Ad Hominem, Ad Nauseum

I've been hearing a lot lately about ad hominem arguments. The election has been rife with them. Often, the people shouting "ad hominem" seem to have been recently introduced to the concept, as they use it incorrectly.

I have been mildly critical of Bernie Sanders, at best. At times, I have stated, for example, that he has no K-12 education plan. That is not an ad hominem attack. It is a fact. If someone perceives that as an ad hominem, they are simply wrong. Here's an example:

Bernie Sanders is an idiot. (This is an ad hominem. Before someone attacks me, I have never asserted this and do not believe this to be true).

Bernie Sanders has no K-12 education plan. (This is not an ad hominem. It does not attack the man himself, but his policies or lack thereof.)

See the difference?

I have also been accused of ad hominems by using the term "Bernie Bros". This does not refer to Bernie's supporters, but rather the tiny fraction of them who use racist, sexist, or otherwise demeaning terms in referring to our nominee, Hillary Clinton. These people actually exist. To prove it, here's a quote from Bernie Sanders himself denouncing them: "I have heard about it. It's disgusting," Mr. Sanders said. "Look, we don't want that crap. We will do everything we can, and I think we have tried."

If you still doubt they exist, they have formed a Facebook page called "Bernie Sanders Dank Memes". I don't recommend visiting it, because it is filled with the vile sexism and racism I mentioned earlier. Lest you think this is some fringe group, this page alone has almost 440,000 members as of this writing. Here's an example of what they find funny.

If you find calling the first woman nominated for president by a major party a "whore" funny, then you are a Bernie Bro. If you think it's outrageous, then you're not.

The above "dank meme" is an ad hominem attack. Unless you take the meaning of ad hominem, which in Latin means "to the man", literally, and you think it's OK insult women.

The same people who complain about ad hominems against Bernie also feel perfectly free to call Hillary a criminal, a murderer, and worse, all without any sense of awareness or irony.

For the record, I have been the subject of some ad hominems myself. Most Facebook people are fine with the pro-Clinton stuff I post on Facebook. Some aren't. All I can say is, if you're a FB friend of mine and you don't like it, you are free to unfriend me. You are also free not to read or subscribe to this blog. I'm a big boy. I can take it.

My worst experience was on Twitter. Someone actually threatened to harm my children because I had the audacity to retweet something from Hillary. That person was a Bernie Bro. If you think that kind of stuff is OK, you are a Bernie Bro. 

By the way, if you are one of those people who claim that Hillary "rigged" or "stole" the election, you are engaging in ad hominem attacks. It is a criminal act to tamper with votes, so you are accusing her of being a criminal. The reality is that Hillary earned millions of more votes than Bernie. She earned hundreds of more pledged delegates than Bernie. She won the vast majority of both open and closed primaries. If there had been no superdelegates at all, but a proportional allocation based on votes, she would have won by a huge margin anyway. The only place where Bernie did really well was in caucuses, which is the most undemocratic way to allocate delegates of them all.

Simply put, she won, no matter how you look at it.

In addition, if you are one of those people who call voting for Clinton "the lesser of two evils", you are engaging in an ad hominem attack. You are saying that she is evil, just less so than Trump. That is attacking the person, not the policies.

I first came out for Hillary back in February. I said at the time that if Bernie won, I would support him wholeheartedly, because I knew he'd be a better President than Trump. I am concerned with things like the Supreme Court, the rights of Muslims and Hispanics and women and LGBT folks, and a liberal agenda. I have no doubt that had Bernie won, he would have fought for the people. I wouldn't care about the Bernie supporters who insulted me or threatened my kids and hold it against the man himself. 

If you're concerned about these issues, too, you'll vote for Hillary. 

I don't want to say what you are if you vote for Trump or a third party because your feelings got hurt in the course of a contentious primary. That would be an ad hominem attack. 

Who Said it Best: Berners or Trumpeters?

Pop Quiz: Who is more likely to say each phrase, a Berner or a Trumpeter?

