Why the Electors Should Elect Hillary Clinton

The electoral college is a strange institution. It is a nod to populism and democracy restrained by a heavy dose of elitism. It was created, in part, because the Founders were not sure the people were capable of electing a President, and, also, because this is America, another way for slave-holding states to protect their institution. It should be abolished. However, for most of its history, the electoral college vote and the popular vote lined up anyway and so it fell to the “if it ain't broke,” priority level. But now, two of the last three Presidents have been elected to their first term after losing the electoral vote. And given how the demographics in this country are changing, I suspect the odds of the popular President losing will continue to increase. The best solution is, of course, a Constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college and instituting a simple popular vote (or perhaps even a hybrid system where the College is used to break a statistical tie), but the second best solution is for electors to informally commit to cast their votes for whichever candidate won the popular vote. And there is no pair of candidates more deserving of informal solution than Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Here's why. (And the way things are going, this list will be incomplete the day or so after I publish it.)

Clinton Won the Popular Vote By a Substantial Margin

As of this writing, experts are estimating that Clinton is likely to have received 2 million more votes than Donald Trump. There is a chance that margin of victory could be much higher. This is not within a margin of error. That is not a small enough number to claim they are essentially tied and use the geographic distribution of electoral college votes as the tie breaker. That is a clear win.

Honestly, even with everything else I am going to argue specifically about Trump, if this were not the case, if he had won the popular vote or if that difference had been less than or around the difference between Bush and Gore in 2000, none of that would matter. Living in a representative democracy means accepting the representatives that are elected. If a majority of Americans voted for him, there would be no justifiable reason for electors to even consider breaking with precedent. But most Americans voted for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is an unprecedented candidate.

Trump's Ties to Russia

It is somewhat ironic, that buried within all the terrible justifications for the electoral college is a decent one that is suddenly relevant. The primary reason for the “natural-born citizen” clause in the Constitution is to protect the United States from a President who is under the influence of a foreign power. In short, the electors are bound by the Constitution to protect the country from a President with compromising foreign ties. Suspicion of compromising ties to Russia and the Putin regime have plagued the Trump campaign, along with evidence of Russian meddling in our election in his favor. A Russian diplomat claimed that Russia had long been in contact with the Trump campaign. Trump also, HAS ALREADY TALKED TO VLADIMIR PUTIN. BEFORE HE TALKED TO THE PENTAGON. We still only have strong suspicions, but we have at least as much of it for Trump's alleged ties to Russia as we did for Clinton's alleged misconduct as Secretary of State.

That there is a reasonable suspicion and that he TALKED TO PUTIN BEFORE THE PENTAGON and we have an alternative that won the popular vote makes this decision much less fraught.

Unprecedented Conflicts of Interest

Rather than putting his business affairs in a true blind trust, he has simply turned over their management to three of his children, which does not constitute the blind trust that would undo the risk of conflicts of interest. To make matters worse, those same three children will be on his transition team. This is a clear conflict of interest and one that cannot be tolerated. He has now also asked that his son-in-law be given security clearance, a person with no apparent role in the administration who also happens to own media. And already Ivanka has come under fire for potentially using the platform of the presidency to hawk her jewelry line. Perhaps what is most alarming about the overtness of these violations of protocol is that it is clear either no one in the Trump family or transition team actually understands what the concept of conflict of interest is or doesn't care. This, at the very least, suggests that Trump is, at the very least, comfortable with, at the very least, appearing like he is using the Presidency for personal enrichment. Or, to put this another, Republicans would lose their goddamn minds if Hillary Clinton included Chelsea in her transition team.

Furthermore, because he did not release his full tax returns, we do not know what other potential conflicts of interest he might have. Does he have relationships with foreign banks? Does he have investments in industries that stand to gain from certain policies? Does he hold compromising debts? Has he evaded taxes in potentially actionable ways? In short, we already see one very direct, very avoidable, disqualifying conflict of interest and have reason to suspect there may be many more.

Steve Bannon

According to Steve Bannon's own words and other white supremacists, Steve Bannon is a white supremacist. The fact that Trump has named him chief strategist and given him such a level of power in shaping the executive branch of the United States of America, tells me that Donald Trump is unfit to be the President of the United States, if for no other reason that it is an extremely stupid, stupid thing to do. If Trump wanted a smooth transition, even for nefarious purposes, if Trump wanted to quiet some of the protest surrounding his election, even for nefarious purposes, if Trump wanted to make it difficult for Democrats to oppose the Republican agenda, even for nefarious purposes, giving Bannon a high profile position is a terrible tactic as it validates all of the accusations leveled against him. Along with all the reasons why such a terrible person should not have that much power in our society, it displays a shocking lack of judgment by Donald Trump. (Sidenote: Bannon is only third because in terms of the roll of the electoral college, the first two points, I think, are directly relevant to their Constitutional responsibilities.)

