"Now what?" A toddler's question deserves an answer in wake of student protests

As students across the country walked out classes on Wednesday to mark the one-month anniversary of the Parkland massacre, I spent the morning at a peace prayer service where local Catholic school students walked out of their classes and into their church to pray, sing and talk about the need to combat violence and spread peace through our broken society.

At the end of the service, there was an awkward silence as the students waited for someone to dismiss them. At that point, a chatty toddler blurted out, "Now what?"

The question elicited a number of giggles from the gathering but also struck me as prophetic for what was happening across the country that day. The month since the Parkland massacre that killed 17 high school students and staff has seen a level of energy, passion and activism on the issue of gun violence unrivaled after any other mass shooting. It's also been met with a fierce backlash by the NRA and its supporters who are determined to see the outrage over our latest national tragedy fizzle without any meaningful change, as was the case after Columbine, Sandy Hook, and so many others. 

The question that hovers over the raging national debate on this issue is indeed, "Now what?" Will we see a repeat of what happened after 20 first-graders were massacred at Sandy Hook, where a few weeks of outrage failed to yield the change we wanted and needed as most Americans retreated into their bubbles of self-interest, while the fringe guns-for-everyone crowd remained mobilized and engaged in maintaining the status quo, or worse. I've thought about the children of Sandy Hook and their families many days since the tragedy, and continue to be haunted by those young lives needlessly lost, but I never did enough to convert those thoughts into ACTION. Now, after another preventable school massacre, we all have a chance to follow the example of the millions of high school students who have stood up since Parkland and shouted "Enough!" to a culture that values guns over life. 

We must do more than hope and pray for the right answer to that toddler's question. The answer will ultimately hinge on how willing those who are sickened by this endless stream of violence -- and the unwillingness of our political leaders to do anything to stop it -- to take up the fight, and remain engaged for the long haul. Each of us who believes we need sensible gun laws in this nation to prevent more innocent lives from being lost has the ability to make a difference in protecting our fellow citizens, if only we care enough to expend the time and energy.

Here's where I suggest we start:

Turn anger into action

It sounds simple, but this has been the missing ingredient after so many mass shootings that we mistakenly thought would be the "turning point." While there has been progress in California and other states in enacting sensible gun laws since Sandy Hook, the national climate has remained unchanged, and many states have actually loosened regulations. 

How does such senseless bloodshed, and the accompanying outrage by so many Americans in the immediate aftermath, lead to such inaction, or worse, NRA victories? The answer is really quite simple: The NRA keeps its fringe wing of All Guns, All the Time, mobilized, while the majority of Americans simply move on. 

That can't happen this time. The students in Florida have already scored a major victory by forcing the Florida Legislature to enact some common-sense laws, which would have been unthinkable a couple months ago in the "Gunshine State." While they don't go nearly far enough, they are an important start. We need to follow their example and write letters to our elected leaders, call them on the phone, and march for change. The gun lobby is waiting for us all to return to business as usual when the dust clears; we must not allow that dust to clear until the NRA loses its grip on our political system.

Start in your own community

It's easy to consume ourselves with the big-picture battles in Washington, D.C., and topics like renewing the national assault weapons ban. While we shouldn't lose sight of that as an ultimate goal, this battle will ultimately be won by starting at the grass roots level and first influencing change in our communities, counties and states. Join groups like your local chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. I have (they welcome dads too), and I've already discovered a host of simple ways to get involved in making a difference on this issue, from writing letters in support of state legislation like AB 2103 (which would mandate live-fire training in order to receive a concealed carry permit in California) to joining state Treasurer John Chiang's effort to pressure California's public pension funds to divest from companies that manufacture and sell firearms-related products that are banned in our state. 

