’s within the realm of possibility that Jones, the Democratic incumbent in Alabama, could somehow keep his seat against the Republican challenger Tuberville, but that seems unlikely.  I've seen claims that the Democrats could pick up a seat in Texas, Kentucky, or Mississippi, but those all seem unlikely to me. Democratic Party supporters are certainly hoping they could win those long-shot races.

In the House, the only district I really care about is my own Illinois 13th district, where the Democratic challenger Betsy Londrigan has a good chance of defeating incumbent Republican Rodney Davis.  I think she will.

Aside from that, it’s very likely that the Democrats will pick up four seats to add to their majority (North Carolina’s 2nd and 6th districts, Georgia’s 7th district, and the 23rd district in Texas).  There are about 26 seats that are toss-ups, and those are evenly split between Democratic and Republican seats. In Iowa the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Districts are likely to remain Democratic. Interesting toss-up races where I think the Democrats might pick up seats include the 21st, 22nd, and 24th districts in Texas; the 1st district in Ohio; the 5th district in Indiana; the 25th district in California; and the 10th district in Pennsylvania.  I also think Democrats could pick up seats in a few districts that normally lean Republican, including my own (13th district in Illinois) as well as the 3rd district in Ohio, the Montana and Alaska all-state districts (Alaska and Montana only have one Representative), the first district in Minnesota, and the 3rd and 6th district in Michigan.  Keep on eye on these races as returns come in on Election night.

In the Presidential Race, Biden and Harris are almost sure to win.

They will easily win in the “safe” Democratic states:

Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, New York, New Mexico, New Jersey, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Vermont.

That gives them 187 electoral college votes right there. 

They will also win in some states that usually vote for Democrats, including: Colorado, Virginia, Maine’s 1st District, and Minnesota.  That gives them an additional 33 for a total of 220.  

They are also going to win some states where the races are a bit closer, including Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Maine’s 2nd District, Nebraska’s 2nd District, Michigan, and North Carolina.  That will give them an additional 79 votes, so they end up with 299, and they only need 271 to win.  

In addition, they could very well win in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Iowa.  If they do that, they add 58 votes in the Electoral college, and end up with 357 electoral college votes.  But, they don’t need any of those states if Florida is a clear win for Biden, and I think it will be.

But, suppose I’m wrong about Florida and North Carolina.  That would knock them down to 255 votes before adding the “possible wins” in NH, PA, WI, OH, and IA.  They would only need to win either Pennsylvania or Ohio to get from 255 to over 271.  If they won Iowa and Wisconsin, they could lose both Pennsylvania and Ohio.

A close race with a Biden/Harris victory without winning Florida. One of many plausible outcomes in the upcoming Presidential election.

I think Trump is going to win West Virginia, South Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, the 1st and 3rd districts in Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, and Alaska. So, Trump is sure to get at least 191 electoral college votes.  But, I’m not sure if he will win Georgia, Iowa, or Ohio.  And, I think Biden and Harris have about an equal chance compared to Trump of winning in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Florida and North Carolina, which are supposedly too-close-to-call seem to me clearly likely to go for Biden and Harris. The states that lean for Biden but seem competitive for Trump such as Michigan, Nevada, and Arizona also seem very likely to go for Biden and Harris. 

Factors to consider include: Democrats are more likely to have voted by mail, and in some places the mailed ballots will not be counted until after Election Day evening. So, in some races, Republicans might appear to be leading on Election Day evening, but Democrats will win after all the mailed ballots are counted.  Some people are concerned that there will be malicious attempts to stop counting votes after Election Day, but I don't see how such attempts could be supported in courts.

Recent polls show that many Democrats expect rioting from White Nationalists if Trump loses, and many Republicans expect rioting from BLM and Anti-Fascists if Biden loses.  Many Independents and non-affiliated people fear violence from both sides.  Looking at the polls, I'm pleased to see that almost no one thinks their own side is likely to resort to violence if they lose.  When polls show people telling the surveys "we will be violent if we lose" we know we are trouble, but when the fears are all directed at the "other side" the expectations of violence are less likely to be signals that actual violence will occur.

****** UPDATE AFTER THE ELECTION *******

A month before the election, in retrospect, I was too optimistic about Biden’s chances in several states.  I was very confident that he would win Florida and North Carolina, and he lost both.  In the weeks between when I posted this and election eve, I had learned enough about Florida to guess that Biden would probably lose it, but I remained surprised by Trump’s victory in North Carolina.  I became less certain that Biden would win Ohio, but more hopeful (even confident) that Biden could win Wisconsin.  By election Eve, I had a “pessimistic” projection that was only wrong about two states: I never guessed that Biden would win Georgia, and I never guessed that Trump would win North Carolina.  My pessimistic projection, which was correct on 48 of 50 states, was based on an assumption that polling models were generally oversampling Biden supporters by about 5-percentage-points, and Trump would beat the polling forecasts by about that much.  Since polls had Biden up by more than 5-percentage-points in critical states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and significantly up in Arizona and Nevada and North Carolina, I watched in the first hour that returns came back.  At first, the returns apparel to show Biden far out-performing the polling in Ohio, Texas, and some other states, so I was pretty sure that polls had not been biased by more than 5-points in Trump’s favor.  As the night wore on, and I could compare results in some states to the polling, it did appear that Biden was underperforming the polls by a significant amount, but not by such a great amount that the 5-percentage-point bias in polls would be exceeded in most of the critical battleground states. And, as I looked into where the votes had not been counted yet (mail-in ballots and big city areas), it was pretty clear that Biden would win in most of the close states.  So, in other words, after about 8:00 pm on Election Day evening I was no longer in any doubt that Biden would win.  