He Has Empowered White Supremacy

Emboldened by Trump's election, there has been a spike in hate crimes around the country. As of this writing, no one has died. There are moments when I am grateful and there are moments when I am terrified that I am grateful that no one has died. Significant aspects of his platform are overtly unconstitutional and, along with damaging the lives of American citizens and other human beings, will clog our court systems with constant legal battles. And he was endorsed by the KKK and is bringing known racists (see above) into the White House. We don't want a President endorsed by the KKK and we don't need to have one.

Ongoing Legal Issues

Trump also faces an ongoing lawsuit against Trump University, one that could potentially result in criminal charges. He has also been accused by multiple women of sexual assault. He and his businesses have also had a long history of refusing to pay contractors and others who have performed services for them and daring them to take him to court. Perhaps his election will discourage those who might have brought suit against him. Perhaps that is an even better reason not to make him president.

His Transition Has Been a Disaster

His transition team has had one major shake-up, he is not prepared to higher the requisite staff, he needs extra coaching from Obama to be prepared, his proposed cabinet (all the versions of his proposed cabinet) are just the people who were nicest to him over the course of his campaign, in absence of other preparation he's hired the same lobbyists, cronies, and corporate stooges he promised to “drain” from Washington, and his communication with the various parts of the executive branch have been spotty at best.

He has had months to prepare. He has had since July, to do the work of creating an administration. Given that he does not have any previous government experience, I think we can forgive something of a learning curve. That said, he is now going to be the most powerful person on the planet. If he does a poor job of preparing to govern, when he has only one (albeit complicated) issue to prepare for, how good of a job actually governing can we expect him to do?

He Doesn't Want to Be President

As has been abundantly clear by his desire to only spend part of his time at the White House and the look on his face during his meetings with President Obama, Trump had no idea the scale of the responsibility of the presidency and has no particular desire to rise to the scale. He wants to give speeches. He wants to have the triumph of winning the election. He wants his ego validated. He does not want to govern. He can have everything that he wants and Clinton can still be President.

Arguments Against

There are, of course, reasons one might decide honoring one particular aspect of the electoral college is more important than preventing the certain damage a Trump presidency will do to the world. As with all arguments, some are more valid than others. Here are a few that I anticipate along with my counter arguments.

Small States

Just look at all that red on the map. The electoral college ensures that smaller, less populated states don't have their views trammeled by the urban majority. We should respect that right.

Small states already have the Senate. They essentially have the House too. In fact, in every governing body where representation is distributed geographically, smaller communities have more power than larger communities. There should be safe guards that ensure the interests of those who don't live in major metropolitan areas are respected, but those safe guards already exist. (I mean, one of the major reasons Massachusetts doesn't fund the MBTA at the level it needs is the geographic distribution of legislative power enhances the influence of Western Massachusetts who somehow doesn't get that I don't really drive on their roads that my taxes pay for in the same way they don't really ride the T.)

And about that red map. It certainly looks impressive, but, there are fewer people in the red than there are in the blue. I've had discussions around this issue before, and there really isn't a way to get around the fact that arguing for the electoral college argues that people in cities deserve less representation than people in towns. Even if you don't intend for that to be the case, when representation is allocated geographically, that is the case. There are a lot of different ways to handle this (parliamentary-style proportional representation rather than winner-take-all elections has some appeal) but in the short term, respecting the interests of the greater number of voting American citizens requires electors voting for Clinton.

Won't There Be Unrest

Before they won the electoral college, Trump and his surrogates were crowing about how the election would be “rigged” and how they would not respect the results if Clinton won. Some, including people who have held office, advocated for protest and (I'm being very generous here) hinted at armed resurrection. If they were posturing that way before the election, even though if you accept the electoral college as valid you have to accept elector freedom as valid, imagine the kind of violence they would be capable of if pledged electors flipped their votes.

First, there already is unrest. Unless, of course, you don't consider a wave of hate crimes unrest.

Second, I thought we weren't supposed to negotiate with terrorists. If Trump and his supporters are willing to resort to violence to install him in the Presidency that is all the more reason he shouldn't have it.

What if a Republican Wins the Popular Vote But Not the Electoral College

Then that candidate should be President. As I said earlier, this movement to influence electors doesn't really happen if Trump won the popular vote.

We Should Respect the State by State Results

Whether or not this is a legitimate way of electing the President (see above about the representation of small states in government), Republican governments in numerous states, including important swing states like Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, and Wisconsin actively suppressed the vote in specific populations in order to increase their chances of winning. Voter fraud is, essentially, non-existent, and yet, waving this boogey-man around after the gutting of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court, Republican state governments imposed onerous registration requirements and reduced access to the ballot in ways that specifically targeted African-American and other likely Democratic voters. Therefore, there is good reason to question the validity of the results in all states that imposed voting restrictions after the Voting Rights Act was voided.

