"...if you can keep it." (part 2)

Episode 36 - "...a republic, if you can keep it." (part 2)

With the election in a couple of days, we look back to a memorable campaign ad from 1964, and discuss where each of us fits on a the political spectrum, with an emphasis on progress by working from the center (à la Kennedy & Hatch). We fact-check a Facebook post, look at the Electoral College over the past 35 year, and yet explore reasons for feeling positive.

A poem from W.H. Auden concludes the episode.

Thanks for listening. Share with your friends. Find this and more at cheynemusic.com/podcast.

Transcript

JIM (voice-over): Okay, it’s time for the lightning round. Fingers on your buzzers. Let’s see who buzzes in first. Do you know the name Monique Corzilius? That was her name as a child actress. I’ll describe one of her roles. See if you can guess this one.

She’s three years old, standing in a field, counting the petals as she pucks them from a daisy. Got it yet? She miscounts and can’t get past nine when the video freezes and zooms into her right eye as a male voice takes over and counts down from 10 to zero as if launching a missile. And then in a flash the fireball of a nuclear bomb lights up the screen with a voiceover from President Johnson saying, “These are the stakes to make a world in which all of God’s children can live or to go into the dark. We must either love each other or we must die.” And then the announced tagline, “Vote for President Johnson on November 3rd. The stakes are too high for you to stay home.”

The unnamed but obvious target of the ad was Barry Goldwater, Johnson’s Republican opponent. Goldwater had already floated the idea of solving the Vietnam War with nuclear weapons and had proclaimed, “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice,” and “Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” It’s one of the most well-known political ads in U.S. history, but journalist Bill Moyers, who served as Johnson’s press secretary, convinced the president to air the ad only once. But public reaction to that one airing was so strong that it provoked news coverage that kept the ad in the public’s mind right through to election day November 3rd, 1964.

This episode is posting on November 3rd, 2024, exactly 60 years after that election, and also exactly 60 years after I first noticed my parents disagreed on something. One had voted for Goldwater, the other for Johnson, but they wouldn’t tell Jan or me who had voted for whom, though it’s obvious now.

Goldwater’s extremism statement appears pallid when compared to today’s common practice of hyperbole and fabrication, two failings that soil every campaign to different degrees, but two failings that are prominent features of one campaign in particular. We four - Jan, Rob, Dee and I - hold that the stakes in this election again are too high for us to stay home, and are also too high not to contribute some thought and reflection.

[Music]

Here then is part two of our nod to Benjamin Franklin. “What do we have, a republic or a monarchy?” “A republic, if we can keep it.”

Ten, nine, eight, seven, six…

[Music ends]

ROB: What are you drinking, Jim?

JIM: … myself in Tanzania. This is Tanzanian coffee…

ROB: Tanzania.

JIM: …which I got from family members who traveled to Tanzania and brought us this coffee and - are you emptying it?

DEE: Yup.

JIM: Or are you just gonna pour it all over my tablecloth?

ROB: Sorry. Yeah, it’s empty.

JIM: Suppose we had a spectrum of one to five. One is far right, five is far left. Where would you put yourself on that?

DEE: 3.5.

JIM: Okay, Jan, where would you put yourself?

JAN: Four.

JIM: Four. Rob?

ROB: Four and a half.

JIM: Four and a half…

JAN: Well…

JIM: …ooh, pushing the envelope.

JAN: I - yes. I’m trying to think of a reason not to say five, but go ahead.

ROB: I could say five, but yeah, four and a half.

JIM: Four and a half, I would say, four-ish, four. Okay, so we’re all on the left side of center.

DEE: Mm-Hmm.

ROB: Yeah.

JIM: And does that play out with different issues?

JAN: Yes.

DEE: Probably, yeah.

JIM: Because now everyone’s gonna start tagging us with different things. Well, what about the economy? What about the military? What about guns? What about abortion? What about free speech? What about book banning? Then there are a bunch of litmus tests that people are gonna offer you.

JAN: Let me just explain something about this. If somebody actually wants to know what I think, I’d be glad to have that conversation with them on any issue. If they want to assume what I think, that’s their problem. So I’m declaring I’m gonna plant my flag well left of center. And I can usually come up with a pretty good argument for why on specific issues. But I’m not, to be perfectly honest, not that interested in what somebody wants to tell me I am…

DEE: Yeah.