While we're fortunate that California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, I've already learned that much more can and needs to be done to button them up so that they serve as a template for other states looking to enact similar reforms. No matter what our laws here, we will never be as safe as we can be as long as assault rifles are legal elsewhere and can potentially make their way here. Other things you can do is lobby your local school boards and city councils to be proactive about improving the security of our towns and schools, passing local laws to prevent dangerous people from getting their hands on dangerous weapons, and asking them to take the fight to the gun lobby. If leaders in Washington won't act, then it's up to our local leaders in our own towns to take up this fight and not shirk from the controversy that comes with standing up to those who value guns over life. 

Keep working to change public opinion

I've found out first-hand how frustrating and demoralizing it can be to engage the other side on social media over the gun epidemic. The NRA has done a brilliant job of sowing lies, paranoia and misinformation with the American public (most notably, that any gun control proposal is an attempt to take away every gun from every law-abiding citizen, or that the Second Amendment means ANY gun for ANYONE). We need to educate ourselves on the facts and then work to educate those who haven't yet made up their mind. Posting thoughts on our Facebook pages is well and good, but the impact will be limited if the vast majority of our "friends" already agree with us. We need to get outside our bubbles and seek out debates on this topic on community and other forums. 

Do your homework on how sensible gun laws have worked to reduce violence in other cities, states and countries, and shoot down (pun intended) the lies that we so often see from the NRA (one of its favorite topics for misinformation is the homicide crisis in Chicago and what's caused it; here's a piece from the Chicago Tribune that sets the record straight). But don't stop there. Call out members of Congress who take blood money from the NRA on their Facebook pages or Twitter accounts (my wife has started doing that); be prepared for some pretty harsh blowback, especially in red states, but if there are some independent-minded voters out there that we can sway, it's worth the grief. 

Recognize that the NRA is not as powerful as they want us to believe

One of the myths that has taken told is that the NRA is some giant, unstoppable political force. The media often portray the NRA as if it's the Galactic Empire from Star Wars. It's not true at all, and the NRA is scared to death that the American people -- and the politicians who do its bidding -- are going to figure it out. 

The NRA's success on this issue has been more about our failure to stay engaged and mobilized once these mass shootings fade from the news cycle. The NRA has only 5 million members nationwide, and many of them don't adhere to the fanatical views of its leadership, who act as if the Second Amendment is absolute and grants anyone any gun they so desire, conveniently ignoring the clause about a "well-regulated" militia. We are a country of 327 million people, most of whom want sensible measures to keep our people safe like truly universal background checks, age and mental health restrictions on gun ownership, waiting periods, and limits on high-capacity magazines and military-style weapons that can kill scores of people in seconds. The gun lobby's fierce backlash to the activism we've seen since Parkland (including tweeting out a photo of an AR-15 on the day of the student walkouts) is an attempt to taunt and intimidate us into thinking they can't be beat. 

The NRA's radical views have become normalized the same way the KKK's radical views once became normalized, because of its ability to strike fear in the heart of those who dare oppose it, and the unwillingness of political leaders to confront its lies. Once the politicians figure out that we don't fear the NRA's wrath, they will start to lose their fear about standing up to its frightening agenda. And once the politicians figure out that they have more to fear from our wrath than the NRA's, the organization's power will crumble. 

Make your dollars count

Perhaps the easiest thing to do is to simply give what you can monetarily to make your voice heard on this issue, or make companies that profit from the NRA's agenda pay a price in the form of your business. Join me in donating as little as $10 a month to a group like Everytown for Gun Safety. Deny your business to companies that do business with the NRA or gun manufacturers or retailers that act irresponsibly. Check the holdings of mutual funds in your 401(k) account and make sure they don't invest in companies like Sturm Ruger or American Outdoor brands that make semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15, which has become the weapon of choice in these massacres. Find out which mutual fund companies have large holdings in these companies, and pressure them to divest. You can research this by using the Baron's stock tool.  

If every person in the country who cares about this issue would spend just 5 or 10 minutes a week doing something simple to make a difference (donating money, writing a letter, or just speaking out in a public forum), we can turn the tide at long last and, most importantly, save lives.

