Where To Go From Here—Part 1

In my most recent posts, I have tried to remove the sugar coating, or any coating, from the magnitude of America’s loss in the last election.  I thought it important to stop the finger-pointing and rationalizations for what was an unmitigated disaster for Democrats and democracy.  As such, I ended my last post with, “But if we are not clear-eyed about where we are at, we will be as unequipped to begin the long, hard road back as we were to foresee the speed of the descent.  And a long and hard road it will be.”

So where do we begin?  What can we do to mitigate the effects of a president and a party for whom cruelty and heartlessness seem almost to be considered virtues?

The first step, radical as it seems, is, for the present, to give up on the federal government.  There is no impacting policy for at least two years, and likely longer than that.  In the absence of an unexpected pandemic-caliber disaster or a fiscal collapse (unlikely since Trump is inheriting such a robust economy), Democrats will be hard-pressed to win back either house in 2026.  And then there is the Supreme Court…

And so, instead of tilting at windmills, we must turn our eyes to where we can make tangible gains.  The local level. 

This approach is sort of a political Moneyball.  We must look for opportunities where resources can be applied to positive effect, even though they may seem like drops in the bucket.  It can be a slow and arduous process, but the bucket will never be filled without those drops.

There are two components, electoral and functional.  Electorally, Democrats should take a lesson from Republicans in 2010.  After the 2008 elections, with Obama in the White House and Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, each with a majority much larger than Republicans currently enjoy, Republicans were in despair.  In addition to ramping up their efforts to take back Congress—not likely to be fruitful for Democrats now—they turned their focus to local and statewide elections.  They zeroed in on cities and towns, school boards, and other governing bodies where their impact on the lives of constituents could be immediately felt, and then translated those gains statewide and, eventually, to Washington.

This is not to say 2010 is congruent with 2026.  For any number of reasons, many of which have been detailed in these posts, Democrats have a much harder task.  But that does not mean they should not undertake it.  It takes commitment and, of course, money, but a lot less money than the hundreds of millions spent—and often wasted—on national elections.  Democrats need to be clever in identifying targets where the Republicans’ extreme ideology leaves them vulnerable.

If they are deft, Democrats can exploit Republicans’ zeal to weaken Washington, cut the federal budget, and return control of any number of programs to states and localities.  Many will be underfunded. The Supreme Court has thus far backed them up.  Until now, Democrats opposed that strategy as an attempt to subvert their influence.  They should now embrace it and turn it to their own purposes.

The second stream is functional, areas where the private sector can either supplant government or replace it.  This also takes money, of course, but with the Jeffrey Katzenbergs and Mark Cubans of the world, as well as sources like the Gates Foundation, there is plenty of cash out there.  Getting the liberal billionaire class to back smaller, less ostentatious projects might take some persuasion, but perhaps the offer to put their names on anything they sponsor might do the trick.

Two obvious places to set up a shadow public sector are medical care and schools, both of which promise to be under assault in the coming years.

Here is an example of what one American achieved in an environment far more challenging than this one.

The day after the devastating earthquake in Haiti in 2010, a good friend of ours, Jonathan Glynn, a noted painter and sculptor, was flying his single engine Cessna to Miami.  Hearing of the horrific destruction, he flew to Haiti to see if he could help.  There were no functioning airfields so he was forced to land where he could, no mean feat for a recreational pilot.  As was later reported by Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post, “Upon arrival in Haiti, he learned that thousands of amputations were being undertaken with carpentry saws and no anesthesia or antibiotics. For the next 19 days, Glynn became an air force of one, transporting morphine, antibiotics and surgical saws to medical outposts.”

But he didn’t stop there.  Jonathan decided to contribute something of lasting consequence so he identified an area outside the cities, where the poverty was overwhelming, and decided to build a school.  He begged and cajoled, button-holing his wealthy New York friends and, defying the odds, the school was built.  He called the group Wings Over Haiti.

But books and classrooms were not enough.  The children to be fed and clothed and provided with basic medical care.  He raised the money for that as well.  Currently, that first Wings Over Haiti school has more than 300 students from nursery to 12th grade and a faculty of more than 25.

This from the “curriculum” entry on their website.

“In accordance with the Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training of Haiti, Wings Over Haiti follows the national curriculum implemented by the Ministry of Education. Beginning in pre-primary, students learn bilingually in Haitian Creole and French, with an emphasis on Haitian Creole to support literacy acquisition. As students progress through elementary school, French instruction increases, to prepare students for national exams that are in French. Beyond core educational subjects, students also learn about the importance of physical health to promote well-being and reduce risk of illness.”

From that success, Glynn and his associates embarked on a similar project in Ranquitte, another area with little or no services from the central government.  That school recently graduated its first kindergarten class.

Still, for all the work, Jonathan did not change Haiti. Who knows, however, but that one of the children who come through his schools might be the one to do so.

Perhaps we cannot currently change the United States, but, like Jonathan, we can try to make a start.

(My thinking on this is evolving. More specifics in Part 2.)