JAN: …or wants to assume about what I think. I’ve had a lot of that in my life. There are people that may make assumptions about that, but unless they ask me and I have that conversation, I’m gonna say they don’t know.

ROB: A lot of people don’t want to have that conversation.

JAN: True, as I’ve experienced.

ROB: Yeah. 4.75.

[Laughter]

JIM: What raised your temperature then?

ROB: I don’t know. That’s more accurate, I just think.

JIM: Okay. Do those numbers that you’ve just given offer predictions on different topics?

ROB: I think they do. I mean, and that’s reasonable for people to assume from - who know me and who have listened to and we’ve had some conversation about things. Yeah, I think that that’s reasonable for them to assume certain things about me and my beliefs or my political beliefs.

JAN: I have a really good friend who is currently Republican. They do not have a pro-gun position. They would be opposed to that. They would want gun control. And if I assumed that I knew their position, I would be wrong.

ROB: Yeah.

JAN: I would suggest the same is true of me on certain issues. You may generally be correct, but I don’t enjoy a situation where people make those assumptions. I have been wrong about people when I have assumed their view on any number of issues because I thought I generally knew who they were.

DEE: I fall where I do because I want to see things get done, and I feel that you need to be closer to center in order to get things accomplished. Now there are certain issues. I would say, yeah, I would probably fall on a five on that scale, but I realize you can’t go to the extreme if you actually want to see action and legislation passed.

ROB: I want to explain why I don’t consi… I’m not a five. The fives and the ones are so far each way that their positions are not negotiable.

DEE: Mm-Hmm.

ROB: And I believe in being able to work across the aisle and come to compromise. You have to, to be like what you’re talking about, Dee, getting things done.

DEE: Yeah.

ROB: Those two can’t do that.

DEE: Right.

ROB: And I am very close to those beliefs perhaps, but I am open to, okay, I can come back this way…

DEE: Right.

ROB: …as long as we’re making progress…

DEE: Right, yeah.

ROB: …we get things done.

DEE: Yeah. 

JAN: Don’t you think, I think that’s why we make better advocates than politicians.

DEE: Mm-Hmm.

JAN: I can advocate for strong environmental legislation. I have to know going in that I’m not gonna get everything I want because there’s compromise involved.

DEE: Right.

JAN: And so for me, I work better from advocacy. What I loved recently - and this is charged, but I was so impressed by it that I’m gonna use it - was Liz Cheney’s endorsement of Kamala Harris. And I loved it because they are very different. You know, I can’t think of one time in my life, I have been on the same side of an issue as Liz Cheney, but I hold her in such high regard.

DEE: Oh yeah.

JAN: Because she recognized their higher calling here. I think back to getting things done, Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, who were on opposite sides of the spectrum, and they found ways to say, “What do we have in common here to look for solutions?” And they did that. They produced legislation together. And that, if I had a concern today, it is the death knell now to work with anybody with a different view than you.

DEE: Well, I mean, look at what happened with the border, because some of us have the memory of a goldfish. The Democrats…

ROB: Yes.

DEE: …gave on a lot of issues, which the left were not happy about, but the Republicans came together and they had an agreement and we would today have a law passed…

ROB: Yeah.

JAN: But…

DEE: …and a certain individual did not want the problem solved because it would take away what he was running on.

ROB: He wants to run on the problem, not on the solution. 

JAN: He’s not a serious person, as he…

ROB: You know, but…

DEE: No.

JIM: Well, the thing is that no one has been treated as poorly as Trump. And he says this at the Lincoln Memorial, “But I was treated worse than Lincoln.” I don’t like the name calling thing - of calling him a whiner, so I’ll let his words do it. And this is something he said on August 11th, 2015. He says, “I do whine because I want to win, and I’m not happy about not winning. And I am a whiner, and I keep whining and whining until I win.”