1. Hillary's crooked! 2. Hillary's a criminal! 3. The primaries were rigged! 4. The FBI doesn't understand the law! 5. That was an ad hominem/ad populum/strawman! (while exhibiting little understanding of any of those phrases) 6. We live in an oligarchy! 7. It's because she's a woman! 8. If only people understood my candidate more, they'd vote for him! 9. Hillary only won because of low information voters (i.e., minorities)! 10. I'd rather see this country go down in flames than vote for her! 11. My candidate doesn't take money from PACs, so he is pure and can say what he really thinks! 12. Sure, my candidate has no specifics on how to implement his ideas, but at least he has ideas! 13. This is a political revolution! 14. I don't know a single person who supports Hillary. That proves she cheated! 15. The polls are obviously rigged, because they don't show my candidate winning!

HOW TO SCORE:

• If you answered that most of the quotes are from Bernie supporters, you are a Trump supporter.
• If you answered that most of the quotes are from Trump supporters, you are a Bernie supporter.
• If you have spittle running down your face because of your rage, you may be either.
• If you are smiling quietly because all of these attempts from the right and the left have failed miserably and Hillary has a clear path to the presidency, you are a Hillary supporter.

You Don't Like Hillary? Well, Voters Don't Like Bernie

I spend a lot of time reading and writing about the primary. Although I've written a few blog posts here, I devote much of my commenting to places like Reddit and Facebook, which are lousy with posts about Bernie. The vitriol I have received in return has been mind-blowing.

Most of the pro-Bernie camps talk about basically three issues: that Hillary is unlikable, untrustworthy, and essentially a Republican. Let me address this in one simple word: bullshit.

Let's tackle them one by one: likability. I get it Sanders supporters--you don't like her. You point to polls that show Bernie is much more likable, and point to that as a reason why he should be the nominee. What you fail to mention is that the Trump movement has coalesced around him, while Bernie supporters continue to trash her. You fail to mention that she consistently beats Trump in likability in those same polls. And most of all, you claim that she is unelectable due to these polls. Likability is what matters? Really? Are we in the 7th grade now? Apparently, she is liked well enough to have gained 3 million more votes than Sanders, and has two million more than Trump, who has been the presumptive nominee for quite some time now. People recognize that she is by far the most qualified and capable candidate in this field, and they vote for her. There are some legitimate reasons why you may not wish to do so, but not voting for her because you don't like her is, frankly, stupid. Lots of people voted for George W. Bush over the supremely qualified Al Gore, because they felt W was the kind of guy "you'd want to drink a beer with." How'd that work out, America? Five thousand American troops are dead and many more wounded. A hundred thousand Iraqis were killed. An economic crisis almost left this country in ruins. That's what voting for likability over experience will get you.

Then, there's the "issue" of being untrustworthy. To prove their case, Trump and Bernie voters alike (yes, politics makes strange bedfellows) have been accusing Hillary of everything from the "murder" of Vince Foster to Whitewater (which special prosecutor Ken Starr has essentially backtracked on) to the email "scandal". As to the latter, it's all nonsense. There's been zero evidence, other than a shady character named "Guccifer" who claims to have breached the server, that national security was compromised in any way. Guccifer is an admitted criminal who published the emails of the accounts he actually hacked, and US officials discount his story because he was unable to produce a single piece of proof that he hacked Clinton. Guccifer did hack many political figures, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who used an AOL account, for God's sake, but no one called for Powell to be imprisoned. As for the "scathing" IG report, it's clear that the State Department knew Hillary was using a private server, because she sent emails to them regularly.

Then there is the oft discussed claim that Clinton has rigged the election. This is where the tin foil hat brigade really takes off. Even Bernie himself has claimed election rigging, including in Puerto Rico, which hasn't even voted yet as of the time of this writing. What's interesting to me is that this so-called election rigging only happens in states which Bernie was losing anyway. You never hear a Bernie supporter claim that Michigan was rigged, for example, despite the fact that Hillary was leading the state by 21.4% going into the primary. But New York has to have been rigged, according to vocal Bernie supporters, because Hillary won a state she was expected to win by 11.7%.

And why does no one claim that Bernie is untrustworthy when he declared that superdelegates are there to subvert the will of the people, but now claims that he wants to flip the supers to his side? How is that not subverting the will of the voters? Remember, the supers have voted for the candidate with the most delegates every single time. Even Bill and Hillary in 2008 both voted for Obama at the convention, even though Hillary won the popular vote. Hillary actually made the motion to suspend the roll call vote and nominate Obama by acclimation.

