VITA 2021

FREDERICK L. SHIELS

Curriculum Vitae   January, 2021

PERSONAL INFORMATION:

53 Winterberry Circle

Cross River, NY 10518

Home Telephone (914) 763-1888

Date of Birth  June 10, 1949

Place of Birth  Wilmington, Delaware USA

ACADEMIC BACKGROUND:

Graduate: Cornell University Ph.D. 1977 (Government)

The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies M.A. 1973 (International Studies)

Undergraduate: Vanderbilt University B.A. 1971 (Political Science)

HONORS, FELLOWSHIPS:

Fulbright Senior Lecturer, Riga Latvia  Jan. 26-June 29, 2006 at the University of Latvia

Fulbright Senior Lectureship, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan, 1985-86.

Summer Fellowship Winner and Honorary Member, International Studies Association, 1975

                
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:

Professor Emeritus Political Science and History, Mercy College, 2012-present

PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE, 1987-2012, MERCY COLLEGE, Dobbs Ferry, New York 10522 (Associate Professor September 1983 -August,1987; Assistant Professor, September 1978 August 1983 ); substantial responsibility for new course development and building political science curriculum; student internships and advising; Model UN Director 1986-2011

ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY, Brooklyn, NY starting Fall, 2004

ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, BARUCH COLLEGE/CITY UNIVERSITY OF NY, 1999-2004

ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HISTORY, MARIST COLLEGE, 1990-2004

(occasional)

VISITING ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND POLITICAL SCIENCE, BARUCH COLLEGE / CUNY 1/77-8/78 (includes summer semesters 1977 and 1978); extensive responsibility for curriculum development and graduate student advising, thesis supervision.

TEACHING ASSISTANT, CORNELL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT 1973-1975.

RESEARCH AIDE ON U.S. AFRICA POLICY TO THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, 1973.

RESEARCH INTERN, FOREIGN BROADCAST INFORMATION SERVICE, 1973-1975.

RESEARCH INTERN, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 1971-1972 (extensive archival work).

FIELDS OF ACADEMIC SPECIALIZATION:

International Relations

Comparative Politics (esp. Third World, but also Northeast Europe)

Foreign Policy (esp. US/Third World, but also Northeast Europe)

Public Administration / American Government

DISTANCE LEARNING

  • I have taught 112 distance/online learning courses in history /political science since 1994
  • I have developed an American History website for Mercy College http://faculty.mercy.edu/fshiels 

DISSERTATION TITLE: “The American Experience in Okinawa: A Case Study for Foreign Policy and Decision-Making Theory”

FELLOWSHIPS, RESEARCH GRANTS:

Charles F. Olson Grant for Historical Research, 2002 ($10,000)

Faculty Development Grants at Mercy College, 1984-2004 totaling $18,500


Peace Studies Program (Cornell/Ford) Research Grants, 1975 and 1976.

Cornell University China-Japan Program Grant, 1976.

Cornell Center for International Studies Grant, 1975.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS:

APSA 

International Studies Association

FOREIGN LANGUAGES: French; basic Spanish and basic Japanese and Latvian


CURRENTLY: (2014) working on book on the future of progressive politics in the U.S., a blog

https://progressivefutureusa.com/ , am studying and writing poetry at the Hudson Valley Writers’ Center in Sleepy Hollow, NY… I have recently published poetry in the NEW VERSE NEWS and SiXFOLD

RECENTLY (2013)- I assisted Prof. Beerd Beukenhorst of the University of Amsterdam, edit his

Book WHOSE VIETNAM?, a foreign policy study and conducted a seminar at that University in Janauary of 2014 on my own research on civilian casualties in American foreign wars

RECENT RESEARCH ON EUROPE:

  1.  “The Elephant and the Fox: U.S. Latvian Bi-Lateral Relations”, 2007 article and paper presentation
  2. “ Globalization and Country to Country Aid Projects”, 2008 article and paper presentation, Turiiba, Univ., Riga, March, 2008
  3.  “The Helsinki-Tallinn Connection: A Case Study in International Mentoring of Baltic States Entering the European Union” project/article being worked on presently

 General Publications /Paper Presentation-

SEMINARS-  Tallinn Estonia, Jan. 2013, Estonia Technical University and Oslo Norway, Oslo University, Public Administration discussing the Obama foreign policy and issues in US/ EU relations

PAPER PRESENTATION: “Why We Bomb: The American Calculus of Foreign Civilian Lives,” at Lincoln College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK, 3/2010             

 ARTICLE: “Whose Dead?: The Killing of Iraqis and Afghanis to Save American Lives”, 2004-2006 research and submission of article this year for possible publication in The American Prospect, a progressive-mainstream magazine

ARTICLE/PAPER for PRESENTATION: “Why We Bomb: Strategic and Legal Questions about Civilian Deaths in American Wars”, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, November 1, 2006

RESEARCH COMPLETED, PUBLICATIONS:

ARTICLE: “Whose Dead?: The Killing of Iraqis and Afghanis to Save American Lives”, 2004-2006 research and submission of article this year for possible publication in The American Prospect, a progressive-mainstream magazine

ARTICLE/PAPER for PRESENTATION: “Why We Bomb: Strategic and Legal Questions about Civilian Deaths in American Wars”, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, November 1, 2006

BOOK REVIEW, for Houghton- Mifflin, of James Q. Wilson’s, American Government, the edition, 2006 (one of the best selling American government texts and the one used at Mercy College)

BOOK REVIEW, for Pacific Historical Review, of Nicholas Sarantakes’ Keystone: The American Occupation of Okinawa and U.S./Japanese Relations, May, 2002.