Everything that he’s touched, the ratings on his show, if he doesn’t win, it’s because it’s rigged. If his pageant doesn’t get the highest ratings, it’s because it’s rigged. I mean, he kept telling us all ahead of the time that this is what he was gonna be. “I am the best, everyone else is not. I’m the only one that can solve your problems. No one else has a prayer. I know more than the generals do. I know more than economists do. I know more than scientists. Some say that I’m really good at this.” This is not someone that I want to put in front of our country who can be so easily played by a compliment.

ROB: Yup.

JIM: I don’t want someone who can be so easily persuaded by money and a glad handshake to deal with our country’s reputation, our country’s finances, our country’s future. I don’t want that to be in his Christmas stocking.

JAN: It’s not competent conservative people making a case for less government. I got in trouble for this with some people, ’cause in 2016 I posted on my Facebook page, the night of the election when I was in a fetal position, that he’s a con man. Well, he’s a con man. And the very fact that somehow this election is close, with the things that he says, the things that he does, the things he doesn’t do, is mind blowing to me.

JIM: When you talk about the cult of Trump, what he represents to the country is beyond anything that he can do. He has only tapped into what was already there. This burning resentment of, “Things are changing. I don’t like the way they’re changing.” These people that have all this resentment, and he was able to say, “Hey, look to me, I’ll tell you who your problem is. There he is over there. They’re coming across the border. There he is over there. They’ve been in Congress too long. There it is over there. It’s an activist judge. There it is over there. It’s a university professor who’s teaching critical race theory, or it’s your elementary school teacher who’s teaching critical race theory. I can show you all of the bad guys.” One of the keys in autocracy is not to point out your positives, but is to put a face on a demon…

JAN & ROB: Yeah.

JIM: …to put a face on a devil. That face would be whatever you want to do it. It’s an immigrant. It’s an Ivy League person. It’s a left coast person. It’s a right coast person. It’s not the real Americans.

ROB: “They’re eating the dogs.”

JIM: The Haitians, yeah.

JAN: There are so many things to say about this election. We could do several shows about this.

JIM: We have.

JAN: I don’t know how you’re gonna get this all out before the election. But, um…

JIM: I’ll get it all out before the final recount.

ROB: Yes.

JAN: If I could encourage people to do something, I would encourage them to take this seriously and to not vote based on a meme.

JIM: Let me do this one. I might cut this out later. So, I’m on Facebook and I see a post, and it’s someone who has shared a post that someone else had copy and pasted. The post starts off like this. It says, “Wow, Trump was right. Remember when he said, ’Drain the swamp?’ It’s a deep swamp. That is why they manipulated you to hate him. He is a threat not to democracy but to them.” Then it said, “Should we fact check this? Here are some alleged facts. Go ahead and fact check these. You must know to be informed.”

So the first one says, “Yes," - and this is now all caps - “Yes, the governor of Michigan used to work for George Soros.” Next one. “Yes, California Governor Gavin Newsom is Nancy Pelosi’s nephew.” Next fact. “Yes, Adam Schiff’s sister is married to one of George Soros’s sons.” Next fact. “Yes, John Kerry’s daughter is married to a mullah’s son in Iran.” Next fact. “Yes, Hillary’s daughter Chelsea is married to George Soros’s nephew.” And then it goes on to talk about…

JAN: Oh, my lord.

JIM: …then it goes on to talk about how these, how different news executives are related, one way or another, through different people who have served in administrations, you know, because we have siblings. So what I did was I said, “Now, I don’t want to come down too hard on this,” and it said, “Go ahead and fact check.” So I did. “No governor of Michigan has ever worked for George Soros.”

ROB: Yeah.

JIM: “Gavin Newsom is not Nancy Pelosi’s nephew. Adam Schiff’s sister is not married to one of George Soros’s sons. Adam Schiff does not have a sister. John Kerry’s daughter is not married to a mulla’s son in Iran, and Chelsea Clinton is married to” - and I gave the name - “who has no relation to George Soros at all.”

Foreign governments are trying to interfere with our election through misinformation, and I want to know, as a citizen of this country, as a patriotic citizen of this country, whose bidding am I doing? Am I on there using our enemy’s propaganda to attack my government as this person did, or am I saying something that’s true? So just fact checked it. And if you happen to be one who has a certain ethical bias towards truth, why are you putting this sort of thing out there?