Why it's time to redefine what it means to be "pro-life"

I wasn't quite old enough to vote in the 1988 presidential election, but if I had been, I would have voted for George H.W. Bush, and a big reason would have been his "pro-life" position on abortion. As a Catholic, I spent years as an altar boy in the 1980s listening to priests at St. Callistus Church in El Sobrante speak of abortion as an assault on the sanctity of human life, and I agreed wholeheartedly.
All these decades later, I continue to follow my church's teachings on the morality of abortion, but my view of what it means to be "pro-life" has changed radically. I have never voted for a traditional Republican pro-life candidate for president, and have no intention of ever doing so. I no longer see that label as limited to the abortion debate but rather as encompassing a broad range of social justice issues that relate to the respect and defense of human life -- most notably, the gun epidemic ravaging our nation, and the refusal of so-called pro-life politicians such as Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and President Donald Trump to do anything about it.

Victims of Parkland, Florida, shooting

Even in the context of abortion, I've come to believe that the social policies embraced and promoted by pro-choice politicians in areas such as sex education, health care and anti-poverty programs have been much more effective in reducing the frequency of abortion in our society than the empty words of pro-life conservatives whose only goal is to coerce women to do what they believe to be moral. As a Christian, a husband and a father, I believe that abortion is about much more than the endless debate over Roe v. Wade, and that respecting and defending life in our scarred society and world is about much more than whether a woman retains the right to terminate her pregnancy.
It's time to stop allowing politicians to monopolize the label of pro-life over a single issue, especially when they consistently show a callous disregard for human life in the positions they take on universal health care, the plight of immigrants and refugees, the environmental threat to the livability of our planet, and the scourge of gun violence that has taken the lives of our children in Newtown, Connecticut; Parkside, Florida; and Sutherland Springs, Texas, to name but a few.

It is time for all Americans to state loudly and clearly that politicians who turn a blind eye to the fundamental human right articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are not pro-life in any way, shape or form, regardless of their position on Roe v. Wade. The children of Newtown and Parkland, and so many other places, were not afforded this most basic right. No amount of thoughts and prayers can change that fact.
Bill Clinton was never labeled, by supporters or detractors, as a pro-life president. But in my mind, his pro-life record stands above any president of my lifetime. As a new breed Democrat, he boldly reshaped the debate around abortion to encompass both moral and legal considerations during his 1992 presidential campaign, expressing a view that it should be "safe, legal and rare." And indeed, after peaking during the first Bush presidency in 1990, the abortion rate in the United States fell steadily during the Clinton years, and has continued to fall since.
But that's not why I consider him pro-life. As president, Clinton undertook one of the most successful humanitarian endeavors of the 20th century, ending the Bosnian genocide through military and diplomatic measures and saving countless civilian lives, despite opposition to his efforts at home. And, he signed the 1994 assault weapons ban into law, a ban that was long overdue and that was ultimately allowed to expire by "pro-life" congressional leaders who decided to place the wishes of those who demand unfettered access to military weapons of mass destruction above the safety of our children. Not surprisingly, in the years since the ban expired, the AR-15 assault rifle has become the weapon of choice in mass shootings across the United States.
I've been pleased to see my own church, through the inspirational leadership of Pope Francis, greatly expand its focus, emphasis and advocacy for a broad array of life issues over the years, whether it be the fundamental right of all people to health care, food and safe living conditions; its solidarity with immigrants and refugees seeking lives of dignity for themselves and their families (a banner at my church reads "All immigrants Welcome Here"); or the threats of climate change to the ability of people around the world to live in safe, stable environments and benefit from God's gift of natural resources.
The pillars of social justice are broad and interconnected, and the days when a political or religious leader can narrowly define advocacy for life as being about abortion, and abortion only, need to end.
As a humble sinner, I would never presume to speak for God. But I have listened to the Gospels many times throughout my life, and I have my own feelings about what Jesus Christ would say about those who claim to stand for life, while doing nothing to stop the assault on our children, our society and our planet. What He would say about those who market themselves in elections as pro-life, while ignoring the cries of the parents of Newtown and Parkland, or the fact that no where else in the advanced world do such acts of mass terror occur with such horrific frequency, only to be met by such indifference by those who have the power to do something about it.
It's summed up pretty well by a verse I've heard in church more times than I can count over the years, and which speaks volumes in the wake of  Parkland, Florida.
 "Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."-- Matthew 25:45