And as for those claiming that the superdelegates gave Hillary an unfair advantage out of the gate, that is utter nonsense. Hillary had a huge lead in supers going into the 2008 nomination process as well over another relatively unknown candidate named Obama, but when it became clear that he was winning, they switched to him in droves, as they should have. The harsh, bitter truth is that Bernie has not run as successful a campaign as Obama in 2008. Had he done so, the supers would have switched to him as they did with Obama. But Bernie trails in every imaginable scenario. In fact, if there were no superdelegates, Hillary would already have won the nomination by taking more than half of the pledged delegates.

The last talking point is really rather laughable--that Hillary is a Republican in disguise. She voted the same as Sanders 93% of the time during her tenure in the Senate. If she's a Republican, then he must be as well, because they agreed on the vast majority of the issues. Based upon her voting record in the Senate, she was more liberal than 85% of her Democratic colleagues. She had a more liberal voting record than Obama, whom the Republicans portrayed as left of Castro.

There's no doubt that Bernie leads among some demographics, such a young white voters, and birds. But she is winning handily among women, blacks and Latinos (whom some rabid Bernie supporters label "low information voters". Yikes), and older voters. And Bernie may even lose the bird vote, as he is now being protested by animal rights activists for refusing to put together any sort of animal welfare agenda, as Hillary has.

I've even heard many Bernie supporters compare him to Jesus, because he's Jewish, worked as a carpenter, and is a socialist. Well, I own a pair of sandals, but oddly, I still can't walk on water.

I am not trying to change anyone's vote here, because that's an exercise in futility, at least among Bernie extremists. I have no doubt that most Bernie supporters will, after Tuesday's primaries, come around, especially when faced with the specter of Donald Drumpf.

And please spare me the polls that show Bernie beating the Donald. Hillary has trounced Bernie in the only polls that matter--actual votes.

June 7th can't come fast enough.

Diane Ravitch Brings Sanity to the Clinton vs. Sanders Debate

If you care about education, you should vote for the Democratic nominee. If you care about the future of the United States, you should vote for the Democratic nominee. If you care about children, income inequality, the environment, the rights of women and LGBT people, sensible gun control, Roe v. Wade, expanded health care, keeping nuclear weapons out of North Korea and other nations, and other issues issues that have moved this country forward, you should vote for the Democratic nominee.

If you care about unions, including your own, you should vote for the Democratic nominee. If you have any doubt that Trump will eviscerate unions, just remember his call to eliminate the federal minimum wage.

I have said numerous times on this blog that I support Clinton, but should Bernie win, I will support him.

Unfortunately, there are few vocal Bernie supporters who feel the same way (I speak here only about the most vocal--already, 72% of Bernie supporters say they will vote for Clinton. That will increase should she win the nomination, just as Hillary supporters moved to Obama in 2008).

Look at the list of Supreme Court nominees that Trump has put forth. Nan Aron, of the Alliance for Justice Action Council, said: “Their opinions demonstrate open hostility to Americans’ rights and liberties, including reproductive justice and environmental, consumer and worker protections. They have ruled consistently in favor of the powerful over everyone else. They would move the needle even further to the right on the Supreme Court.”

Is there any doubt they would destroy unions and teaching as we know it?

Diane Ravitch has emerged as a voice of reason in this debate. She has questions about both candidates and their positions on education, but she clearly understands what is at stake here. While refusing to endorse either candidate, she said:

The overwhelming majority of denunciations are directed at Hillary. Some of our readers are as vicious towards her as Donald Trump is. If you read the comments, you would think that Donald Trump is much to be preferred over Hillary because she is allegedly dishonest, corrupt, a war-monger, a tool of Wall Street, etc. The demonization of Hillary is often times over-the-top, angry, and hateful.  

This internecine warfare is not admirable. It should stop. It helps Trump. One candidate will emerge from the Democratic convention in Philadelphia. It will be the candidate who gets the requisite number of delegates. It will be either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. When the convention chooses the candidate, I will support that candidate.