As it turned out, the race was very close, and much closer than I had imagined, in Arizona (0.3 percentage-points), Pennsylvania (1.2 percentage points), and Wisconsin (0.7 percentage points). Michigan and Nevada ended up right around where I expected (Biden won by 2.8 percentage points in Michigan, 2.4 percentage points in Nevada). The states where I was totally wrong in all my predictions finally had Trump winning in North Carolina by 0.4 percentage points and Biden winning in Georgia by 0.2 percentage points.

   

Trump received almost 74 million votes, and Biden got 80.1 million (Biden won the popular vote election by 3.9 percentage points).  I was surprised that Trump received (slightly) over 47% of the popular vote, as I expected him to win about 46 percentage points.

The aftermath of the election opened my eyes to the interpretation that about 30% of the American population has given up their rational thinking and joined a sort of cult of Trump, which does not really bear much relationship to traditional conservatism, but seems more in line with the American tradition we could trace to the Know Nothing Party, the John Birch Society, Charles Coughlin, Charles Lindbergh, the Ku Klux Klan, the Christian Identity Movement, and other sorts of reactionary populists who resisted diversity and viewed the world through a lens of conspiracy theories.  It occurs to me that if the United had a multi-party system with a party of Trump populism, a traditional Conservative party (never Trump Republicans), a labor party (liberal Democrats), a centrist party (moderate Democrats), and the Greens and Libertarians, the Trump populist party might easily have the plurality. I'm just guessing here, but in a system with the six parties I've outlined, I guess the support for them might be like this (assuming there was no longer a dominant two-party system, which depresses support for Libertarians and Greens):

The American Right   (about 48% of the population)

30% Trump Populism

5% Libertarians

13% Republicans

The American Left  (about 52% of the population)

26% Moderate Democrats

6% Greens

20% Labor (Liberal and Radical Democrats)

Before the election aftermath, I had supposed that traditional Republicans who voted for Trump were about half of his support, and now that polling is showing how many people are believing Trump’s claims about the stolen election, I am realizing that those traditional (and reasonable) Republicans probably make up only about a third  or less of the electorate who voted for Trump. 

I tend to vote third-party, and I noticed that Howie Hawkins won only 0.3% of the national vote (nearly 400,000 votes).  The Green Party should probably focus on running candidates in local elections and state legislature districts, and put fewer resources into campaigns for the US Senate or the Presidential Office.  Back when the Green Party formed as a political party I thought it was a mistake, and thought the best way to promote the core values of the Green Movement was to work for them inside both the Republican and Democratic Parties, but now I think possibly Green Party candidates can do good services to their communities by running for school boards, county boards, city councils, and maybe when one of the two dominant parties has a “lock” on a state senate or house seat, the Green Party could offer an alternative so fewer races are uncontested. In the Illinois 96th House District a Green Candidate (John Keating) won 4.1% (1,607 votes) in a race against a fairly popular Democratic Incumbent (Sue Scherer, who won with 20,183) and a serious Republican challenger (Charles McGorray, who received 17,322 votes).  Earning 4.1% is better than earning 0.5% (Howie Hawkins got 0.5% of the Presidential vote in Illinois). In Governor races Green Party candidates have done well in Illinois: Rich Whitney won 10.36% of the vote in the 2010 Gubernatorial race, but then dropped to 2.7% when he ran again in 2014. 

I'll be voting for Hawkins in 2020

I don’t think I’ll ever join any political party, and I don’t typically endorse candidates, but I am happy to share who I intend to vote for and why. In the past I’ve sometimes written up my feelings about the candidates and shared these with neighbors (in Illinois one can get a list of registered voters and check out which party’s primary ballots they took, so I tend to address such letters to neighbors in my precinct who vote in Democratic primaries).  I think it’s important to engage in the democratic process and the culture of civil debate in the public sphere, and as a non-partisan voice, I think I sometimes add something to the debate. When it comes to ideologies and political preferences, I think our voting proclivities are somewhat like our tastes in food; you may like food that I find too spicy or too salty, and I may prefer vegetarian food over the meat you enjoy eating, but such differences don’t create any animosity between us or any feelings of superiority. This is my perspective because I think most people vote for candidates based on ethical values they have, and I believe we mostly have the same basic ethical values; and our political differences come mainly from the relative emphasis we put on these various shared values.  

In the United States, however, for a minority (about 20% of the population, fairly evenly split), personal identity is wrapped up with ideology or political party, and for such committed partisans, politics takes on the power of a religion. For such persons, it’s difficult to discuss the relative merits of policies advocated by various candidates, or the degree of wisdom and integrity each candidate may possess, since these highly partisan persons have such strong cognitive bias that they seem only able to process information about the correctness of their beliefs and the fallacies or idiocies of their opponents’ beliefs.

Political alignment surveys show that I prefer equality over markets, and I’m rated at 81% equality preferring (where a 50% equality / 50% markets preference would be completely in the center on that scale).  That gets me a label as “socialist” and I’m comfortable with that label describing my economic preferences. I’m in favor of confiscatory taxes to reduce extreme wealth so long as poverty exists (if we end poverty, I’d have few objections to low taxes on the wealthy). I do not think the public sector is inherently less efficient or impractical in solving distribution and production issues compared to the free enterprise for-profit sector. In some cases government tends to be more wasteful, but it needn’t be so, and in other cases government probably tends to be more efficient and effective, but it won’t always be, depending on the quality of persons in the government.  