ROB: Yeah.

JIM:And it came - from the two people that I saw, the one who originally had copy pasted it, and the one who had shared it - are both ministers. They’re both ministers. And it’s a shame to the gospel and to their witness that they would post something like this, not having checked it themselves, or just saying, “Yeah, this makes me feel good, so I’ll put this out there, and I’ll poison the waters this way.” I want to know, how is this a patriotic thing? How is this a Christian thing? How is this an ethical thing? How is this serving our country? So sometimes I just scroll by and just say, “Oh, bless their heart.” And then there are other times when I look at it and say, I think there’s something evil going on here. And I think this person is responsible.

DEE: The only time I ever hear the name George Soros is from conservatives. I would say the majority of Republicans, or conservatives, or MAGA people have no clue who George Soros is, except, “Oh, that’s the guy we don’t like,” apparently.

JAN: That’s what it is. I mean, you don’t, tell me something real about him. It’s that the words that you use that are supposed to convey all this meaning, but you yourself don’t understand what they mean.

DEE: Right, yeah.

JAN: And you should leave that in.

JIM: It’s the poison that we put a label on something, then we poison that label, and then we accuse who we’ve labeled of everything that we’ve poisoned them of. It’s, “Oh, you’re a conservative. That means then, and here’s my whole list against you.” “You’re a liberal. And that means then, here it is.” Here’s my whole list against them. You know. “I only want to research until I get to the point I want to get to.” And I think last season someplace, I defined a progressive as someone who pursues an argument past their point of agreement.

JAN: You know what’s the hardest? This is why I’ve been at a loss since 2016. What has really thrown me is the very foundation of my profession, and really how I’ve viewed politics my whole life is that you present people with information with facts, and that will affect their thinking. When that went out the window, I didn’t know what to do. I still… It’s a really bad example, but it’s to me a so obvious one. And it’s Trump, when he stood up on his day of inauguration and said he had the biggest crowds ever, and we’re looking at it, and we know that’s not true. We are looking with our own eyes. Now, I don’t care if it’s the biggest crowd or not. He’s the one that made the statement, I could care less. But he’s making a statement that’s not true, that we can see. People went along with it, and I’m like, “But you can see.” And so when that’s a situation and something so blatantly obvious, what do we do with the rest of this?

JIM: The four of us kind of bristled by it because we were part of the largest inauguration.

DEE: We were actually there.

ROB: Yeah, we were there.

JIM: With 1.8 million, not two million, 1.8 million of our closest friends. It was a day that had no arrests. The only ugliness that happened is when Bush takes off in the helicopter and flies over the crowd. There are a few expletives, uh, expressed digitally. I’ll say it that way.

We have a sometimes contentious group here on this block. It comes out from time to time. So when I see two neighbors across the street from each other and they’re kind of yelling at each other the day after a debate, they’re yelling different things at each other, and I’m just thinking, “Boy, it’s getting heated.” And so I went down and I just talked to one. I said, “How’s things going?” “Oh, no, he’s a good friend. We just do this sometimes.” And then the other person I had never met before. So I just went to him, started talking about whatever. And every time he’s out on his drive, I’m just talking to him. And I know that he and I won’t agree politically, but that’s not the way I’m gonna define the relationship.

JAN: We have to be what we would want in other people. And that’s, you know, if you want to look…

ROB: Do we though? [Laughter] Do we have to?

JAN: Well, it sounds trite, but you know what? I’ll take it. I’ll take doing that because we don’t have a good situation right now in this country. And we can look at what’s happened to the church as a result of where we are politically, as an example of what happens when the church gets in bed with somebody for power, because that’s what’s happened. And we lose credibility. As the two pastors that you mentioned, Jim, posted, okay, how am I gonna go to them with a spiritual problem when you say things that aren’t true, that are easily discoverable is not true?

JIM: Oh, you turn the relationship around. They obviously need some pastoral care.

JAN: Yeah.

JIM: And you can provide it.

ROB: That’s true. I’m feeling positive about things.

JIM: What’s your reason for being positive, Rob?