It Wasn't a Popular Vote Election/Any Other Technical Reason to Question the Popular Vote

I have seen some fairly logical, fairly reasonable arguments why the fact of the popular vote win in this case does not really mean that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. I'm as big a fan of logical and reasonableness as the next guy and logic and reason tell me that we need to do everything we can to prevent a Trump Presidency. I think the numbers also would have been different if say, it mattered at all that he lied more than the told the truth, or if a false equivalency hadn't been created between the two of the major candidates, or if he hadn't been giving millions or even billions of dollars in free publicity by CNN et al., or if Republicans hadn't been smearing Clinton for thirty years for having the audacity to try to be a woman in power, or if moderate Republican voters actually voted the moderate choice, or any of the other myriad of woulda, coulda, shouldas between us and the Trump presidency.

Go ahead, call me a sore loser. But I would have some serious questions about someone who could lose graciously to the KKK.

An Open Letter to Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey

Now the work begins. I am still figuring out what I am going to do, where I am going to send my money how I am going to help. I think it's clear the primary policy goal is to flip the House (and maybe the Senate, though that might be even more of a long shot) in 2018, the way Republicans flipped it in 2010. I think between then and now, we need to find ways to prevent and ameliorate the damage a Republican administration (let alone a Trump administration) will do to this country, especially this country's most powerless and vulnerable citizens. I'm a writer so my first impulse is to write stuff. Below is a letter I sent to both of my Senators. I should note that, though I don't remember where I saw this first, I definitely saw this idea expressed by other people. If you like what I have to say and/or the way I say it, you are free to use this words in part or in total. Boats against the current, y'all and don't let the bastards grind you down.

Dear Senator Elizabeth Warren & Senator Ed Markey,

In 2008, Barack Obama won the popular vote and the electoral college. The Democrats won the House and won a super-majority in the Senate. I don't know if popular mandates really exist, but 2008 was awfully close to one. And how did congressional Republicans respond to the direct endorsement of the 2008 Democratic platform: by vowing to make President Obama a one-term president.

To do so they abused every procedural loophole, broke decades old agreements, and ignored long-standing decorum. They obstructed bipartisan legislation with anonymous holds. They refused to confirm Federal appointments. They filibustered virtually every single piece of legislation that was put forth.

Furthermore, there is ample evidence that they never once negotiated in good faith. They never intended to support anything President Obama proposed even when it was essentially a Republican policy. Even when their ideas were incorporated into legislation through compromise and consensus, as the federally administered public option was removed from the Affordable Care Act, they still refused to support the legislation. They asked for everything and even when they got it, they still said “no.” Their only goal was to deny the first African-American President anything resembling a policy victory and if that meant hobbling the efforts to recover after the worst recession since The Great Depression and stoking the fires of racist resentment, so be it.

I am not asking you to shout at President Trump during his State of the Union address. Even though more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton I am not asking you to question the legal validity of his presidency. I am not asking you to question his citizenship, to spread rumors about his faith, to accuse him of crimes he did not and could not have committed, or to attribute problems to him he could in no way have prevented. I'm not asking you to stoop to their level of insulting the American people by refusing to outwardly respect their President.

But I am asking you to block everything. Filibuster everything. Put an anonymous hold on everything. You were rewarded for your decency and your commitment to longstanding procedures with the Tea Party, a vacant Supreme Court seat, government shutdowns, a game of chicken with the debt ceiling, and Donald Trump, a man who began his political career by questioning Barak Obama's citizenship. Given how the districts were gerrymandered in 2010, given how they treated you when you were in power, given that more Americans voted for Democrats in the House in 2014, and given that Hillary Clinton received more votes for President than Donald Trump, they have not earned your consent or cooperation. They have not earned the right to discriminate. They have not earned the right to discard science. They have not earned the right to threaten a woman's right to choose. They have not earned the right to risk the health and well-being of our people. They have not earned the right to govern as if they speak for all Americans. They have not earned the respect they refused to show to you.

If the Trump administration magically starts proposing productive thoughtful policies with meaningful common ground, then negotiate for the best version of those policies possible, but make no compromises for the sake of compromise. Do not reach across the aisle to create the optics of bipartisanship. You've tried that already and they spit in your hand.

To be the adult in this room, you need to fight like hell.

We know exactly what they plan to do and we know the terrible consequences if their platform is adopted. I know you will not be able to stop everything, but you are our dam against the flood of dangerous policies and we need you to hold strong for at least two years.

I promise, that if you do, the voters of America will do better in 2018.

Thank you for your time.

Signed,

Josh Cook

Piggy Banks at Parnassus, Largehearted Boy, Apt and What Social Security for Everyone Would Mean for Books

A bookseller at Parnassus Books, Ann Patchett's bookstore in Nashville, was faced with medical bills she was unable to pay on her own. In response, the store organized a fundraiser to help her and other booksellers around the country facing financial crises. They got a number of authors, including some very famous authors, to decorate piggy banks and then auctioned them off. It was a testament to the generosity and creativity of people in the book world. Soon after that, David Gutowski of largehearted boy  was faced with a sudden medical emergency and had to set up a gofundme  campaign in order to cover the costs. The goal for the campaign was $20,000 and when I last checked, more than double that had been raised. Once again, a community without a lot of spare capital came together to support one of their own. Even more recently, apt literary magazine and Aforementioned productions, a small nonprofit press and event organization, found itself in tenuous financial circumstances after the founders, who had been sustaining the venture from their own pockets, got into a car accident. They publish a great literary magazine and great books and they put on fantastic events. I have no doubt that, once again, the literary community will come together to make sure the important work of culture continues.