ARTICLE, “Presidential Houses Seen Through the Eyes of Children,” in Presidential Forum, Indianapolis, Spring 1996



BOOK CHAPTER, “Misperception at the Top” in H. Wiberg and Paul Smoker, Inadvertent Nuclear War, Pergamon, 1993, [refereed]

BOOK CHAPTER, “The American Interlude in Okinawa: 1945-72,” in George DeVos and Koji Taira (eds.), Okinawa: Challenge and Adaptation at Japan’s Periphery, U. Hawaii Press, forthcoming

BOOK, Preventable Disasters: Why Governments Fail, ( Rowman and Littlefield, 1991)

ARTICLE, “Iran: The Unheard Revolution,” in Kyushu University Review of Law and Politics, April, 1986 [refereed]

BOOK, Ethnic Separatism and World Politics, University Press of America, 1983

BOOK, Tokyo and Washington: Dilemmas of a Mature Alliance

Lexington Books (D.C. Heath) November, 1980

BOOK, America, Okinawa, and Japan, (Univ. Press of America) 1980

BOOK, The New American Foreign Policy: A Primer for the

1980’s, (edited reader) Collegium Book Publishers, 1979

ARTICLE, “American Rule in Okinawa,” in December 1978 Ryudai Law Review (Ryukyu National University, Japan) [refereed]


CURRENT RESEARCH-
Study of Civilian Casualties in U.S. military interventions funded in part by Charles Olson Grant (more information available on request)



PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES:

Discussant, panel “Distance Learning Applications in History: USA and Turkey” at the Conference on Computers and History, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY, June, 1999.

Symposium Paper, “Misperception, Multipolarization and History in Fast Forward,” Presented at the Conference on the Consequences of the dissolution of the Soviet Union for the Inadvertent Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, held in Parnu, Estonia, April 16-20, 1993. Proceedings published by the Estonian Academy of Sciences in 1993.

Panel Paper, “Okinawa’s American Interlude: 19451972,” INTERNATIONAL NORTH AFRICAN AND ASIAN STUDIES (ICANAS) CONFERENCE, Toronto, August, 1991

Symposium Paper,”Preventing the Ultimate Disaster: Misperception at the Top,” CONFERENCE ON ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR, University of Copenhagen Centre for Research on Peace and Conflict, Copenhagen, June, 1990.

Panel Paper, “Nuclear Disaster Prevention in Theory and 

Practice,” INTERNATIONAL STUDIES ASSOCIATION MEETING, London, March 1989

Panel Paper, “Iran: The Unheard Revolution,” AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION CONVENTION, Chicago, September, 1987

Panel Paper, “Israel’s October Surprise, NORTHEAST POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION (NEPSA) 

CONVENTION, Boston, 11/86

Panel Paper, “Ethnic Diversity and Third World Democracy,” NEPSA, Boston, November 1984

Chaired Panel, “Ethnic Separatism and World Politics,” NEPSA, Philadelphia, November 1983

Chaired Panel, “New Directions in American Foreign Policy” and Presented Paper “Preventable Disasters” NORTHEAST POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION CONVENTION, Newark, November, 1981

Panel Paper, ” Rationality Revisited: Bureaucratic Politics Assessed” NY STATE POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, New York, 2/79

Chaired Panel, “Comparative Foreign Policy,” INTERNATIONAL 

STUDIES ASSOCIATION, Toronto, 2/79 ANNUAL CONVENTION

ARTHUR LERMAN: THOUGHTS ON JANUARY 6TH

Professor Arthur Lerman, a contributor to this blog, offers some thoughts written to colleague and associates, shortly after the ominous events of January 6, 2021 in Washington DC.

It’s hard to know where to begin, but I thought I’d share some things I already sent to some of you on my email list. 

Shaking from yesterday’s (January 6th) events. Yes.  

One headline I saw was “America’s Darkest Day.” 

a.      This will go down as one of the worst days in American democratic history–in world democratic history. Or maybe a close “save.”   

Anti-democrats could be proud that they brought the U.S. so close to their goal. And they’ll keep using Trump’s playbook to continue undermining democracy–in the U.S. and in other countries.  (See below podcast on “strongmen” and article on white supremacists.) 

b.      But maybe it’ll be a wake-up call to those who value democracy—to work to make sure conditions that created this crisis are remedied.  

Some, on NPR, speculated that House and Senate Republicans, objecting to the certification of the electoral votes as the Trump protesters broke into their chamber, will now realize how vulnerable they are to being burned by playing so cavalierly with the Trump fire. (Late comment: only some did.) 

Thing is that they may have been risking it because they fear their Trump voters–if they don’t keep stoking the Trump fire.  

As leaders with Trump followers, they should be aware that a real leader does not simply follow the prejudices of their followers. A real leader will tell followers when they are wrong—that they must reverse course.  

c.       For those of us who were anti-Trump all along, we have to figure out how to reach out to the Trumpers—somehow get a dialogue going on how to ameliorate that which has turned them so anti-democracy.  