ROB: We were so far behind with Joe Biden. And in a very short time, we’ve caught up. According to everything, it’s a dead heat. And we’re not making the mistake that we made with Hillary, where we thought the polls were on our side and everything’s gonna be fine. Kamala never says we’re ahead. “We are working from behind.” She’s got the best ground game that we’ve had in the history of democratic elections. She’s everywhere. She’s got the best surrogates. We know as a fact that there are more of us than there are Republicans. I mean, the last few Republican presidents haven’t won the popular vote. I think she’s tapped into this latest generation, and, you know, if they come out, like I think they’re going to, I’m feeling good about that situation.

JIM: Just a thought about the electoral college that you’re mentioning there, Rob. Since Ronald Reagan has left office in 1989, Republicans have won one popular vote. And that was in 2004, because we were in the middle of a war on terror, and if you go over American history, America has never voted out an incumbent during a war. To talk about the electoral college now becomes partisan because you frame it in that way. Democrats wanna get rid of it, Republicans wanna keep it. But they wanna keep it, basically, because that’s what keeps power with the minority. That’s how they keep their hold on power is they can do certain numbers a certain way. And then different people’s votes count for something different. Another thing is the changing demographics. Three of us here are what are called baby boomers. The oldest baby boomers turned 78 this year. The youngest baby boomers turned 60 this year. And baby boomers die somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 every day. Which means there are roughly 15 million fewer baby boomers in this election than there were in 2016. 15 million fewer. And so if that is where Trump is trying to say that Make America Great Again back when Leave It to Beaver was on TV or whenever it was great, that those people are not as available to him anymore. So I think there’s a swing. But there it is.

And be prepared for early voting, for mail-in voting. It was primarily the mail-in vote - some on the right will not remember - it was primarily the mail-in vote that gave George Bush the presidency because it was military, which was overwhelmingly for Bush in the 2000 election. And it’s those ballots that came in later that gave him the edge that he needed to claim Florida and therefore the presidency. So please don’t just say, “Mail-in votes are bad because, oh, spooky things can happen.” It’s the way that the elections are run and it’s run very well.

JAN: We’re in times I’ve never seen and I’m an old person. The country kind of hangs by a thread right now.

DEE: Yes.

JAN: The librarian in me wants to say, “Please use good sources of information. And if you’re not sure what those are, find out, and listen to another point of view.”

JIM (voice-over): In the memorable Daisy ad, Johnson warned, “We must either love each other or we must die.” That phrase echoes a poem by W.H. Auden titled “September 1, 1939,” which Auden wrote in response to the eruption of fascism in Europe. I’ll use a stanza from that poem to close.

“All I have is a voice

To undo the folded lie,

The romantic lie in the brain

Of the sensual man-in-the-street

And the lie of Authority

Whose buildings grope the sky:

There is no such thing as the State

And no one exists alone;

Hunger allows no choice

To the citizen or the police:

We must love one another or die.”

Until next time.

[Music]

Sources used and/or cited herein:

FACT CHECKING SOURCES

Here are some of the most reliable sources for fact-checking misinformation, particularly around current events and political statements:

1. FactCheck.org – A project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, this nonpartisan site debunks false claims from politicians, interest groups, and media. It’s known for rigorous research and transparency in sources. <https://www.factcheck.org>

2. PolitiFact – Run by the Poynter Institute, PolitiFact checks claims made by politicians and public figures. Its "Truth-O-Meter" ratings range from “True” to “Pants on Fire” and are widely respected for helping readers assess truthfulness. <https://www.politifact.com>

3. Snopes – Initially known for debunking urban legends, Snopes has expanded to address viral misinformation and political claims. It is a widely used, independent resource for both social media rumors and high-profile claims. <https://www.snopes.com>

4. Reuters Fact Check – As part of Reuters News Agency, this fact-checking section verifies viral stories and misinformation, especially on social media. They provide clear explanations and citations for each claim checked. <https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/>

5. Associated Press (AP) Fact Check – The AP has a dedicated team that verifies claims and rumors, offering context and corrections for misinformation spreading online. Their fact-checks are known for being brief and accurate, focusing on verifiable data. <https://apnews.com/ap-fact-check>

6. Media Bias/Fact Check – While it doesn’t fact-check directly, it rates the bias and factual reliability of various news sources. This helps readers gauge the likely slant and reliability of the sources they encounter. <https://mediabiasfactcheck.com>

7. The Washington Post Fact Checker – Known for its “Pinocchio” rating system, the Washington Post evaluates political statements and viral rumors, adding depth by explaining why statements are misleading or false. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fact-checker/>

These sources are highly regarded for transparency, established editorial standards, and their commitment to truth-based reporting.