I have a more global vision and not much national preference. I’m about 69% world-oriented rather than nation-oriented, which gets me a label as a “peaceful” oriented person. That seems right to me. I have always been concerned with the military-industrial complex, the threat of war, the history of American imperialism, and the toxic masculinity that feeds belligerent nationalism. I like to listen to Noam Chomsky’s critiques of American foreign policy, and I often agree with him, but I certainly perceive him as being too one-sided and anti-American in some of his interpretations of American national behavior in international relations. As a youth I was active in the nuclear freeze movement, the global protest movement against apartheid in South Africa, and I demonstrated against my country’s violent aggression and support for murderous regimes and terrorists in Central America. I demonstrated against the Iraq War before it started.  But, although I was opposed to the American invasion of Iraq, my main opposition was based on my (correct, as it later proved) perception that America would bungle the occupation and that we should not act unless we had a broad international coalition to remove the tyrannical dictatorship of the Baath Party. I'm not inherently against the international community intervening to remove murderous totalitarian despots, but as a practical matter, America hasn’t the ability or authority to do this. The U.N. Security Council, which does have the authority, is blocked from intervening by having Russia and the P.R. of China and the United States all on the Council with veto power, and those countries do not have a shared interest in intervening in “domestic affairs” to stop atrocities and promote human rights—China and Russia have regimes that actively oppose human rights. That is unfortunate, but until a large community of nations unite under a shared commitment to intervene militarily on humanitarian grounds, it isn’t right for any single nation or small coalition of nations to do so, especially not when the United Nations exists with the potential legitimacy to do so. 

I’m more for liberty than authority (64%), and so I’m labeled as “liberal” in that axis, and this seems right.  As a social work professor, I’m aware that many humans are troubled and behave in ways that harm others, so I’m not a total libertarian or anarchist (although I look forward to a time when humanity is ready for anarchy, probably after another hundred generations of social evolution).  On the axis of tradition versus progress, I rate 65% on the progress side. I do not entirely abandon tradition and traditional views, but like to imagine I share with most Americans a cultural bias that makes me more eager to see our society try new things and experiment with systems that might improve conditions.

In 2020, I intend to vote for Howie Hawkins and Angela Walker. I live in Illinois, a state where Biden will defeat Trump by more than 8-percentage-points, so I have the luxury of voting for Green Party candidates knowing my vote will have no chance of giving Trump a victory. The Democrats also control this state to such an extent that I can legitimately blame them for not instituting an instant run-off (ranked choice) election system such as the one used in Maine, where my second-choice vote for Biden-Harris would be available to the Democrats when Hawkins-Walker don’t win the state’s electoral college delegates. I like both Biden and Harris as human beings. They seem decent enough. They will probably win, and their administration will probably help us overcome the Pandemic Depression and the COVID-19 pandemic. They have fewer flaws than many of the other Democratic candidates I’ve known in my lifetime. But, I do not really think they have especially good policies or particularly good visions for the country.  Their records both indicate to me that there is a wide gap between my values and policy preferences and theirs. So, I prefer to vote for Hawkins and Walker, whose values and policies are much closer to mine.

I am not a person who tends to vote Democratic, who is disgusted with Biden and Harris, and will vote for Green candidates in protest.  Not at all.  On the contrary, I am a voter who has only rarely been excited by the Democratic Party nominations, and has usually supported or voted for third party candidates. I've met third party candidates and bought them to my universities (I helped bring Lenora Fulani of the New Alliance Party to Redlands in 1988 when I was an undergraduate student there; and in 2016 I helped bring Jill Stein to the University of Illinois in Springfield when I was a professor there). My understanding is that political scientists who examine third-party voters like me find that many of us would only vote for a third party candidate, and we would simply not vote for either mainstream candidate if our ballots lacked third-party options.  That is, third parties aren’t taking away our votes that would go to mainstream candidates; we’re so alienated from the mainstream parties that the only reason we cast any vote at all in the presidential elections is that there are third party candidates for whom we want to vote.  I think lots of people who identify as Democrats or Republicans haven’t read about this political science research, and they live with such a partisan world-view that they can only see the possibilities of Democratic or Republican candidates, and imagine that all other third party candidates are somehow illegitimate or unworthy of taking seriously. 

In 1980 I was inspired by John Anderson, a liberal Republican from Rockford, Illinois, who ran as an independent in the presidential race. I was lucky to meet him many years later and tell him how influential he had been to me. Yet, if I had been old enough to vote, I probably would have voted for Barry Commoner and LaDonna Harris of the Citizen’s Party. In 1984 I still wasn’t old enough to vote, but if I had been I would have again voted for the Citizen’s Party candidates (Sonia Johnson and Richard Walton), with Mondale-Ferraro (the Democrats) as my second choices.  I was old enough to vote in 1988, but I was in Kenya and did not have the time to get a ballot sent to me from the United States to vote absentee. I had been instrumental in bringing the third-party candidate Lenora Fulani (New Alliance Party) to the University of Redlands earlier in the year, to discuss her candidacy for president, and I might have written in her name, but then again, I might have voted for Dukakis, the Democratic nominee. I had of course met Fulani and her election staff, and liked her personally, but after meeting her and hearing her rhetoric, and also after some of my classmates had been involved in the California Peace and Freedom convention where Fulani’s campaign had tried to win the Peace and Freedom Party nomination for President, I had doubts about whether I really would vote for her for president. Had the Democrats nominated Richard Gephardt, a congressman from the St. Louis area whom I liked very much, I would have voted for him, but I suppose I would probably have voted for Fulani despite my misgivings about her.

In 1992 I voted for the first time in a presidential election. I wanted Clinton and Gore to win the election, but I was not happy with the Democratic Party platform or the candidates, so I made a protest vote for Ross Perot and James Stockdale, hoping that Perot and Stockdale would do well enough to possibly create a third party that could undermine the hegemony of the Republicans and Democrats. Lenora Fulani was again running for president, and I preferred her policies (and even Clinton’s policies) over those of Perot and Stockdale, but I thought Perot might help break down the two-party system, and that is the only reason I voted for him.