There have been dialogue groups–bringing together individuals on the two sides of the divide. Hope these continue and grow. (Mercy College was thinking about such a program.) 

It is argued that Biden’s (and Hillary’s) policies better spoke to their needs than Republican policies, but that they were convinced by clever propaganda that this was not so, or simply to not listen. (I recognize the criticism that Biden and Hillary are too close to Wall Street, but even so, their policies are much better than Republican ones.) 

(Poly Sci textbooks state that most people pay little attention to politics. And those who pay more attention are the ones who already have strong opinions—not open to persuasion.)  

Also, if the issue is more about psychological identity (I’m part of a great white America) but Democrats are saying that America is now multicolored, how can I feel proud to be part of an America of “those people”?  

d.      An important part of this is to bring everyone to a common understanding of reality—in the immediate case, the integrity of the fall elections.  

The media talk about tribal groups, each in its own information silo. If we can’t agree on what is happening/already happened in the world, how can we move forward. But how can such agreement be attained? 

Hmm. I just wrote a lot. Probably nothing new to you.  

Here are some links for back-up ideas. (Again, you probably know it all anyway.)  

The first is my own rough essay on the danger of leaving any group behind. Most others are recent podcasts from WBUR that impressed me. 

Thoughts?  

https://progressivefutureusa.com/2016/11/15/2016-presidential-campaign-lessons-neglect-even-benign-no-longer-an-option-a-lerman-a-now-relevant-re-blog/

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2020/11/12/what-the-strongmen-of-history-reveal-about-modern-politics

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2020/12/18/president-elect-biden-says-america-first-is-history-is-that-true

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2020/12/04/what-we-know-about-bidens-economic-team

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2020/11/23/matthew-sheffield-built-a-career-in-conservative-media-now-he-wants-to-free-people-from-it

Some ideas about Congress and campaign finance: 

I begin by recommending the above listed WBUR podcast on Biden’s economic team–especially its analysis of the members of Congress–so wealthy and untouched by economic hardship. 

Congresspersons’ main concern is for those that give them their campaign contributions

It’s really hard to control political money. Even when Congress tried, the Supreme Court has backed up the monied interests. 

(Most congresspersons wish they didn’t have to spend hours every day soliciting funds for the next election.) 

Political money is like spilled oil. No matter how many cracks and crevices you seal, it’ll find others to seep into. 

Maybe the only way is the Bernie Sanders strategy–lots of small contributions to match the big ones. 

Hopeful Note: The “Biden’s economic team” podcast does say, approvingly, that Janet Yellen is “the real deal.”

HEATHER RICHARDSON ON: 2020




PROF. BOSTON UNIVERSITY

Pretty Much says it all!~ fls

And so, we are at the end of a year that has brought a presidential impeachment trial, a deadly pandemic that has killed more than 338,000 of us, a huge social movement for racial justice, a presidential election, and a president who has refused to accept the results of that election and is now trying to split his own political party.It’s been quite a year.

But I had a chance to talk with history podcaster Bob Crawford of the Avett Brothers yesterday, and he asked a more interesting question. He pointed out that we are now twenty years into this century, and asked what I thought were the key changes of those twenty years. I chewed on this question for awhile and also asked readers what they thought.
Pulling everything together, here is where I’ve come out.In America, the twenty years since 2000 have seen the end game of the Reagan Revolution, begun in 1980. In that era, political leaders on the right turned against the principles that had guided the country since the 1930s, when Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt guided the nation out of the Great Depression by using the government to stabilize the economy.
During the Depression and World War Two, Americans of all parties had come to believe the government had a role to play in regulating the economy, providing a basic social safety net and promoting infrastructure. But reactionary businessmen hated regulations and the taxes that leveled the playing field between employers and workers. They called for a return to the pro-business government of the 1920s, but got no traction until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, when the Supreme Court, under the former Republican governor of California, Earl Warren, unanimously declared racial segregation unconstitutional.
That decision, and others that promoted civil rights, enabled opponents of the New Deal government to attract supporters by insisting that the country’s postwar government was simply redistributing tax dollars from hardworking white men to people of color. That argument echoed the political language of the Reconstruction years, when white southerners insisted that federal efforts to enable formerly enslaved men to participate in the economy on terms equal to white men were simply a redistribution of wealth, because the agents and policies required to achieve equality would cost tax dollars and, after the Civil War, most people with property were white.
This, they insisted, was “socialism.” To oppose the socialism they insisted was taking over the East, opponents of black rights looked to the American West. They called themselves Movement Conservatives, and they celebrated the cowboy who, in their inaccurate vision, was a hardworking white man who wanted nothing of the government but to be left alone to work out his own future. In this myth, the cowboys lived in a male-dominated world, where women were either wives and mothers or sexual playthings, and people of color were savage or subordinate. With his cowboy hat and western ranch, Reagan deliberately tapped into this mythology, as well as the racism and sexism in it, when he promised to slash taxes and regulations to free individuals from a grasping government.