For nonpartisan voter information in the U.S., these trusted resources provide objective insights:

1. Ballotpedia – A comprehensive source covering candidates, measures, and elections at all levels. It offers neutral profiles and background information on candidates and ballot initiatives. <https://ballotpedia.org/Main_Page>

2. Vote411.org (League of Women Voters) – This platform offers unbiased candidate comparisons, voting guides, and polling locations tailored to your address. <https://www.vote411.org>

3. FactCheck.org – Focuses on fact-checking claims and statements by candidates and public figures, with additional context on political issues. <https://www.factcheck.org>

4. PolitiFact – Rates the accuracy of candidate statements and provides context on major policy issues, helping voters understand key topics without bias. <https://www.politifact.com>

5. Pew Research Center – Offers data-driven reports and analyses on major political and social issues that affect elections, without endorsing candidates or positions. <https://www.pewresearch.org>

The Civics Center Org – voter registration information <https://www.thecivicscenter.org/our-purpose>

Vote.org – 501c3 remove barriers to voting. <https://www.vote.org>

Florida Judicial Elections:

The votes in your court: prep’d by the Florida Bar and the Constitutional Judiciary Committee

<https://thevotesinyourcourt.com/wpcontent/uploads/2024/09/Voters-Guide-FINAL_Digital-V3.pdf>

TampaBay: Judicial retention information <https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/elections/2024/10/14/supreme-court-meredith-sasso-renatha-francis-retention-vote-ballot/>

Florida Supreme Court Opinion search: 

https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/Opinions/Opinion-Search-For-All-Appellate-Courts?sort=opinion/disposition_date%20desc,%20opinion/case_number%20asc&view=embed_custom&searchtype=opinions&show_scopes=1&limit=50&scopes[]=supreme_court&startdate=&enddate=&date[year]=&date[month]=&date[day]=&query=&offset=0>

Further sources of information provided in this podcast:

“The economic rationale for strong action now against Covid-19” (STAT News) <https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/18/economic-rationale-strong-action-now-against-coronavirus/>

“Economic impacts of the COVID virus” (World Bank Group) <https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2022/brief/chapter-1-introduction-the-economic-impacts-of-the-COVID-19-crisis>

“The U.S. was beset by denial and dysfunction as the coronavirus raged” (Washington Post, April 4,2020) <https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/04/04/coronavirus-government-dysfunction/>

“US could have averted 40% of Covid deaths, says panel examining Trump's policies” (The Guardian) <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/10/us-coronavirus-response-donald-trump-health-policy>

“A pandemic plan was in place. Trump abandoned it — and science — in the face of Covid-19” (STAT News) <https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/17/the-art-of-the-pandemic-how-donald-trump-walked-the-u-s-into-the-COVID-19-era/>

“How Trump Gutted Obama’s Pandemic-Preparedness Systems” (Vanity Fair) <https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/trump-obama-coronavirus-pandemic-response>

“Obama warned of pandemic threat in 2014, but Republicans blocked funding” (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution) <https://www.ajc.com/news/obama-warned-pandemic-threat-2014-but-republicans-blocked-funding/dh2H9HxiuBY05T5uPqtqpI/>

“Evidence Shows Obama Team Left A Pandemic ‘Game Plan’ For Trump Administration” (KFF Health News - KHN & Politifact Healthcheck) <https://kffhealthnews.org/news/evidence-shows-obama-team-left-a-pandemic-game-plan-for-trump-administration/>

“FACT SHEET: Obama Administration Takes Actions to Combat Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria” <https://kffhealthnews.org/news/evidence-shows-obama-team-left-a-pandemic-game-plan-for-trump-administration/>