In 1996 I finally had an opportunity to vote for someone I really liked, and so I cast my vote for Nader and LaDuke (Green Party).  Nader and I had mutual friends, and those friends told me that he would actually be a horrible president because of his personal style of leadership and his inability to compromise, but I knew there was no danger of his winning the election, and I agreed almost 100% with the Green Party platform, so of course I gladly voted for him, not seeing much of a difference between Clinton (the Democratic Party incumbent, who was obviously going to easily win re-election) and the Republican Dole.  In 2000, I was again able to vote for Nader and the Green party, despite the race being fairly close between Bush and Gore.  Gore won the popular vote, and would have won the electoral college if all the votes in Florida had been re-counted, but the Supreme Court staged a sort of coup and installed Bush in the White House (I know I'm overstating it, and Gore conceded, which really ended the race), so we were stuck with the worst president since Millard Fillmore or James Buchanan. I was voting in Missouri that year, and the election in my state was projected to be close; so I offered to do a vote exchange with a friend in Massachusetts, where Gore was sure to win.  My offer was rebuffed.  My friend did not want to encourage anyone to vote for Nader, and would not cast a vote for Nader in a safe Gore state to get me to vote for Gore in Missouri. 

In 2004 I again, for the third straight election, voted for the Green Party candidate (David Cobb). This was my first time voting in Illinois, and Cobb wasn’t even on the ballot, so I had to write-in his name. As a high school and college student I had been a supporter of the Green Committees of Correspondence, and I was one who thought the Green Movement ought to exist as a party-inside-a-party like the Democratic Socialists.  That is, rather than running candidates as a political party, the Green movement should find candidates to run as Democrats or Republicans or non-partisan candidates in local elections, and support (presumably) the Democratic candidates in Presidential elections. So, while I thought it was a mistake to create a Green Party to run in elections, and I continue to think it’s self-defeating and silly to run Green Party candidates for President, I still vote for Green Party candidates. I would rather see more Green Movement people run in local elections or for state-level offices; until we have thousands of Greens in positions on local school boards, city councils, county boards, and so forth, I don’t think the Greens have the practical experience or depth of knowledge to run candidates for the US House or Senate, let alone the Presidency. And yet, I’ve voted for Green Candidates in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2016, and I intend to do so again in 2020.

I voted for Obama in both 2008 and 2012. I have several mutual friends with him, and people who know him really seem to like him. Living in Springfield, many people around here knew him as a state senator. I even communicated with him a couple times about using his memoir in my community organizing class at UIUC, and mentioned that I had a student who knew him back in the days when he was an organizer in the Roseland neighborhoods up in Chicago. Had he not become a U.S. Senator and then President, I’m sure he would have come and spoken to my classes. Anyway, I think Obama was a great president, and given the hostility and opposition he faced, and the lackluster leadership in the Senate and House for the first two years of his Presidency when the Democratic Party controlled Congress, I think he did much better than anyone could have expected him to do.  Obama was an exceptional person with qualities that set him up among FDR, Lincoln, and Jefferson as a great American statesman, but he had not had enough time in the Senate to develop a talent for getting legislation passed, and his theory of the Presidency was that the Executive Branch leadership should not try to command the legislative branch, and this inexperience and theory of his role resulted in weakness when he was in the White House.  Anyway, with Obama on the ballot, I “crossed over” and voted for the Democratic candidate instead of the Green Party candidate in two election cycles.

Although I admit that the Green Party attracts some fairly flakey and fringe people, when I look abroad to countries where it is more of a serious party, I note that the Green Party has a fairly good track record of governing in places where it has won elections or served in coalition governments. The Four Pillars of Green Ideals and the Ten Core Values of the Green Party are good, and I enthusiastically agree with eight of the the ten core values. I do have some misgivings about decentralization, which is one of the ten core values. In general, I do think people ought to give far more attention to local and state government, and I prefer local government because common people can have a greater say in what happens (grassroots democracy).  But in practice, for many types of policy related to social welfare, it just seems far more efficient for national policies.  And, even at a local level, regional coordination seems to me the best strategy for addressing many problems, rather than efforts at the neighborhood or municipal level. I’m also very much in favor of community-based economics, but again, there are some aspects of international trade and globalized economics that benefit everyone, and I’m not generally in favor of protectionism just for the sake of protecting the interests of local producers and service-providers.  That is, I have a nuanced attitude toward community-based economics. 

Check out https://www.isidewith.com/ to see whose positions best match your positions

Years ago, there were many Republicans who might be called liberal or moderate, and I respected and admired many of those.  In this group I would include Richard Lugar of Indiana (whom I met when I was a child), John Danforth of Missouri, Mark Hatfield of Oregon, John Anderson of Illinois, and John Chafee of Rhode Island. Had I voted in 1988, I would have voted against John Danforth, but I still liked him and admired him.  These days I am unaware of any Republican on the national scene for whom I have much respect.  At the local level, I know some people involved in county or city politics with Republican affiliations whom I like and have supported, but really only a few.  I wish there was a party that represented the intellectual and moral preferences of conservatives, but did so in a way that had integrity and decency. I think that ever since about 1994, this country has been harmed by a dysfunctional insanity that has swept away what was the Republican Party and replaced it with a monstrous imposter; the current Republican Party is like a changeling child some wicked fairy has exchanged to replace the natural human infant.  