The usual framing of stories like these focuses on the generosity, the community, the happy ending. And that's great and all. We should celebrate generosity. We should celebrate community. We should celebrate the happy ending. But we should also ask why these people needed community generosity in the first place.

Largehearted boy isn't just some blog on the internet, it is one of the longest running, most influential, and most important lit and music blogs out there. And yet for all the readers, for all the influence, all the followers, all the interviews, all the partnerships and playlists, David did not have the financial security to weather a medical emergency. We have to wonder whether there would be a largehearted boy at all if something like this befell David five or ten years ago. And then we have to wonder how many largehearted boys, Aforementioned productions, and Parnassus bookstores we don't have because of a cancer diagnosis, a broken down car, or a lost day job.

To me, this is all part of the same problem, the same flaw in our economic system that creates poorly paid nurses, writers who can't make a living on their writing, teachers' aids who need second jobs, adjunct professors living on welfare, parents working a third job to cover the cost of childcare that allows them to go to their first two, and nearly all of the other material precariousness in our society. There are lots of different ways to solve this precariousness, but, I believe, the simplest, most efficient, and most effective way is a federally administrated guaranteed minimum income or Social Security for everybody. Sure, there would still be problems, still be poverty, still be material insecurity, but there would be far less of all three and all three would be more easier to deal with. In the book world alone, the impact would be tremendous.

Wonky Warning: This piece is going to go on for a bit, so if you don't want to sit through all of it here's an executive summary. Our system only rewards industries that focus on profits and so the vast majority of capital has been sucked to those industries. Direct redistribution is the easiest way to correct that imbalance. A guaranteed income of $30K or more a year would give a financial flexibility to the book industry that would allow people to make a decent living while keeping the final price point for books relatively low. Ultimately, the only real argument against Social Security for Everybody is the idea that some people deserve to be poor. I guess you can believe that, but you sure as fuck better not call yourself Christian while you do.

If you think about it, the fundamental idea of capitalism is kind of...odd. Basically, the free flow of capital in service to the drive for increased profits through unfettered markets will result, through competition and consumer choice, in high quality goods at fair prices and a more prosperous society. The odd thing is that what should be the goal, a more prosperous society, is actually the byproduct. Essentially, people striving for profit will inherently make a prosperous society. Seems like a pretty tenuous assumption is you ask me. And it creates a pretty significant inherent flaw: there is no way to stop destructive, dangerous, and destabilizing actions if they produce short term profits.

Of course, there has been some prosperity, some ingenuity, some advancement from previous societies, (I mean, even Marx believed capitalism was necessary) but that flaw compromises everything. It has lots of different consequences from oil companies not using their vast wealth and research infrastructures to pioneer renewable resources, to the fact that currency speculation is a thing, to companies driving around aluminum to inflate its price, to lack of paid parental leave, etc, but the one I'm focusing on now, is that those who make the most money in our system are those who either; position themselves close to money, spread the cost of their profit around so that people don't feel like they are paying them, shift some significant portion of their overhead onto some other entity, and/or have or control a resource that people need to pay for. As you'll notice, there aren't many of any of those in the book world.

So, some quick examples to explain all four. First, someone working in finance is already working with money, so it is easy to find ways (legally and ethically, legally and unethically, and illegally but uncaught) to generate profit. That's why there are plenty of mediocre or even bad investment bankers, financial planners, hedge fund managers, etc who make a shit ton more money than, say, the world's greatest nurse or the teacher's aid who lays the groundwork for people with autism to lead fulfilling adult lives. Second, Oprah is very profitable, primarily because you give her money. Of course, it doesn't feel like you do, because you give your money first to a company that advertises on her show, network, in her magazine or whatever. You could say the same for those people and organizations that find ways to diminish your awareness of payment through convenience (automatic payments a la Netflix,) or bait-and-switch style fees added on to sticker price. Third, by paying its workers so poorly, Walmart has essentially shifted a major portion of its overhead (the part that keeps its employees, you know, alive) onto federal and state relief programs. Amazon does something similar by using their size in the market to force margin cuts onto vendors and squeeze tax breaks out of cities. Of course, there are people and businesses that engage quite ethically in all three of these methods of profit maximization, but, the important fact is there is no mechanism inherent within capitalism to prevent someone like Martin Skirelli from being a total fucking asshole. If it's profitable, it's unstoppable. I don't think the fourth strategy really needs an example, but I'll just say that it can be really easy to make money if you own buildings or the patents to lifesaving drugs.