He promised that cutting taxes and regulations would expand the economy. As wealthy people—the “supply side” of the economy– regained control of their capital, they would invest in their businesses and provide more jobs. Everyone would make more money. From the start, though, his economic system didn’t work. Money moved upward, dramatically, and voters began to think the cutting was going too far. To keep control of the government, Movement Conservatives at the end of the twentieth century ramped up their celebration of the individualist white American man, insisting that America was sliding into socialism even as they cut more and more domestic programs, insisting that the people of color and women who wanted the government to address inequities in the country simply wanted “free stuff.”
They courted social conservatives and evangelicals, promising to stop the “secularization” they saw as a partner to communism.After the end of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, talk radio spread the message that Black and Brown Americans and “feminazis” were trying to usher in socialism. In 1996, that narrative got a television channel that personified the idea of the strong man with subordinate women. The Fox News Channel told a story that reinforced the Movement Conservative narrative daily until it took over the Republican Party entirely.The idea that people of color and women were trying to undermine society was enough of a rationale to justify keeping them from the vote, especially after Democrats passed the Motor Voter law in 1993, making it easier for poor people to register to vote.

In 1997, Florida began the process of purging voter rolls of Black voters. And so, 2000 came.In that year, the presidential election came down to the electoral votes in Florida. Democratic candidate Al Gore won the popular vote by more than 540,000 votes over Republican candidate George W. Bush, but Florida would decide the election. During the required recount, Republican political operatives led by Roger Stone descended on the election canvassers in Miami-Dade County to stop the process. It worked, and the Supreme Court upheld the end of the recount. Bush won Florida by 537 votes and, thanks to its electoral votes, became president. Voter suppression was a success, and Republicans would use it, and after 2010, gerrymandering, to keep control of the government even as they lost popular support.Bush had promised to unite the country, but his installation in the White House gave new power to the ideology of the Movement Conservative leaders of the Reagan Revolution. He inherited a budget surplus from his predecessor Democrat Bill Clinton, but immediately set out to get rid of it by cutting taxes.

A balanced budget meant money for regulation and social programs, so it had to go. From his term onward, Republicans would continue to cut taxes even as budgets operated in the red, the debt climbed, and money moved upward.The themes of Republican dominance and tax cuts were the backdrop of the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. That attack gave the country’s leaders a sense of mission after the end of the Cold War and, after launching a war in Afghanistan to stop al-Qaeda, they set out to export democracy to Iraq. This had been a goal for Republican leaders since the Clinton administration, in the belief that the United States needed to spread capitalism and democracy in its role as a world leader. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq strengthened the president and the federal government, creating the powerful Department of Homeland Security, for example, and leading Bush to assert the power of the presidency to interpret laws through signing statements. 
The association of the Republican Party with patriotism enabled Republicans in this era to call for increased spending for the military and continued tax cuts, while attacking Democratic calls for domestic programs as wasteful. Increasingly, Republican media personalities derided those who called for such programs as dangerous, or anti-American. But while Republicans increasingly looked inward to their party as the only real Americans and asserted power internationally, changes in technology were making the world larger. The Internet put the world at our fingertips and enabled researchers to decode the human genome, revolutionizing medical science. Smartphones both made communication easy. Online gaming created communities and empathy. And as many Americans were increasingly embracing rap music and tattoos and LGBTQ rights, as well as recognizing increasing inequality, books were pointing to the dangers of the power concentrating at the top of societies.
In 1997, J.K. Rowling began her exploration of the rise of authoritarianism in her wildly popular Harry Potter books, but her series was only the most famous of a number of books in which young people conquered a dystopia created by adults.In Bush’s second term, his ideology created a perfect storm. His administration’s disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina, which killed more than 1,800 people and caused $125 billion in damage in and around New Orleans in 2005, revealed how badly the new economy had treated Black and Brown people, and how badly the destruction of domestic programs had affected our ability to respond to disasters. Computers permitted the overuse of credit default swaps that precipitated the 2008 crash, which then precipitated the housing crisis, as people who had bet on the individualist American dream lost their homes. Meanwhile, the ongoing wars, plagued with financial and moral scandals, made it clear that the Republicans optimistic vision of spreading democracy through military conflict was unrealistic. In 2008, voters put Black American Barack Obama, a Democrat, into the White House. To Republicans, primed by now to believe that Democrats and Black people were socialists, this was an undermining of the nation itself, and they set out to hamper him. While many Americans saw Obama as the symbol of a new, fairer government with America embracing a multilateral world, reactionaries built a backlash based in racism and sexism.

They vocally opposed a federal government they insisted was pushing socialism on hardworking white men, and insisted that America must show its strength by exerting its power unilaterally in the world. Increasingly, the Internet and cell phones enabled people to have their news cater to their worldview, moving Republicans into a world characterized by what a Republican spokesperson would later call “alternative facts.” And so, in 2016, we faced a clash between a relentlessly changing nation and the individualist ideology of the Movement Conservatives who had taken over the Republican Party. By then, that ideology had become openly radical extremism in the hands of Donald Trump, who referred to immigrants as criminals, boasted of sexually assaulting women, and promised to destroy the New Deal government once and for all. In the 2016 election, the themes of the past 36 years came together. Embracing Movement Conservative individualist ideology taken to an extreme, Trump was eager enough to make sure a Democrat didn’t win that, according to American intelligence services, he was willing to accept the help of Russian operatives.

They, in turn, influenced the election through the manipulation of new social media, amplified by what had become by then a Republican echo chamber in which Democrats were dangerous socialists and the Democratic candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was a criminal. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision which permitted corporate money to flow into election campaigns, Trump also had the help of a wave of money from big business; financial institutions spent $2 billion to influence the election. He also had the support of evangelicals, who believed he would finally give them the anti-abortion laws they wanted. Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes but, as George W. Bush before him, won in the Electoral College.