Basically, I vote for Green Party candidates if they are on the ballot, and since they usually aren’t, I tend to vote for a lot of Democrats.  And when it comes to donating money to candidates, I give more to the Democrats than the Greens. I do this because I know my own values and know the values that guide the parties, and there is a very close correspondence between my values and those of the Green Party and its candidates.  There is a moderate correspondence between my values and the Democratic Party, so I also often vote for Democrats, and there is only a very weak correspondence between my values and those of the Republican Party as it currently exists, so I hardly ever vote for Republicans. When it comes to policy proposals, I again tend to think that the Green Party candidates offer policy suggestions that would do the most to improve our society. The Democrats tend to offer policies that seem to me fairly good, or not too terrible, and the Republicans have lately offered very few sensible policies, and what few policies they have suggested are often, to my way of seeing things, ridiculous.  That said, when Democratic Party politicians suggest impractical or unsustainable policies, sometimes Republicans give very good critiques of the problems in those Democratic Party proposals. Sometimes it seems to me that the best Democratic Party policy proposals are inspired by things the Green Movement or Green Party candidates have already suggested years earlier. 

Many of my friends and family members strongly identify with the Democratic Party, and there are a couple who are on the other side, voting Republican. I think most of the Democrats I know think it’s a waste to vote for the Green Party candidates, but I obviously disagree. In most states, the election for the President is not in doubt; probably in thirty or more states you can vote for a third-party candidate without any realistic expectation that there will be an upset in your state. In perhaps 20 states (the so-called “battleground” states) you might hesitate to vote for a Green Party candidate, because you fear that the race is close enough that the votes for the mainstream candidate you like least will overwhelm your preferred mainstream candidate if too many people vote for third-party candidates. In such states, it does make sense to vote for the mainstream candidate you prefer. Even better, you should try to get your state to have second-choice (instant run-off) elections where you can vote for a second or even third choice candidate, and if your first choice candidate doesn’t win sufficient votes, your vote will count for your second choice candidate instead of being “wasted” on someone who couldn’t win the election. 

People who say, “a vote for Hawkins is a vote for Trump” are obviously wrong. Ideally, parties must nominate persons we genuinely want to elect who propose policies we want to see enacted in order to win our votes. I like Hawkins, and I like his background, and I think he is far better a representation of me and my values than Biden or Harris. I prefer the Green Party policies to those of the Democrats.  And so, ideally, people who share my values and preferences ought to vote for Hawkins, at least in the safe states where the presidential election is a foregone conclusion. On a practical level, any one person’s vote does not make much of a difference, and so people can vote their conscience without any serious concerns about an election being decided by their one vote. Also on a practical level, the mainstream parties have it within their power to change election laws to allow instant-run-off second-choice balloting in elections, and if Democrats have not advocated for such election rules, they have no moral standing to criticize anyone for casting a vote for a third party.  They have protected and perpetuated a system that creates the problem they are complaining about, so I blame them, rather than the Green Party voter, for the threat to their victories posed by third-party candidates. 

Although I will vote Green again this year in the Presidential race, I'm not endorsing or advocating for anyone else to vote as I will. Everyone should vote for the candidate they prefer, and if you live in a region where the vote between two mainstream candidates will be close, you might want to vote for the mainstream candidate you prefer even if your favorite candidate is running on a third party ticket. I'll be donating money to a Green candidate for a seat in the Illinois General Assembly (challenging an incumbent Republican in a district where the Democrats aren't even running a candidate), and making contributions to the Democratic candidate in the Illinois 13th Congressional District (where I live) and some Democratic Senate candidates in states where the Democrats might unseat a Republican or where Democratic incumbents are threatened by Republican challengers. If you have time or money, you might want to donate some of it to candidates you think are likely to improve our country and enact good policies. That is what citizens ought to do in a functioning democratic society.

I do think, however, we have a duty to listen to the people with whom we disagree, and we ought to try to understand why people support candidates who seem awful to us. We also ought not allow partisan sentiments to cloud our hearts so that we feel alienated from people who prefer different politicians or policies from what we like. Yes, if there is a politician who is actually and obviously an odious person who is advocating belligerent wars of conquest, or stripping away our civil rights, or violations of human rights, or racist policies against people based on their nationalities or ethnicities, in those cases we might indeed rightfully feel emotionally upset that anyone would support such things, as those are all obviously morally wrong.  

There are issues even between mainstream candidates that seem obviously wrong to some people.  Abortion, for some, seems as obviously wrong as murder, while for others abortion seem to have almost no moral implications and it is the desire to take away the rights of privacy between a woman and her doctor (and thus, her right to decide to terminate a pregnancy) that seems obviously wrong. I, for one, feel that abortion is probably morally wrong, but I also want to live in a secular society that doesn’t impose theocratic laws over the citizens, and a law forbidding all abortion would be a violation of that separation of church and state I value so much. Thus, I do not care much about a candidate’s position on abortion. It is often thus when people feel polarized and angry and hostile in political conflicts; they see things as being morally clear, and for most of us, the arguments do not seem so obvious, and we don’t see how the harms and benefits compare to give us obvious conclusions. So, we care more about the process of debate and political conflict, and we want that conflict to be peaceful, civil, respectful, and in the end, a shared and common search for the best compromise. 

*********

Less than two years after writing the above post the Green Party voted to endorse a statement that was essentially repeating Putin’s propaganda about Ukraine. In other words, the Green Party in the USA had become so dominated by Putin-loving radical leftists that it no longer represented (to my way of thinking) an attractive option.  The Green Party as it exists in European countries generally has much better policies and higher quality candidates, and so the Green Party sometimes wins significant elections or gets to participate in ruling coalitions.  

The Problems We Face Now

I was thinking about the things that most concern me. What are the issues that I think are most serious, and deserve the most attention?  I've made here a list of the top twenty problems I worry about.  These are the social problems and situations that bother me the most.  These are in ranked order.