What history has to say about tax cuts and trickle down economics

The Republicans' embrace of a mammoth tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy -- and their tired arguments that they will pay for themselves by sparking economic growth -- shows once again how little our elected leaders, and the people who elect them, understand, or care, about history.
We've heard this story many times before, and it rarely seems to end well. You know the line: If only we put more money into the hands of corporations and individuals -- particularly those who are already swimming in it -- and loosen the regulations stifling free enterprise, unfettered capitalism will handle the rest. The wealthy will spend, corporations will invest and hire, and profits generated as a result will trickle down for all to enjoy.
If only it worked out that way in reality. This was the mantra embraced by Republicans as far back as the 1920s -- when they controlled the levers of government as they do today -- and what did Americans get as a result? An unprecedented economic collapse and the Great Depression.

Fifty years later, Ronald Reagan came along and promised much of the same. He got his big tax cuts early in his administration, and sure enough, the long-slumping economy soon enough turned around. Vindication, right? Not quite. For one thing, the economic ills of the 1970s and early 1980s largely boiled down to the unique problem of stagflation -- a stagnant economy and runaway inflation -- rather than tax rates. Most economists credit the Federal Reserve's high interest rate policy -- not Reagan's tax cuts -- that finally snuffed out inflation and lit a fire under the economy. As for the tax cuts, far from trickling down to the masses, they helped lead to the massive income inequality we see today, never came close to paying for themselves, and ultimately blew a hole in the deficit that forced both Reagan and George H.W. Bush to enact tax increases.
Of course, the flip side of the Republican argument that tax cuts for those at the top unleash economic growth is that tax hikes on those at the top stunt growth and deter investment. At least, that's what they promised would happen after Bill Clinton hiked taxes in the early 1990s to address the growing deficit. The result? One of the greatest economic booms of the 20th century. Go figure.
But the clear evidence that the Republican tax mantra was not supported by any real evidence didn't stop George W. Bush from clinging to it yet again when he took office in 2001. With the economy finally slowing after years of stunning growth, Bush and the Republicans turned to -- you guessed it --- tax cuts as the answer. Those cuts were coupled with trillions of dollars spent on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (after all, it's soldiers, not taxpayers, who should have to sacrifice in time of war), again blowing a hole in the deficit, and a general attitude toward letting Wall Street and the financial industry do whatever they want (because, after all, that thirst for profit will ultimately trickle down to the rest of us; as the 1980s taught us, "Greed is good."). With Republicans again in total control of government for much of the early 2000s (as they were in the 1920s), they stuck to the old playbook of low taxes, loose money and little regulation. We also know how that story ended, much as it did the first time around. We got the Great Recession, which easily could have been another depression if not for Barack Obama's shrewd stewardship of the crisis, for which he got unbelievably little credit as Republicans and voters assailed him for not fixing things quickly enough. For Obama, it was a little like stopping the car from plunging off the cliff, only to be relentlessly criticized for leaving it with some scratches.

And as we saw with their votes on the tax bill in the dark of night Friday (complete with scribbled pages of last-minute changes), Republicans are intent sticking with that dust-covered 1920s playbook that should have been tossed into the ash heap of history long ago. When your favorite plays keep ending in disaster for your team, most coaches know that it's time to change things up. But that's a lesson apparently lost on politicians, who rarely have to pay the price for their misadventures in the name of ideological purity.
Will the Republicans and their backers finally show some accountability if their latest foray into tax cuts once again fails to deliver on their promises? That would be a first. The more likely outcome is that the harmful effects of the policy won't be felt for years, by which time the architects of it will be long gone and already pointing fingers and placing blame on those who have the misfortune of being tasked with cleaning up a mess they didn't create, as happened in the late 2000s. That's the way it usually happens in a world where voters place their trust in the hands of politicians who tell them what they want to hear, rather than taking the time to learn what history has taught us all time and again.