Once in office, this president set out to destroy the New Deal state, as Movement Conservatives had called for, returning the country to the control of a small group of elite businessmen who, theoretically, would know how to move the country forward best by leveraging private sector networks and innovation. He also set out to put minorities and women back into subordinate positions, recreating a leadership structure that was almost entirely white and male. As Trump tried to destroy an activist government once and for all, Americans woke up to how close we have come to turning our democracy over to a small group of oligarchs. In the past four years, the Women’s March on Washington and the MeToo Movement has enabled women to articulate their demand for equality.

The travel ban, child separation policy for Latin American refugees, and Trump’s attacks on Muslims, Latin American immigrants, and Chinese immigrants, has sparked a defense of America’s history of immigration. The Black Lives Matter Movement, begun in July 2013 after George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering teenager Trayvon Martin, has gained power as Black Americans have been murdered at the hands of law enforcement officers and white vigilantes, and as Black Americans have borne witness to those murders with cellphone videos. The increasing voice of democracy clashed most dramatically with Trump’s ideology in summer 2020 when, with the support of his Attorney General William Barr, Trump used the law enforcement officers of the Executive Branch to attack peaceful protesters in Washington, D.C. and in Portland, Oregon. In June, on the heels of the assault on the protesters at Lafayette Square, military officers from all branches made it clear that they would not support any effort to use them against civilians.

they reiterated that they would support the Constitution. The refusal of the military to support a further extension of Trump’s power was no small thing.And now, here we are. Trump lost the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden by more than 7 million votes and by an Electoral College split of 306 to 232. Although the result was not close, Trump refuses to acknowledge the loss and is doing all he can to hamper Biden’s assumption of office.

Many members of the Republican Party are joining him in his attempt to overturn the election, taking the final, logical step of Movement Conservatism: denying the legitimacy of anyone who does not share their ideology. This is unprecedented. It is a profound attack on our democracy. But it will not succeed. And in this moment, we have, disastrously, discovered the final answer to whether or not it is a good idea to destroy the activist government that has protected us since 1933.

In their zeal for reducing government, the Trump team undercut our ability to respond to a pandemic, and tried to deal with the deadly coronavirus through private enterprise or by ignoring it and calling for people to go back to work in service to the economy, willing to accept huge numbers of dead. They have carried individualism to an extreme, insisting that simple public health measures designed to save lives infringe on their liberty.The result has been what is on track to be the greatest catastrophe in American history, with more than 338,000 of us dead and the disease continuing to spread like wildfire. It is for this that the Trump administration will be remembered, but it is more than that. It is a fitting end to the attempt to destroy our government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Everything that needs to go right for Democrats to win the Georgia runoffs, explained

I’d love to believe they can do it, but with 2 horrendous Republican opponents with narrow leads, am hopeful but not optimistic. Georgia is just not that purple. They almost voted a rehire of Trump, and that tells you something. (15,000 more Biden votes). — F Shiels, editor

Democrats need to turn out a diverse base of voters to have a shot at winning.By Ella Nilsenella.nilsen@vox.com  Dec 7, 2020, 8:30am EST

To win two hotly contested Senate runoff races, Democrats in Georgia need a lot of things to go right.

Georgia voters haven’t sent a Democrat to the Senate in 20 years, and Democrats handily lost the Senate runoff in 2008. But ask Democratic candidates Jon Ossoff and Rev. Raphael Warnock, and they insist things are different now. For one thing, the two Georgia races will determine which party controls the Senate — and by extension — political power in Washington, DC. For another, their party’s presidential candidate just won the state for the first time in almost 30 years.

“Folks didn’t allow themselves to hope,” said Nsé Ufot, CEO of the New Georgia Project, an organization that registered an estimated 500,000 Georgian voters of color and young people ahead of November 3. “Ultimately, you have to conceive of it first before we can build it; folks have to believe that it’s possible. I think that’s why there’s a lot of energy and enthusiasm frankly on both sides as we head to the runoff.”

The two Senate runoffs — featuring Sen. David Perdue (R) versus Ossoff in one race and Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R) versus Warnock in the other — will still be very hard for Democrats to win. Not as many low-interest voters will participateas in the November presidential election, so these runoffs are more about motivating the respective party bases than attempting to persuade swing voters.

People wait for Vice President Mike Pence at a rally in support of Republican Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler in Savannah, Georgia, on December 4.
Senate candidate Jon Ossoff takes questions from the press during a December 3 campaign rally.

“Turnout is what matters,” Cook Political Report Senate editor Jessica Taylor said. Democrats and Republicans alike need to find their voters, and get them back out to the polls.

While the Republican Party’s base in Georgia is fairly homogeneous, Democrats must turn out a more diverse swath of voters to have a shot at winning the Senate. Black voters undoubtedly make up the majority of Georgia’s Democratic base, but the 2020 election showed a successful coalition is also built on Asian and Pacific Islander American (AAPI) voters, Latino voters, and white suburban women.

“It’s not just one group you’re trying to get out,” said Georgia state Sen. Jen Jordan, a Democrat. “If any of those components really fall off, you lose — and that’s why it’s hard. It’s a much more difficult task for Democrats, but that doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t happen.”

