Voting for the Greater Good

There's been much talk these days about voting for the "lesser evil" between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Even Noam Chomsky has come out in favor of so-called LEV (lesser evil voting) in choosing Hillary in November. If you are thinking of voting Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, you are likely thinking of rejecting LEV because you don't want to vote for the lesser evil.

But allow me to change the argument for a moment. Suppose we all decide, rather than voting for a lesser evil--which unfairly demonizes both candidates--why don't we think in terms of who will be a force for the greater good?

Before I go into that, let me say that I don't think either Trump or Hillary is evil. Trump is certainly narcissistic and lacking in empathy, but I don't think his purpose in running for the presidency is to do evil, but for self-aggrandizement. Nor do I think Hillary is evil; most of the charges thrown at her (such as deliberately jeopardizing national security and Benghazi) have proven to be false. That's not to say you have to invite either of them over for dinner, but that's not the same as claiming that either of them is Lucifer (a charge Ben Carson actually leveled at Secretary Clinton).

No matter whom you support--Clinton, Trump, Stein, Johnson, or even a write in for Bernie--it's fair to say they all have character flaws. Each of them can be viewed as "evil" from an opposing political perspective. So what I am proposing is that we throw all of that invective away, and look to see which of these candidates will do the greater good for America.

Stein, Johnson, and Bernie stand no chance in this election, so it's futile to examine how they might affect this country for the good at this point. The only reasonable argument I have seen is that voting for them can be seen as a protest vote of sorts, and may help usher in a third party in the future. But none of these people can do any good for the country as it stands right now. A third party can only succeed with the emergence of a viable third party candidate, and no such person is on the horizon at the moment.

The election will come down to Trump or Clinton. So, putting personalities to the side, which one is more likely to act for the greater good of this country?

Let's start with education, as that's what this blog is supposed to be about in the main. The Democratic Party has moved more to the left of education. It supports opting out of testing and decoupling students' scores from student and teacher evaluations. It opposes for profit charters and calls for complete transparency in the operations of public charters, including making sure their populations match neighborhood demographics in terms of ELL and special needs children. It calls for supporting teachers and public schools and universal pre-K. Clinton has also called for public higher education to be free for families making 125K or less, and for restructuring student debt.

The Republicans want to continue the same voucher/charter school agenda they always have supported. They have no plans to implement pre-K, reduce student debt, or make college more affordable.

Given that neither side will likely get all they want, whose platform will do greater good for families in this country? I have no doubt it is the Democrats.

Who would do the greater good when it comes to equality in America? Clinton looks to create a pathway for illegal immigrants, while Trump seeks to deport them and build a wall separating us from Mexico. Clinton supports marriage equality while Trump looks to outlaw it. Clinton embraces diversity while Trump seeks to ban people based on their religion. If you believe in the idea that America is a land of opportunity and that our diversity gives us strength, there is little doubt which candidate will do the greater good.

When it comes to jobs, we have Clinton who wants to raise the minimum wage, while Trump wants to eliminate it. Clinton wants to invest in clean energy jobs to build a new 21st century economy, while Trump wants to put people back to work in coal mines. Which is the greater good?

When it comes to the economy, Trump wants to basically deregulate everything, including the banking industry, while Clinton wants to go beyond Dodd-Frank. The Republicans intend to reduce or eliminate corporate taxes, and to provide tax cuts for the wealthy. The Democrats want to boost the middle class by making the wealthy pay their fair share. Which is the greater good?

When it comes to national security, Trump wants to pull out of NATO and encourage nuclear proliferation in countries like Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia. Clinton is against proliferation and has worked to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iran. Which is the greater good?

When it comes to the Supreme Court, Trump wants to appoint justices in the mold of Scalia, who would outlaw same sex marriages and a woman's right to choose. as well as support union busting court cases like Friedrichs. Clinton proposes opposition to Citizens United as a litmus test for her appointees, and seeks to uphold Roe v. Wade and marriage equality. Which is the greater good?

When it comes to health care, Trump wants to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, and replace it with something which he has yet to define. Clinton wants to expand the ACA, supports the public option, and hopes to expand Medicare to those over 50. Which is the greater good?

If you look squarely at the issues instead of just the people proposing them, it is clear to me that a Clinton presidency would produce the greater good for the most Americans. Trump would look to move us back to the time when he felt America was great, which seems to be sometime before the civil rights movement.