10 things I'm thankful for this Thanksgiving

Continuing the tradition I started on this blog last year, here are the 10 things I'm thankful for in 2017. Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Sonora Pass, October, 2017

1. First and foremost, my family, who provide never-ending love and support, and tolerate my flaws and faults each day of the year (which is often no easy task). I'm thankful for their health and spirit and proximity (which hits home every year when I see the millions packing airports to travel long distances to be with family). 
2. The news media, who do so much to hold the powerful accountable and give the public the information they need to make decisions rooted in truth and facts, both for themselves and the nation. There's never been a time when the news media in this country have been under such assault, and never a time when its role has been more essential. Like all institutions in American society, the news media are not perfect, but the good they provide to a democratic, free society far outweighs their flaws. Of all my material possessions, my subscriptions to the New York Times, Washington Post and my own East Bay Times are among the ones I value most.
3. My colleagues at the East Bay Times and Mercury News who enabled me this year to experience the professional thrill of a lifetime, being part of a Pulitzer Prize-winning team.
4. The brave women throughout the nation who have stepped forward in recent months to call out sexual harassment and abuse. This is a long-overdue reckoning of the need to combat the abuse of power at all levels, and I firmly believe their actions will change the landscape for all women who are subjected to such conduct, along with misogyny and gender discrimination. It makes me more hopeful for the world my own daughters will encounter when they reach adulthood in a few years. 
5. All Americans who have persisted and resisted over the past year in standing up against racism, hatred, nationalism and all the insidious ills that manifested themselves in last year's election. Those who stand for decency, truth and empathy for our fellow men and women may have lost a battle last November, but they are well on their way to winning the war. More and more, Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, are putting country and our shared values above party and ideology.
6. America's veterans, who have given and sacrificed so much for our nation. Ken Burns' "Vietnam War" series captured in gripping detail what the American soldier, airman and sailor has routinely been asked to endure and sacrifice on our behalf. Regardless of how we feel about any given war or the decisions that may have led up to it, we should never forget the burden carried by those whom our leaders put in harm's way in defense of our values and security. 
7. Our nation's first responders, who played such a critical role in responding to the wave of hurricanes, shootings and wildfires that devastated our country over the past year. For many people, their around-the-clock efforts literally meant the difference between life and death.
8. The political leaders of my state, California, for taking such a firm stand in defense of human rights and the security and safety of citizens here and around the world, whether it pertains to the plight of immigrants, the scourge of gun violence or the battle against climate change. As Washington D.C. and so many other states around the nation turn a blind eye toward the truth about these issues and retreat from leadership in favor of narrow self-interests, California, while not perfect, is stepping up to lead the way in creating a society that is more safe, just and caring for all its people.
9. The priests at Christ the King parish, who routinely tame my anxieties with words of wisdom and grace. Thank you for reminding me of the values of patience, humility and respect (for both myself and others) in a world that can so easily pull us in unhealthy directions.
10. And finally, I'm thankful for God's great gift of this planet and all the beauty, comfort and tranquility it provides. Nature is truly God's church. Our family adventures this year brought us to the awe-inspiring beauty of the Grand Canyon, the majestic waterfalls and formations of Yosemite National Park, the calm, cool waters of Bass Lake, and the snow-capped peaks of the Sonora Pass and hypnotizing flow of the Stanislaus River in the Sierras. But beyond all that, the simple beauty of seeing the leaves change color in my own neighborhood as I walk my dog, Theodore, on crisp autumn morning is a reminder of the priceless beauty of nature, which is accessible to each and every one of us, as long as we value and commit ourselves to preserving it (looking forward to spending Friday at Samuel P. Taylor State Park in Marin).
    