Another important factor to motivate the Democratic base could be that President Donald Trump himself is not going away quietly. Some Democrats feared their voters would fall into complacency after ousting Trump in November, but the president is continuing to refuse to concede to President-elect Joe Biden. Tensions between Trump and Republican state officials in Georgia are high, so much so that Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said he and his family have received death threats for certifying the state’s results for Biden.

With record-setting turnout in the 2020 election nationwide and in Georgia, Trump proved that he could motivate Republicans and Democrats alike to go to the polls. Butwill that carry over to January 5?

“Trump is not on the ballot, but are we in a post-Trump era where our people are motivated to show up?” a Democratic pollster told Vox. “That is the big question.”

RELATED

Why Georgia has runoff elections

The groups Democrats need to win, explained

Black voters make up the core of the Democratic Party’s base in Georgia. But the suburbs in Atlanta that are becoming a source of political strength for Democrats are even more diverse, with AAPI and Latino voters proving to be key parts of the Democratic coalition.

Data from Washington Post exit polls shows that voters of color and women were key to Biden winning the state in November. About 54 percent of women voted for Biden, compared to 55 percent of men who voted for Trump. The majority of white voters voted for Trump — 69 percent compared to 30 percent who voted for Biden. About 88 percent of Black voters cast their ballots for Biden, and about 81 percent of voters who identify as non-white also voted for the former vice president.

Still, a New York Times analysis of voting data suggested that white suburban voters in the metro Atlanta area were the ones who put Biden over the top in 2020. The analysis found that the relative share of Black turnout actually fell slightly in the 2020 presidential election compared to 2016. Raw Black voting numbers were up, but so were the numbers of white voters.

That’s no guarantee Ossoff and Warnock can replicate Biden’s success.

Even though Biden narrowly won Georgia in the presidential election, it won’t automatically translate to Democratic strength in the Senate races. Perdue ran slightly ahead of Trump by about 780 votes. Ossoff, on the other hand, ran close to 100,000 votes short of Biden. (It’s tough to make the same comparison with Loeffler and Warnock because they were running in a field of 20 candidates.)

These numbers mean that while Biden’s strength helped Democrats force a runoff, there were a number of voters who either just voted at the top of the ticket, or split their tickets between Biden for president and Republican candidates down the ballot.

“I don’t think voters appreciate the amount of ticket-splitting that went on,” Buzz Brockway, a Republican and former Georgia state House member, recently told Vox. “There was a section of voters who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Trump but voted for Republicans the rest of the ticket.”

So for all the talk of

Trumpkin pastor calls for Democrats and journalists to be executed

Trumpkin pastor calls for Democrats and journalists to be executed

Christian Dem in NCCommunity (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)Sunday December 06, 2020 · 8:06 PM EST Recommend 374  Share  Tweet338 Comments 338 New RSSPUBLISHED TO

HAS IT REALLY COME TO THIS?

Share this article

With the religious right’s otherworldly loyalty to Trump and outright endorsement of his coup attempt, it was only a matter of time before a Trumpvangelical crossed the line into calling for outright violence. Well, last week Rick Wiles of TruNews did exactly that. On the day before Thanksgiving, he called for Trump to have Democrats and journalists lined up and shot.

The Christian pastor made the remarks during an episode of his TruNews program last Wednesday as he discussed Trump’s baseless claims of widespread voter fraud. Wiles also pointed out that the Justice Department has created a new rule allowing for firing squads to be used in federal executions.

(snip)

“I’m not trying to be funny but [it’s been fast-tracked] because they plan to shoot some people,” Wiles said. “They’re gonna have a bunch of traitors. They’re gonna line ’em up against the wall and start shooting them. Because that’s what they deserve.”

Right Wing Watch got a clip.https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=DarrellLucus&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1333422585116307457&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstory%2F2020%2F12%2F6%2F2000337%2F-Trumpkin-pastor-calls-for-Democrats-and-journalists-to-be-executed&siteScreenName=dailykos&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px

Wiles went on to say that a bunch of Democrats, reporters and academics are secretly in bed with Beijing—and they deserve to be shot.

We already knew that Wiles is nothing more than a Nazi masquerading as a pastor. As we all know, he is virulently anti-Semitic—close your eyes, and he sounds like Richard Spencer at his worst.

This is domestic terrorism, straight up. And we cannot allow this to stand. It’s time for Wiles to get the Alex Jones treatment. Past time, actually. He has apps on the iTunes App Store (for both the iPhone and Apple TV), Google Play and Roku. Pester those platforms and get his channel nuked. Additionally, a whois revealed his domain is hosted by GoDaddy.

This is the sort of thing that resulted in Heather Heyer being murdered. We cannot chance some lone nut taking matters into his own hands and deciding to murder someone ostensibly in Trump’s name. TruNews must have its mic shut off—permanently.