The COVID-19 Pandemic is not on the list, because I think we will have it handled within a few years, and likewise the economic depression or recession that results from the COVID-19 will probably be solved in a few years. Of course I am extremely worried about the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States right now, but because I do not think it will be an enduring challenge to our society, it does not rank in my top continuing concerns. Someday we may face a virus with an R-naught of 10, a latency period of two to four weeks, and an infection morality rate of 50%, and when we're faced with something like that I'll be scared. Likewise, we may someday detect an asteroid 5 kilometers in length on a collision path with our planet, and that would jump to the top of the list.  But those threats seem remote to me just now.

So, here is my top list.

1) Climate Threat

I am frightened by the global climate change that threatens to make oceans rise and temperatures go up so that some areas of the planet become essentially uninhabitable. The resulting mass migration away from coastal cities and torrid regions, combined with the loss of cropland due to coastal flooding, will present challenges.  This problem poses a nearly existential threat to humanity, and all other problems on this list are far less important in comparison.  I would solve this problem first, if I had to choose, but of course the solution to this problem will involve addressing several of the other problems on this list.

Protesters in Springfield, Illinois want the environment to be protected

2) Nuclear War

I am disturbed by the threat of nuclear war, which remains remote, but continues to be real. So long as the weapons exist and countries that have nuclear weapons such as Russia, North Korea, China, Pakistan, India, Israel, and the United States threaten war, I am uneasy about the long-term future of humanity. Until there is an strong system for regulating international relations in such a way that war becomes impossible, these weapons pose a nearly existential threat to humanity’s long-term future.

Because this threat is not imminent, it could perhaps be ranked near the end of the list.  But unlike the other 18 problems below it, this problem poses a real threat to the planet that is so worrisome that I think it deserves its number 2 ranking. It is also a problem I believe could be solved with greater ease than many of the other problems on this list.

Survivors mourn at mass grave

3) China's government is too belligerent toward Taiwan.

I am worried by threats that the Communist Party of China and the People’s Liberation Army make, where they claim they may invade and conquer the Republic of China headquartered in Taiwan. If the authorities in Beijing launch such a war, I think America, NATO, Japan, and other Asian countries must come to Taiwan’s defense, and in so doing, there is a threat of an escalation of the conflict that could lead to a world war between the PRC and much of the rest of the world. I care very much about the people of China and Taiwan, and I do not want to see a war that would impose terrible suffering on those people.

Sunflower Movement protests in Taipei

4) The displaced people need our care

I care very much about the continuing problem of displaced people around the world who are refugees from racism and war, and in particular the fate of persons fleeing violent anarchy and prejudices in Central America (Guatemala-Honduras-El Salvador), Myanmar, Syria, Afghanistan, and other places. The international system needs to create fulfilling lives for refugees so that they can live in safety and develop their skills and personalities, and be productive and happy. This is a burden all humanity should share. I am not in favor of open borders, but I do think humanity needs to create resettlement regions and enclaves where people will be safe, and where people can build new lives while having their human rights respected.

Ai Weiwei’s Odyssey (2016)

5) Poverty in the United States. Why does it continue?  Why don't we end this travesty?

I am outraged by the perpetuation of poverty and economic deprivation in the United States, a country that has achieved a level of wealth that makes it possible to eliminate poverty. Our country has allowed the creation of many billionaires and multi-millionaires who hold concentrated wealth in a society where over a third of the population lives with economic precarious paycheck-to-paycheck insecurity or else actual poverty.  Poverty is the root of many of our social problems, and if we would eliminate poverty (with a mix of guaranteed employment and basic minimum incomes) we could drastically reduce many of the problems we now face.

Protesters want government to respect the interests of everyone

6) Racial prejudices and racism

I am committed to addressing the general problem of racism and prejudice in the United States. There is a widespread feeling of paranoia and distrust aimed against African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Americans with American Indian heritage (including Hispanic Americans).  I’m especially concerned about the 20% to 30% of Americans who are hostile toward “black and brown” and want to keep high levels of social distance from persons with non-European heritage. I’m concerned about the subtle racial prejudices that make Americans overvalue European racial characteristics and heritage and devalue non-European heritage. This racism and failure to see that we are all one family, one race, is a core problem in my culture. Many injustices are rooted in a large segment of European-Americans refusing to support policies and interventions that would address the problem, but we are also plagued by many well-meaning anti-racism activists more concerned with identity politics and symbolic interventions instead of using empirical evidence to guide us toward the interventions and policies that would most effectively reduce racism.

Martin Luther King Day festival at Civil Rights Museum in Memphis

7) Violence, violent crime, militarism (all associated with a toxic masculinity in my culture)

I am concerned about the violent tendencies in my culture. The gun-loving fetish of a significant minority of the country, combined with the tendency toward violence in some national sub-cultures, makes my society have a very high rate of death and injury due to homicide, suicide, and firearms accidents. Mass shootings, domestic violence, child abuse, violent crime in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty, foreign policies that cause thousands of innocent civilians in foreign lands to perish, and a glorification of military power (the achievement of being able to kill many people whom we have dehumanized) are all manifestations of this tendency toward violence in America. I say this as a person who enjoys hunting, and who does think that some Americans (“well-regulated” could mean “well-trained and licensed”) should have a right to own and use some kinds of firearms.

Poster during the Sunflower student movement in 2014

8) Anti-intellectualism in American society

I am concerned with the anti-intellectualism in my society, and the tendency of Americans to devalue the evidence of science and dispassionate and reasoned argument, and instead use cognitive distortion and confirmation bias to inform their opinions on most controversial matters. I also lament the low quality of intellectual life in our public sphere, the rather shallow understanding of theology, science, philosophy, history, art, and aesthetics of most Americans. My national culture is rightly criticized for being overly materialistic and shallow, and this is an aspect of my society for which I am ashamed.