There are lots of ways to fix, or at least mitigate the consequences of, this inherent flaw and we've actually tried a lot of them with a fair amount of success; collective bargaining through trade unions, regulations on the financial market, overtime pay, meaningful minimum wage, (you know, all the stuff that Republicans claim destroys the economy but, you know, keeps the rat poison out of your sausages) but over the years (and especially after Reagan) all of those fixes have slowly eroded, leading to the situation we're in now.

So how does this all relate to books? First, books are extremely expensive to make and it is very difficult to shift any of those costs around. At the absolute theoretical minimum, a traditionally published book takes a writer, an editor, and everyone involved in the logistics of distribution from the printer to the bookseller, but more likely there will be at least two editors involved and a proofreader and a book designer and a cover designer and then all of the infrastructure that allows those editors and designers to work and all that distribution I mentioned earlier. And that's if you don't put any time/money/effort towards trying to sell the book, which will involve a whole host of other people, publicists, marketers, sales reps, etc. Which is all a long way of saying that, given the cost of production, books are actually extremely cheap. To think that you can get something that lasts roughly forever, that is the result of thousands upon thousands of hours of human effort, for $15-35 is downright miraculous.

But they don't feel cheap. With the stagnation of wages and the continued growth in the cost of necessities, Americans have far less disposable income than they once did. So a $35 hardcover or even a $17 paperback, both feel more expensive in the moment than say, a $5 cup of coffee or your monthly Netflix fee. And since you can eat books or live in them, they have to come from the luxury side of the budget. To put this another way, very few people in 2016 could afford to buy books if their cover prices reflected true cost of production. The result; writers can't make a living off their writing, the industry is buoyed by unpaid internships, and many talented, passionate people have to leave for higher paying jobs and those that stay often have to rely on partners or families to make up the gaps in their financial lives. The overhead is often dropped as low as it will go, and many people in the industry, including those who sell a lot of books, live with financial precariousness.

But what if everyone in America got $32,000 a year guaranteed from the federal government?

First, that $30 hardcover, $18 paperback doesn't look so expensive. Perhaps my least favorite part of the job is watching an excited child rush up to their parent with a book they desperately want to own and then seeing said parent's face fall when confronted with the price. Or really anybody hold a book for a moment, just fucking know they want to read it, but also just fucking know they can't justify $35 this month. That extra income would remove books from the “luxuries” or “indulgences” portion of many Americans' budgets and sales would go up.

Second, the financial lives of everyone in the industry, from the writer to the bookseller and everyone in between, is improved without having to raise the cover price of books. (I can't even begin to say how much my life would improve.) Some professionals in the industry would see their yearly incomes double (DOUBLE!) without having to pass on a cost increase to the consumer. Of course, this wouldn't solve all of publishing's problems (or all of society's problems) but it would go a long way in mitigating the impact of those problems and providing a different fundamental footing from which to address them. Passionate, talented people without rich partners or parents could stay in the industry. (And afford to buy houses and have children while they do so.) Writers could spend more time writing and less time on whatever their real source of income would be. Readers who want to buy more, could. (And, let's be honest, a lot of those new sales would come from people already in the industry who also, now have more discretionary income.) And, of course, booksellers, bloggers, and small presses, like aforementioned, largehearted boy, and the folks from Parnassus wouldn't need the generosity of their community to keep making books, writing about books, and selling books.

Capitalism concentrates wealth in certain people and certain industries. In many ways, we only have books and art and little league and Girl Scouts, because most people actually aren't capitalists and are more than happy to do the work that is important to them regardless of its relationship to profit and financial security. There are many ways to compensate for this, some complex and some simple. Some involve big administrative structures that need to be periodically updated and adapted to changing circumstances. Some are difficult. One is simple. Social Security for everybody isn't a magic bullet for all of our problems, but, it's pretty close. With one policy change and one administrative structure, the financial precariousness that afflicts so many people in the book world and American society in general would be solved.



P.S. Obviously, there are a lot of arguments against Social Security for everyone, but this post is already very long and very wonky. And I suspect most of you who read this are already relatively sympathetic to the idea. However, if you would like a more general, more in depth defense of the idea of the guaranteed income leave a comment here or somewhere in social media and if I get a few requests, I'll do a follow up post.

My Tattoo: The Annotated Edition

At some point in my life, I said that I would get a tattoo when I published my first book. At the time, I didn't have anything particular in mind, it was just something that seemed like a good way to commemorate, you know, a dream come true. And then, well, I published a book and the whole tattoo thing kinda slipped my mind. In my defense, there was a lot of shit going on around the publication of my book; copy edits, publicity essays, final proofs, setting up the tour, preparing for the tour, bookseller letters, and then the book came out and there was the actual tour, some interviews and other pieces, and you know, still working full time at the bookstore. (There was a fair amount in Ye Olde Personal Life as well.) The whole tattoo thing just kind of slipped my mind.