WHITE FRAGILITY

White Fragility Quotes

Quotes tagged as “white-fragility” Showing 1-10 of 10“I was co-leading a workshop with an African American man. A white participant said to him, “I don’t see race; I don’t see you as black.” My co-trainer’s response was, “Then how will you see racism?” He then explained to her that he was black, he was confident that she could see this, and that his race meant that he had a very different experience in life than she did. If she were ever going to understand or challenge racism, she would need to acknowledge this difference. Pretending that she did not noticed that he was black was not helpful to him in any way, as it denied his reality – indeed, it refused his reality – and kept hers insular and unchallenged. This pretense that she did not notice his race assumed that he was “just like her,” and in so doing, she projected her reality onto him. For example, I feel welcome at work so you must too; I have never felt that my race mattered, so you must feel that yours doesn’t either. But of course, we do see the race of other people, and race holds deep social meaning for us.”
― Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racismtags: colorblind-racismdenial-of-racismracismwhite-fragilitywhiteness59 likesLike
“For those of us who work to raise the racial consciousness of whites, simply getting whites to acknowledge that our race gives us advantages is a major effort. The defensiveness, denial, and resistance are deep.”
― Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racismtags: denialpowerracismwhite-fragilitywhiteness23 likesLike
“Politeness as filtered through fragility and supremacy isn’t about manners; it’s about a methodology of controlling the conversation.”
― Mikki Kendall, Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women That a Movement Forgottags: racismwhite-fragility5 likesLike
“When you believe niceness disproves the presence of racism, it’s easy to start believing bigotry is rare, and that the label racist should be applied only to mean-spirited, intentional acts of discrimination.”
― Austin Channing Brown, I’m Still Here: Black Dignity in a World Made for Whitenesstags: white-fragility2 likesLike
“To continue reproducing racial inequality, the system only needs for white people to be really nice and carry on – to smile at people of color, to go to lunch with them on occasion. To be clear, being nice is generally a better policy than being mean. But niceness does not bring racism to the table and will not keep it on the table when so many of us who are white want it off. Niceness does not break with white solidarity and white silence. In fact, naming racism is often seen as not nice, triggering white fragility.”
― Robin DiAngelotags: anti-racismracismwhite-fragility2 likesLike
“How can I say that if you are white, your opinions on racism are most likely ignorant, when I don’t even know you? I can say so because nothing in mainstream US culture gives us the information we need to have the nuanced understanding of arguable the most complex and enduring social dynamic of the last several hundred years.”
― Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racismtags: white-fragility1 likesLike
“Habitus maintains our social comfort and helps us regain it when those around us do not act in familiar and acceptable ways. …. Thus, white fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress in the habitus becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. …. These behaviors, in turn, reinstate white racial equilibrium.”
― Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racismtags: habituswhite-fragility0 likesLike
“And still I urge you to struggle. Struggle for the memory of your ancestors. Struggle for wisdom. Struggle for the warmth of The Mecca. Struggle for your grandmother and grandfather, for your name. But do not struggle for the Dreamers. Hope for them. Pray for them, if you are so moved. But do not pin your struggle on their conversion. The Dreamers will have to learn to struggle themselves, to understand that the field for their Dream, the stage where they have painted themselves white, is the deathbed of us all.”
― Ta-Nehesi Coatestags: american-dreampeople-of-colorracerace-relationsrace-relations-in-americawhite-fragility0 likesLike
“Highlighting my racial privilege invalidates the form of oppression that I experience (e.g., classism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism, ableism, transphobia.) We will then need to turn our attention to how you oppressed me.”
― Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racismtags: race-and-racism-in-americaracismwhite-fragilitywhite-privilege0 likesLike
“It is said that for every “Aha moment” that a white person experiences in regard to racism, a person of color has paid a tremendous emotional price. Yes, the lessons that we teach come at an extraordinarily high cost to us.”

If Trump beat Clinton, why can’t he beat Biden?

First and foremost because Biden isn’t Clinton.

Let me be clear. Trump can beat Biden. It’s entirely possible. It’s just looking less and less likely as election day approaches.

This is Five Thirty Eight’s 2020 Election Forecast Snake Chart which I find to be a very easy way to look at what the election forecasts look like as far as what it takes to win and how competitive each state is.

The closer you get to the middle of the snake, the more competitive a state is. If it’s tinted red, it’s leaning Trump, if it’s tinted blue, it’s leaning Biden.

The line in the middle shows where the 270 electoral vote threshold is crossed. The length of the state in the snake is indicative of the number of electoral votes it represents.

In 2016, Trump won everything on this snake up to Minnesota with the exception of Nevada

There are 8 states right now that are leaning blue that all went for Trump in 2016. Biden needs three of them, two if one of those is Florida.

That said, the projections looked similar leading in to the final weeks of 2016. What happened was a few states, most notably Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin which were all projected to go to Clinton by a couple of percentage points all went instead to Trump by the thinnest of margins. Trump won the election by winning those three states by a combined margin of 77,744 votes.

The problem for Trump this time is twofold.

First, while he hasn’t lost much of his core following, he hasn’t added to it either. Meanwhile the fringes, the ones who held their noses and voted for him last time are melting away.

Trump Defectors Help Biden Build Leads in Wisconsin and Michigan

Defectors are a major problem in an election because a defector counts as 2, you lost a vote you had last time, and the other side picked it up. To understand how big of a problem that is, in Michigan, if nothing else changed and 5,353 of the 2,279,543 people who voted for Trump in that state defect, Michigan’s 16 Electoral votes slide away from Trump’s total and hop on top of Biden’s, a 32 vote swing. That’s 0.23% of the people who voted for Trump in Michigan in 2016.

New voters are also a problem for Trump. 52% of People who didn’t vote in 2016 say they’re voting for Biden, only 32% say they will vote for Trump. Biden also leads by 11 points among voters who voted third party in 2016 and do not intend to do so this year.