Protesters in January of 2017

9) Increasing inequality.

I am concerned with the growing inequality and excessive power concentrated in the hands of economic elites. I detest the “winner-take-all” society.  The pay differentials between those who serve as corporate executives and leaders of major institutions  and those who serve as rank-and-file workers and professionals erodes democracy. The concentration of wealth is deeply unfair, and causes resentment and anger, because the masses of American workers who are productive and working long hours are seeing most of the fruits of their labors go to a minority (the top 10%) while living standards are fairly stagnant for most of us. The powerful and wealthy control much of the news and political debate, and the political parties have been captured by the elites, so that very few political leaders authentically represent the interests of the vast majority of Americans.  Billionaires can buy elections, and they influence the political system so that taxes on the wealthy remain relatively low, while public goods and public services are diminished in quality.

The problem is widespread across the globe. Economic elites can hide their money in tax havens, and avoid contributing to the public welfare.  This is wrong, and it is wreaking havoc everywhere.

Occupy Springfield protest in 2011

10) Industrial food production and the inhumane treatment of the animals we eat.

I am worried about the food system being dominated by a few companies that use an industrial production model to provide food, and especially meat, in a system that is unjustifiably cruel and harmful. The treatment of livestock, of agricultural workers, of the land, and of many other workers involved in bringing food from fields to the table is unacceptable to me.

As a person who is sometimes a farmer and farmers market food vendor, and also as someone who enjoys hunting (only for animals I would eat), my concern is partly about the alienation between modern people and the sources of their food. This alienation makes people willing to accept food systems that are unsustainable and destructive. It also prevents people from understanding the consequences of their food choices.

Protesters in Springfield, Illinois

11) The Police Problem.

I am worried about our system of criminal justice and law enforcement that incarcerates over two million Americans. Associated with this is our police force that seems to be filled with too many sadistic and brutal persons. I think that our society has a policing problem. I have friends in law enforcement, and I do not hate the police; in fact, I rather admire and like many persons drawn by the idealism of “protecting and serving the public” who show by their actions that they really want to help and protect people.  I also know that there are people who are predators, who are psychopaths or suffering from anti-social personality disorder, who are dangerous, from whom we need protection. But I believe many local law enforcement organizations, as well as state police forces, and even the Federal Marshals and FBI, have been infiltrated by corrupt persons who are basically callous, violent, vindictive, paranoid, and hateful. This is a huge problem.  We need a system that emphasizes prevention of crime and raising the rates of solving crimes and finding perpetrators and rehabilitating them (if possible), rather than a system that is based on intimidation and retribution (harsher punishments do not effectively reduce crime). We need a system that rehabilitates persons who can be rehabilitated, rather than a “corrections” system that punishes people without doing much to help them reform or reintegrate as healthy and productive citizens after they have been punished. Yes, there are people so dangerous that they need to be locked up forever, and there are people who unjustly hate all police and are violent threats to law enforcement workers, but the primary problem is a toxic culture in many police departments and in the widespread contempt in which many police hold the rest of us, the way our justice system is a retribution and hate system, rather than a rehabilitation system.

Young Taiwanese idealists face off against riot control police

12) Inadequate services for persons with substance abuse problems.

I am concerned with the lack of services and assistance for persons suffering from substance abuse or addiction. I believe that substance abuse and dependence is a major cause of child maltreatment and homelessness, and it seems insane to me that our society is not putting more resources into substance abuse treatment and substance abuse prevention. I believe that reducing social isolation and increasing psychological and relationship training in K-12 schools is one way to effectively prevent some of the substance abuse.  In the meantime, we must provide treatment for persons who are abusing substances, and especially persons who are homeless and abusing substances.

I would do whatever worked to solve this problem. Pragmatism should guide us.  If the government legalized all dangerous addictive drugs and then created a state monopoly on them, and gave them out free to those who wanted to use or abuse them, but constantly encouraged those persons to get free treatment to reduce their addictions or abuse, I would support that sort of thing if evidence showed such a policy would significantly solve the problem.  On the other extreme, if we had mandatory life imprisonments for everyone who was caught selling or distributing any quantity of dangerous addictive substances, and put them all to work breaking rocks in the Aleutian Archipelago, and that approached worked, I would support it.  In other words, I am in favor of almost anything, whatever it takes, to pragmatically solve this problem. Until we help persons who suffer from addiction, we are going to continue to have high rates of child maltreatment, homelessness, and property crime.

Aboriginal Formosans join in protest against policies threatening their well-being

13) Inadequate mental health services.

I am worried about the lack of treatment for persons with mental illness, and I am especially concerned about the lack of support for family caregivers who take care of persons suffering from persistent and chronic mental illness or dementia.

Human Service providers try to remind Illinois government of their duties

14) Cultural celebration of cynical nihilism, coarse language, and materialism.

I am distressed by a crudeness and descent into profanity and cynical nihilism in our popular culture. My culture generally accepts glorification of hateful violence and meaningless sex in popular music and film. I am not a prude, and I do not object to the use of profanity in art, but our language has become so crude and debased with offensive words that such words have lost their impact. Many artists and creative types attempt to shock just for the fun of shocking people, and offer no serious criticism of problems or any constructive suggestions in their art. Likewise I believe sex is a worthwhile topic for art and popular culture to address, but it seems to me that the capitalist impulse has harnessed human sexuality and used it to create a culture where many people seem to care more about sex than love. I recognize that the quality and diversity of popular media (music, film, television, and other arts) is now very good, and we are in a golden age in some sense.  Yet, despite this, the most popular forms of leisure arts, especially popular music and video gaming and film) seem dominated by the most empty and materialistic drivel packaged for mass consumption, and there is too much violence and excessive shallow sexuality. 