And then a couple of months ago, a few things came together. In no particular order. I am now totally in the world of what I hope will be my next novel, and the publication of An Exaggerated Murder has become more of event in my life. One of my best friends reminded me that I said I would get a tattoo when I published my first book. One of my other best friends, who happens to be a kickass tattoo artist, opened up her own shop. I read this absolutely beautiful picture book at the store, Tell Me a Tattoo Story. And, probably most importantly, I figured out how to visually cram a ton of what is most important in my prose writing life into a single image. The result, as will come as no surprise to readers of this blog or people who know me in general, is literary as fuck.

So, here is my tattoo story, or as I like to think of it (see above about the whole literary as fuck thing) the annotated edition of my tattoo.

In chronological order of their appearance in culture:

1. Illumination of the Oxford Scholar or Clerk from The Canterbury Tales

Here is how Chaucer introduces this fine fellow.

A CLERK from Oxford was there also,
Who'd studied philosophy, long ago
As lean was his horse as is a rake,
And he too was not fat, that I take,
But he looked emaciated, moreover, abstemiously.
Very worn off was his overcoat; for he
Had got him yet no churchly benefice,
Nor he was worldly to accept secular office.
For he would rather have at his bed's head
Some twenty books, all bound in black or red,
Of Aristotle and his philosophy
Than rich robes, fiddle, or gay psaltery.
Yet, and for all he was philosopher in base,
He had but little gold within his suitcase;
But all that he might borrow from a friend
On books and learning he would swiftly spend,

Seems pretty spot on to me. Furthermore, my partner focused on medieval studies in college so not only is this an image of my love for books and one of the roots of English language literature, it also honors my first reader. The character of the Clerk or the Scholar also has a little bit of ambiguity which I like as well. You see, to actually be an “Oxford Clerk” or “Oxford Cleric” you have to graduate from Oxford. Until then, you are an Oxford Scholar. You could argue then, that given his love of literature and studying, that this particular Oxfordian had no interest in graduating and hoped to remain a scholar forever. Furthermore, there is some possibility that this is a reference to John Scogin (there's a reason why the name Scogin might look familiar to you) who was very learned and scholarly and also a legendary iconoclast.


2. The Narrative Arcs in Tristram Shandy

The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy by Laurence Sterne somehow packed about four hundred years of literary development into this 1759-1767 novel. The prosaic, narrative, visual, and stylistic experimentation in the novel are still, in many ways, ahead of its time, and that it was able to do nearly everything the great postmodern novels do, while also being kindhearted and generous is even more staggering. If you ever wondered what postmodernism would look like if irony had not become a central technique, read this book. One could argue that no other work of English-language literature came close to the challenges posed and ground broken by Tristram Shandy until Joyce and Ulysses.

One of the defining characteristics of Tristram Shandy is its use of visuals. Punctuation dances amongst the prose. When the narrator tries to describe a beautiful woman he presents the reader with a blank page on which she can illustrate her own personal version of perfection. When a beloved character dies the narrator includes a black page of mourning. When one character, Uncle Toby, makes a gesture with his cane, the narrator is so smitten with it that, rather than leaving it to the imagination or relying on the inherent ambiguity of language he includes a line tracing the gesture. These squiggles come from a passage in which the narrator is considering the narrative arc of his story. He understands that the usual narrative arc is, well, an arc, but, in the interest of accuracy, presents these various squiggly lines as the various narrative arcs of the sections of the book thus far. The scene ends up somehow being playfully pedantic (which is no small feat), while exploring the boundaries of storytelling and critique. I mean, how the fuck are we supposed to confirm whether or not these lines are accurate representations of the story? It might be Platonic meta-fiction. (Of course, that scene when Don Quixote meets a fraudulent version of himself is pretty close, too.)

The question marks do three things; first, I believe all great works of literature are more question than answer, something posed that the reader must complete; second, a culture's literature is one long dialog, and third, they turn this collection of references into a cohesive (at least in my mind) image.

3. The Last Line of Ulysses
I believe there is no more beautiful arrangement of words in the English language than, “yes I will Yes.” Joyce has stretched the novel as far as it could go at the time, taking us on a journey through just about every aspect of human life, played with language, played with style, showed the hero taking a shit, constructed new words from the roots of old ideas, and, in general, did more than anyone (except for maybe our old friend Sterne) to expand the possibility of the English-language novel and the last word is “Yes.” Not a passive “yes” not a begrudging “yes,” not a thoughtless “yes,” not even a well-I'm-stuck-with-this-shlub-so-I-might-as-well-say-yes “yes,” (though Molly does touch on that angle) not some socially enforced optimism, not some legally recommended affirmative, nor any of the other ways we use the word; but a thoughtful, intentional, even passionate “Yes.” A why-we-get-out-of-bed-in-the-morning “yes.” A making-the-best-of-it-can-still-be-pretty-fucking-good “yes.” A perfection-is-boring “yes.”