Poll: 52 percent of people who didn’t vote in 2016 say they’re voting for Biden

Second, as I said, Biden isn’t Hillary. And the point of that is that no matter what you think of Trump, Hillary or Biden, it is clear that Hillary inspired a LOT of irrational hate. I don’t just mean disapproval, I mean hate, on the same level that Trump does. Biden doesn’t inspire that kind of hate. Disapproval, sure. Dislike, sure. But not that same seething hatred people felt for Hillary.

Especially look at the difference among independents, more than half of whom strongly disliked Clinton:

Biden Doesn’t Repel Voters Like Clinton Did in 2016, and That’s a Problem for Trump – Morning Consult

If Trump beat Clinton, why couldn’t he beat Biden?

Chris O’Leary·October 15Lifelong Political Nerd

Blogger’s Note: This is from three months ago but is extremely important NOW!

BLOGGER’S NOTE:

First and foremost because Biden isn’t Clinton.

Let me be clear. Trump can beat Biden. It’s entirely possible. It’s just looking less and less likely as election day approaches.

This is Five Thirty Eight’s 2020 Election Forecast Snake Chart which I find to be a very easy way to look at what the election forecasts look like as far as what it takes to win and how competitive each state is.

The closer you get to the middle of the snake, the more competitive a state is. If it’s tinted red, it’s leaning Trump, if it’s tinted blue, it’s leaning Biden.

The line in the middle shows where the 270 electoral vote threshold is crossed. The length of the state in the snake is indicative of the number of electoral votes it represents.

In 2016, Trump won everything on this snake up to Minnesota with the exception of Nevada

There are 8 states right now that are leaning blue that all went for Trump in 2016. Biden needs three of them, two if one of those is Florida.

That said, the projections looked similar leading in to the final weeks of 2016. What happened was a few states, most notably Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin which were all projected to go to Clinton by a couple of percentage points all went instead to Trump by the thinnest of margins. Trump won the election by winning those three states by a combined margin of 77,744 votes.

The problem for Trump this time is twofold.

First, while he hasn’t lost much of his core following, he hasn’t added to it either. Meanwhile the fringes, the ones who held their noses and voted for him last time are melting away.

Trump Defectors Help Biden Build Leads in Wisconsin and Michigan

Defectors are a major problem in an election because a defector counts as 2, you lost a vote you had last time, and the other side picked it up. To understand how big of a problem that is, in Michigan, if nothing else changed and 5,353 of the 2,279,543 people who voted for Trump in that state defect, Michigan’s 16 Electoral votes slide away from Trump’s total and hop on top of Biden’s, a 32 vote swing. That’s 0.23% of the people who voted for Trump in Michigan in 2016.

New voters are also a problem for Trump. 52% of People who didn’t vote in 2016 say they’re voting for Biden, only 32% say they will vote for Trump. Biden also leads by 11 points among voters who voted third party in 2016 and do not intend to do so this year.

Poll: 52 percent of people who didn’t vote in 2016 say they’re voting for Biden

Second, as I said, Biden isn’t Hillary. And the point of that is that no matter what you think of Trump, Hillary or Biden, it is clear that Hillary inspired a LOT of irrational hate. I don’t just mean disapproval, I mean hate, on the same level that Trump does. Biden doesn’t inspire that kind of hate. Disapproval, sure. Dislike, sure. But not that same seething hatred people felt for Hillary.

Especially look at the difference among independents, more than half of whom strongly disliked Clinton:

BIDEN DEFEATS TRUMP!

Election 2020

BIDEN DEFEATS TRUMP

Harris makes history as first woman of color elected vice president; Trump campaign pursues legal challenges

Illustration of Joe Biden

Biden279270

Illustration of Donald Trump

Trump21474,523,535 votes50.5%70,356,82147.7%President-elect Joe Biden is expected to deliver a victory speech at 8 p.m. Eastern time tonight. (Demetrius Freeman/The Post)

‘It’s time for America to unite,’ says president-elect 

Joe Biden’s victory came after a hotly contested election in which it took four days for a winner to be declared.  He won three swing states that Trump had claimed in 2016 — Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — reconstituting the “blue wall.”By Toluse OlorunnipaAnnie Linskey and Philip Rucker

Kamala Harris, daughter of Indian and Jamaican immigrants, is set to become highest-ranking woman in U.S. history

By Chelsea JanesLIVE UPDATESAccess to these updates is free

Biden adds another state with projected win in Nevada

  • 4:10PMRepublican-led lawsuit over Sharpie-marked ballots in Arizona to be dropped
  • 3:55PMSen. Bernie Sanders congratulates Biden, says he faces ‘enormous challenges’
  • 3:49PMCelebrations erupt in streets of NYC, D.C., Philadelphia
  • 3:33PMHundreds gather outside Minneapolis police station destroyed in May protests to mark Biden victory
  • 3:27PM‘I’ve never been there before’: What Trump said about golf and his fear of losing
  • 3:27PMWhat we know about Biden’s transition plans

Impromptu celebrations pop up in Washington following Biden victory announcement

A parade broke out on the streets of the nation’s capital to celebrate Joe Biden’s victory. People spilled out of homes, shops and restaurants in downtown D.C. to join the march.By Rebecca TanJessica ContreraMarissa J. Lang and Joe Heim30 minutes ago