15) Injustice of the American immigration system

I am appalled by our immigration system.  I prefer the United States to have a fairly stable population, and so I favor a modest decrease in immigration, but I still want a significant number of immigrants allowed into the country.  I want these immigrants to include many who come here to unify families, and I also want us to bring in refugees and talented persons from all corners of the world. We ought to have an immigration system with clear rules and procedures, and persons coming to our country ought to know exactly what they should do to apply for rights to live here or to become citizens. When visitors or immigrants apply for legal status or naturalization, our system ought to swiftly give them clear answers about their status. We ought to allow people who are culturally American because they came here as children and grew up as Americans to remain here and become citizens, even if they are undocumented immigrants (provided they have committed no serious crimes and have made positive contributions to society as students, workers, or volunteers).

Water Protector Encampment at Standing Rock Reservation

16) Black Lives Matter

I am concerned about bias in our police and courts that manifests in higher rates of state-sponsored violence against members of minority communities.  That is, I’m concerned about police being disrespectful and bullying African-Americans and others who are non-white. I am concerned that courts give harsher sentences to persons who are non-white.  I am unhappy about the fact that our society gives much attention to the crimes against wealthy and European-Americans, and largely ignores crimes and injustices perpetrated against poor and non-European-Americans. I think that non-whites are over-represented as victims of unjustified police violence against suspects or harmless innocent persons. I believe that the Justice Department’s report on the Ferguson Police Department shows a type of racist police culture that, while not being universal or dominant in local police forces, is probably still fairly common and widespread.

My friend Diane Elze engages in her civic duties

17) Growth of extremism and intolerance in civil discourse in my culture. Rise of fascism.

I am concerned about tendencies toward extremism and intolerance in my culture.  On the right, there seems to be a more rabid and proto-fascist cult of authoritarianism manifested in the people who practically worship Donald Trump, and the general tendency in the Republican Party to excuse the Trump Administration’s traitorous behaviors. There also seems to be more racist and nationalist behavior and extremism on the far right. To a lesser extent, the Democrats and the far left are mirroring this behavior, and I’m concerned about cancel culture and a tendency toward group-think and identity politics on the left.  I have never admired or identified with either the Democrats or Republicans.  The Democrats tend to support policies with which I agree about 60% of the time, whereas the Republicans and I agree on policies maybe 10% of the time, so when I can’t vote for a Green candidate, I tend to vote for Democrats, but I do not think people ought to identify with political parties or ideologies. We ought to instead identify by our passions, hobbies, values, beliefs, families, communities, and our professions or trades, and our geographic locations. The tendency of Americans to identify by their political tribe is worrisome to me. I’m especially bothered by the fact that the tribes often suspend critical thinking and just engage in group-think in support of their “cause” or their “tribe” no matter what the facts are.

Protester in Springfield, IL

18) Global erosion of democracy and the rise of nationalism and the authoritarian right.

I am worried about the growing nationalism in India, Russia, China, Brazil, the Philippines, Hungary, Turkey, Poland, Israel, and of course my own country. These nationalisms are eroding democracy, and in places like India, China, Russia, and the United States they threaten world peace. I’m especially worried about the way the ruling dictatorship in China is promoting hatred and resentment against Europeans, Americans, and Japanese in their education and mass media systems, and I think this sort of virulent nationalism is being promoted in China and other countries to distract the masses from the corruption, incompetence, and miss-management of the political elites.  I think this nationalism also makes the public in such societies more susceptible to militarism and justifications for war.

Nationalists who went too far in the former Yugoslavia

19) Sexism.

I am upset at the continuing sexism oppressing women, and the enduring threats of sexual violence against women, whether in human trafficking for the sex trade, violence against women in the home, honor killings, or rape as a tool of terrorism and warfare. I am angry about the fact that women are paid less than men, with their salaries perhaps being 4% or 5% less than men’s salaries (after controlling for education, type of occupation, tenure in occupation, type of work, and tenure in specific job).  I am angry at the injustice that “women’s work” is devalued compared to “men’s work” so that nurses, school teachers, social workers, and others are relatively low-paid.

Grave of a boy who was murdered in Srebrenica.

20) Degraded natural environment and extinction of species.

I am distressed by the environmental destruction wrought by humanity beyond the problems of climate change.  The bush meat trade, the conversion of rainforests to rangeland, the poaching of rare animals, the exhaustion of fisheries, and other human attacks on ecosystems are causing the extinction of many animal species. 

Earth Day poster

Other Concerns

There are many other issues I care about that are not in my top twenty. I think it is crazy that we do not have universal health insurance or universal health care provision here in the United States. That is probably the 21st issue if my list continued.  I am bothered by continuing prejudices against persons who are transgender or queer or have other sexuality tendencies or gender identities outside the heterosexual hegemony. I am distressed by religious extremism and fundamentalism in all religions, including my own.  I am dismayed by the persecution of my co-coreligionists in Iran. I am opposed to the tyranny and cruelty of the worst governments (in North Korea, and several other countries). I am upset at the cruel injustices against the Uighurs and other Islamic minorities in China, the oppression of the Tibetans, the mistreatment of the Palestinians, the persecution of the Rohingya, the continuing injustices perpetrated against American Indians, and so forth. I am concerned at any attempts to erode the civil rights of Americans by diminishing the protections of the Bill of Rights. I do not think the state should intrude on the rights of women and their doctors to have privacy in their medical decisions (even decisions about terminating pregnancies).  All these things also bother me, but they just are not in my top twenty list.