As stylistically ambitious and complicated as Ulysses is, it's theme is actually very simple: Literature is one way to say “yes” to life.

So, to commemorate my first novel, on my right arm now is a story about the books and one of the people who have been vital to my life as a person and a writer. Now I just have to get that poetry manuscript accepted so I can get some balance with a tattoo on my left arm.

A Nader & Sanders Voter for Clinton

I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and (after a funny scream disqualified the progressive Democrat running in the primary) 2004. I also voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary. As a left-wing, independent progressive, I believe Hilary Clinton is the best choice for President.

First, though I am talking primarily to voters who are planning to vote for Jill Stein (and maybe even a few planning to vote for Gary Johnson) or cast some other protest vote, I want to make clear that this isn't going to be one of those condescending “Woe betide those who repeat my mistake,” posts I've seen pop up lately as the potential impact of third-party candidates on the upcoming election is examined. I believe the assertion that Nader made Bush president is, at best, an over-emphasis  one factor out of many that lead to the Bush presidency and at worst, a calculated attempt by Democrat leadership to stifle progressive dissent in American politics and dodge blame for a disastrous campaign. But, that is the past and we are looking towards the future. (If you want me to explain that belief, leave a comment.) 2016 is a very different election from 2000 and so my decision is different. Though I am proud of my votes for Nader, this November, I am voting for Hilary Clinton. Here's why.


Jill Stein is Not Your Savior
In a lot of ways, Ralph Nader was ultimately not a great candidate, but Jill Stein has her problems too. Yes, I agree with her on many issues (more on policy agreements later) and yes I do think the two party-system is inherently destructive, but Stein has pandered to the anti-vaccination movement and is suspicious that WiFi might cause cancer. What seems to be at play here, more than anything, is Stein's attempt to woo voters who have become suspicious of government regulations through protesting corporate influence, but, to me, that is no different than Republicans and conservatives “asking questions” about human-driven climate change. The science is as certain as science can be on these issues and it is dangerous to suggest otherwise.

Secondly, a few months ago Stein herself tweeted out this graphic from one of those quizzes that shows you how much you agree with the various candidates. Obviously, Sanders was closest, but, according to her own graphic, she agrees with Clinton 91% of the time. If you're thinking of voting for Jill Stein, you really need to ask yourself about the value of that 9%. Maybe some of that 9% (like the anti-vaccination stuff) is stuff you actually agree with Clinton on. Maybe some of that 9% is meaningful difference on issues that aren't particularly important. And maybe, some of that 9% is simply Clinton putting forward what she thinks is a possible policy version of a progressive idea.

Regardless, if you are thinking of voting for Stein in this election, you have to ask yourself whether that 9% really is definitive, because there is a good chance you've fallen into the cult of personality that Republicans and Conservatives have spent the last 25 years constructing around Clinton.

Clinton is Not the Devil
I don't know if there is anyone in the history of American politics who has been subject to more scrutiny than Hilary Clinton. And what has this endless procession of investigations turned up? A person using as much power as is legally allowed to do what she thinks is right and, worse yet, a woman doing the exact same things a man in her position would. That's it. Nothing from the House. Nothing from the FBI. Nothing from the IRS. Nothing going back to Arkansas. Nothing when she was in the Senate. Nothing when she was Secretary of State. The most anyone has ever seems to find is incidents, situations, and set ups that “raise questions.” Those in power will always, always, always have opportunities to abuse it for personal gain and those who, with the best of intentions, seek to create change through that power will always, always, always, approach the line of legality, and those who get caught at that line will always, always, always, try to get prove they didn't do anything wrong. That is what political power is. Ask yourself this, if any of these many, many investigations had ever found any truly meaningful wrongdoing, would Republicans let you forget about it for even a second? Perhaps the loudest proclamation of innocence came when the final House investigation on Benghazi did not release a summary of their findings. Don't you think if they or the FBI or really anybody ever founding anything meaningful, they would be crowing about it 24/7?

The other source of distrust I've heard and held about Clinton is the idea that she will “say whatever it takes to get elected,” and that her positions are constantly changing. In terms of the first objection, trying to get elected is what politicians do. Though one could identify degrees along a spectrum, Nader said what he said to get elected, Dean said what he said to get elected, Obama said what he said to get elected, and Sanders said what he said to get elected. Jill Stein is doing it right now, having the gall to argue that Congressional Republicans would restrain a Trump presidency. You could argue that Clinton is more overtly calculated than the others, that her statements have a precision that feels dishonest, and that she always seems to speak with an eye towards plausible-deniability, and though that all could be true, I don't see how, given that 91% agreement above, that disqualifies her from the presidency. (I mean, Bill Clinton, as sitting president, used a technical definition of “sexual relations” and then deconstructed the word “to be” on national television and yet, he isn't considered fundamentally dishonest. And then there's Trump who has done almost nothing but lie his entire campaign.) Yes, she talks as if every word she says is under a malicious microscope, but that's because every word she says is under a malicious microscope. If you think that makes her corrupt and dishonest, then, as above, you have fallen into a cult of personality constructed by Republicans and conservatives. Do you really want to hang out with that crowd?