There are more issues, of course, and I can't cover them all. Also, there is no guarantee that either candidate will be able to pass his or her agenda in Congress. But it seems clear to me that one candidate--Hillary Clinton--is looking to move us in the direction of the greater good, while the other is looking to push us backwards.

So let's get past the idea of which candidate is more "evil", and start looking towards which candidate will work for the greater good. If you are like me, the choice isn't even close.

Some Thoughts on Friedrichs

I am not going to explain all the nuances in the case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, because frankly, I don't know them all myself. What I do know is that a group of ten teachers in California is arguing before the Supreme Court that they should not have to pay any union dues at all, even though they benefit from collective bargaining. Their rationale is that because public unions negotiate with the government, they are inherently political organizations, and therefore impinge on the free speech of members who don't agree with them.

I'm not a lawyer, because if I was I'd have a better car, but I see a lot of flaws in this argument. For example, one would have to say that political campaigns are inherently political, as well, yet this same Supreme Court decided in Citizens United that it was perfectly OK for billionaires to spend as much as they want to elect officials who will do their bidding. This effectively drowns out the free speech of people like myself, who don't have the funds to compete with the Koch brothers. So it appears that the Roberts' court believes the First Amendment is absolute, as long as you have lots and lots of cash, or you are a puppet of those who do, like the teachers in the Friedrichs case.

The teachers in Friedrichs are arguing that since the union is political and represents them, they shouldn't have to pay anything because they disagree with their union's politics. This seems like a perfect argument as to why the Supreme Court should strike down the income tax. Obviously, everything the government does is inherently political. I pay plenty of taxes to reap the benefits of this society, but I totally disagree with a lot of the things that the government does. Why should I pay for the illegal wars of the Bush family, or for a ridiculously large military when I am a pacifist? Taxes are the price I pay to be a part of this greater Union of the United States, but if Friedrichs prevails, why should anyone pay?

You might argue that I am free to leave the country, or to vote in new leaders who better represent my views. But that's exactly what the teachers in the Friedrichs case could do, as well. If you don't want to teach in a unionized school, don't do it. Leave. Go teach in a private or parochial school. Half the states are "right to work" states where there are no unions (and lower pay and fewer benefits). And as for voting, union members can vote in new leaders who better represent their own views if they choose to. None of their rights will be abridged.

Now to some practical matters. What happens when teachers are allowed to opt out of union dues? Exactly what contract will they be bound by? Will they be entitled to the same pay and benefits of those of us who pay our dues? By what authority? And what happens when their contractual rights are violated? Will the union be forced to defend people who aren't supporting the union?

Will non-members be allowed to "buy-in" to the union when they need it--like when a rogue principal or AP goes after them? That would be akin to allowing someone to buy health care after they get sick, while the rest of us pay in sickness and in health.

I've been a pretty harsh critic of the UFT at times, but I know that without them, I would likely be unemployed rather than retired in relative comfort. I was targeted by one the worst, and frankly stupidest, principals I have ever met because of my union activities. I testified against him at a fellow teacher's 3020a hearing. Had it not been for my union, I'd have been fired on the spot. Now that I am collecting my pension, my dues seem like a pretty good investment.

Of course, the teachers in the Friedrichs case think they are the best teachers ever, so nothing like that could ever happen to them. They are so wonderful that they don't need a union. They will just burst into the DOE, and by virtue of their glowing excellence, demand better pay and working conditions than the union could ever get them. And the DOE will give them what they want, because they are such outstandingly wonderful educators that one day they will vanish in flash of light and end up teaching Danielson high atop a mountain in the Himalayas.

If Friedrichs prevails, I am hoping that every teacher gives the ruling a big middle finger and continues to pay dues. But what of those who decide they'd rather keep the ten Bennies a year rather then support their fellows?

If it were me, I would not even talk to such a person. They are the moral equivalent of scabs, and should be treated as such. If they leave us to pay dues while they take a free ride, why should we help them out in the least? I wouldn't share a lesson plan, a crumbling piece of chalk, or even a glance with such a person.

That should be the UFT's position should Friedrichs come to pass. You're either a dues payer, or you aren't. If you are, you're entitled to everything the union has to offer. If not, you're on your own.