Amen to that. Neither candidate is perfect, but either is far, far preferable to Trump, on virtually every issue important to the 99%. 

Sure, you can vote for whomever you please. Or you can choose not to vote at all. That is your right. But the reality is that there will be only two nominees with a chance to in the presidency. Voting third party, sitting out the election, or voting for Trump as some kind of twisted "protest" vote will only decrease the mandate of the Democratic candidate should he or she win. 

This isn't about voting for "the lesser or two evils". It is about voting for the candidate who will better defend the rights we have struggled for over the last 50 years. That this will be the Democratic nominee should be without question for anyone who values liberal ideals.

This isn't about "ideological purity". There's nothing pure or noble in refusing to vote for the nominee who best represents progressive ideals and has a realistic shot at the presidency.

Diane Ravitch gets it. I hope you do, too.

As Bernie's Ship Sinks, Please Don't Pull the Rest of Us Down With You

Let's face facts: The primaries are all over but the shouting. In dark corners of the internet, you can still find, even after Clinton has pulled ahead by some 302 pledged delegates, some diehard Bernie supporters who think they can win the remaining states by the 65% or so they will need to pull ahead in pledged delegates. Some are even hoping for an indictment over Hillary's emails so that Sanders can win. That is so wrong-headed that I won't even address it, but for some Bernie supporters, it is their last hope on a sinking ship.

This post is not intended to drag down Bernie. I won't play those kind of political games. As I previously posted, I was "feeling the Bern" early on in the primaries. But I felt Bernie was far too light on foreign policy, and had no specifics on how he would implement his policies, especially in the face of a hostile, dug-in House. Even so, if he somehow got the nomination, I would most certainly vote for him. He is infinitely better than Trump or any other potential Republican nominee.

And so is Hillary. Whatever anyone feels about her, she would be infinitely better than Trump, who just last night said that if Hillary was a man, she'd have less than 5% of the vote. If you want a sexist pig in the White House, the surest way is not to vote for Hillary.

Since this is primarily an education blog, allow me to discuss that first. The main kick against her is that she allegedly said she would close half of all public schools, which was taken out of context. She specifically said that this is a state's issue, and she's not closing any schools. Furthermore, she lays out a fairly comprehensive K-12 education plan that supports and protects teachers. She also wants to implement a comprehensive pre-K program--something that would have a direct positive effect on all children, but especially disadvantaged children. As far as I can tell from his website, Bernie has no specific policies to help teachers or children.  He wants to provide free college for all, but has no plan to get students there.

And then, there's the Supreme Court. If Trump wins, you can expect at least 2-3 Republican justices, which will result in the elimination of tenure, the demolition of unions, and likely a return to an NCLB-like environment.

Speaking of the Court, you can also expect an elimination of women's and LGBT rights, right-to-work states nationwide, a reversal of Roe v. Wade, and a continuation of Citizens United, which is a core plank in Bernie's platform.

What else can you expect from a Trump presidency? Let's start with an elimination of the minimum wage, the deportation of 12 million illegal immigrants, women thrown in jail for having abortions, allowing countries such as Japan and South Korea to have nuclear weapons, tens of millions losing their insurance, a destruction of Social Security through privatization, and a tax policy that will punish the poor. And that's for starters.

Of course, you may vote for anyone you wish. But don't kid yourself; voting for anyone but Hillary is a vote for Trump. If you believe that you are in a blue state (as most of the readers of this blog are) so voting third party or writing in Bernie won't matter, you are simply wrong. First of all, it is not a given that the Democrat will always win blue states. In addition, it is incredibly important that we get a Democrat in the White House with an overwhelming mandate from the electorate, along with a Congress that will support that person. That is true whether Clinton or Sanders wins.

I understand the disappointment that Sanders' supporters feel. I've been there with candidates myself. But even if you believe Sanders to be superior to Clinton, it would be wise to heed Voltaire who famously said, "Perfect is the enemy of good".

As Bernie's ship sinks, don't forget the millions of people drowning in the Republican waters. The millions of immigrants, women, LBGT people, and union workers need you to throw them a life-saver. To deny it to them in the name of philosophical purity is to doom them to the fate Trump envisions for them.