Next, though it is true that Clinton's policies and beliefs have “evolved” over the course of her political life it is important to note how they have evolved. For the most part, as the country and the Democratic party have gotten more progressive since Bill Clinton moved it to the right during his “triangulation” phase, Clinton has followed suit. Yes, her policies have changed over the decades, but they have almost always changed to agree more with you. Yes, the policies Clinton espouses now and those on the Democratic platform are more progressive than when they started due, almost entirely, to the pressure created by the Sanders's campaign, but shouldn't we count that a victory? Why, exactly, would Clinton or any Democrat listen to progressives if she gets no support even after incorporating some progressive ideas into her platform?

Ultimately, if a bill to raise the minimum wage landed on Clinton's desk, she would sign it. The same goes for steps towards universal health care, paid parental leave, solutions for climate change, affordable higher education, and regulations for Wall Street. Is the fact that Hilary Clinton once opposed gay marriage really so damning, so unforgivable, so untrustworthy, that you will vote to prevent nearly every policy that you would like to see adopted? Does the fact that she voted for the Iraq War when the Bush administration was lying to us about weapons of mass destruction especially disqualify her from holding office? Does that one vote completely invalidate all of the potential good that could come from her presidency? (And seriously, if hawkishness is an issue for you, why the fuck aren't you talking about the Obama administration's drone war?) If the answer is “yes,” than you are acting exactly like someone who plans to vote for Trump while not actually believing what he says about walls and Muslims.

Finally, it is important to elect a woman to the presidency, just like it was important to elect an African-American man. Waiting for the perfect “first woman president,” will mean never getting a first woman president. Besides, being less than perfect hasn't stopped us from electing white men, so I don't know why it should stop us from electing Hilary Clinton.

Trump, However, is Probably The Devil
For as bad as George W Bush was, at least he did not fundamentally threaten our political process. Trump does. He does not care about the truth or politics or democracy or policy or really anything besides his own ego. He will absolutely abuse his powers as president and I don't think there is any evidence that the Republican party, should they retain control of the House, has a fraction of the basic political courage and moral decency to impeach him when he does. (If they did, they would not be supporting him now.) He will do nothing about climate change, nothing about poverty, nothing about equality, and he will undo what little we've accomplished over the last eight years. He will sow discord in our military leadership, he will demolish decades old alliances, his impulses will threaten the world economy, he will empower tyrants, and he will empower white supremacists. People of color will die from a Trump presidency. They will be killed by police, by the National Guard, and by their neighbors. Even now, while the election is still going on, he is sowing chaos and I am truly afraid that there will be violence if he loses as well. This isn't about lesser-of-two-evilism; this is about survival.

There are serious questions about Jill Stein's ability to be President, Donald Trump is a life-threatening phenomenon, and Hilary Clinton, perhaps history's most scrutinized politician, is probably going to do a bunch of what you want anyway. What else do you need?

But How Do I Work for a More Just Political System?
It is clear that the two-party system isn't good for democracy, but it is also clear that, at least in this election, presidential politics is not the place to fight against it. So, if that is politically important to you, you should vote for Hilary Clinton in this election and run as a third-party candidate for local office at the next opportunity. As Republicans and conservatives have known and exploited for decades, local politics provides opportunities for change not available at the national level. Run for city council. Run for school board. Run for sheriff. Run for district attorney. By changing the political landscape in your city, country, or district, you can be begin changing the political landscape of the country.

Second, support progressive candidates in Democrat primaries, but still vote Democrat in the general. As I mentioned above, the Sanders campaign had a huge impact on the state of Democratic party, but that impact is only meaningful if Clinton wins the presidency. Once again, why should Democrats pay attention to independent progressives if there's nothing to show for it when they do? If we show Democrats they can with with progressive ideas they will support progressive ideas.

Third, work to reform election law. The landscape of American politics looks a lot of different with instant-run-off voting and though this really should be a national issue, most election law is handled at the state level. So work to put a referendum or something on your state's next election ballot.

Concluding on a Tactical Level
Finally, on a tactical level, I don't think we should underestimate the impact of progressives voting straight-ticket Democratic in 2016, 2018, and 2020 in national and state level elections. Meaningful victories in the next three elections for Democrats could turn the Republican party into a minor party, especially if Clinton wins by a landslide. The only reason why they have any power at all today is because Democrats and Progressives went to sleep in 2010, letting Republicans take control of state legislatures in a census year and thus gerrymander a congressional map that lets Republicans maintain a substantial majority of House seats despite the American people voting overwhelmingly for Democrat candidates. What could fill the vacuum of power left behind by the collapse of the Republican Party?

In short, the fall of Republican Party is an opportunity for progressives and independents to remake the American electoral landscape to better reflect the will of the American people and a vote for Jill Stein will do nothing to advance that cause.