Yosemite National Park, August 2017

Happy Thanksgiving! 

How Bill Clinton's resignation would have changed history

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's comment this week that Bill Clinton should have resigned amid the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal has ignited a firestorm of debate within the Democratic Party, and a backlash against the New York senator who now holds Hillary Clinton's former seat and has long-standing ties to the Clintons.

For what it's worth, as someone who voted for Bill Clinton twice, I believed then and today that he should have resigned for the good of the country. His salacious conduct was unbecoming of the president of the United States and a betrayal to voters who twice looked past various allegations of sexual misconduct on his part to elect him to the White House. But most importantly, his resignation would have spared the country a long impeachment battle, lifted the cloud from his presidency, and allowed the country to move forward in confronting its various challenges, not least of which was the growing threat of terrorism.
Regardless of what people think about what Clinton should have done in 1998, it's interesting to speculate how the history of the past 20 years would have been different had he stepped down and not served out the remainder of his second term. We'll never know for sure, but my guess is that the country would have been better off as a result.
Here's a look at some key historical questions to ask about the events that would have followed Clinton's resignation:

• Who would have one the 2000 presidential election? 
• Would the 9/11 terrorist attacks still have happened?
• Would the United States have ultimately gone to war with Iraq?
• Would the 2008 financial crisis have occurred?
• Would Barack Obama and Donald Trump eventually been elected president?

Let's look first at the most obvious question. Would the outcome of the contested 2000 presidential election been different? It's far from guaranteed, but I think it's highly likely that Al Gore would have won the 2000 election running as an incumbent president who had restored a sense of order and normalcy to the White House following the Lewinsky sex scandal. Given the fact he would have almost certainly continued Clinton's core policies, Gore likely would have enjoyed an approval rating similar to the one Clinton had upon leaving office (66 percent). He would have avoided the uncomfortable dilemma of having to run on the Clinton record while distancing himself from Clinton's personal conduct, as he would have had nearly two years to build his own record. Given the razor-thin margin by which he lost the election (a few hundred votes in Florida), I think these factors together would have easily put Gore over the top. There's no way to know for sure what an Al Gore presidency would have brought, but the results most likely would have been better than the disastrous George W. Bush presidency, which included the worst terrorist attack in the nation's history, a misguided war in Iraq, and the beginning of the Great Recession. 

Which brings us to the next big question. Would the 9/11 attacks have unfolded the way they did? My guess is probably they would have, but the chances are at least marginally higher that they would have been foiled had Clinton resigned. For one thing, the year that was consumed with the sex scandal and resulting impeachment battle coincided with the time period when the 9/11 attacks were being planned. If not for the distractions that accompanied Clinton's scandal, the White House and Congress obviously could have focused more centrally on the looming terrorist threat. Of course, there's no guarantee that would have happened (they could have simply shifted their focus to other matters, and battles), but the impeachment drama certainly didn't help in keeping the country focused on what Osama bin Laden was doing in the desert of Afghanistan. Then there's the question of whether a Gore administration would have succeeded in preventing the attacks that a Bush administration failed to. Again, I think it's unlikely, but possible. A Gore presidency would have brought continuity in the fight against terrorism, and there's strong evidence that the new Bush administration didn't view the threat with the same urgency that existed under Clinton. It's hard to argue that the intelligence agencies that failed to prevent the attacks would have acted in a significantly different fashion had Gore occupied the White House, but we'll never know.

One thing that is safe to assume, however, is if Gore had been president during 9/11, there would have been no Iraq War. This was by far the most controversial, and misguided, decision of the Bush presidency. If Gore had been president, as I believe he would have had Clinton resigned, he would have focused on extinguishing bin Laden and his band of terrorists in Afghanistan and not gotten sidetracked in Iraq. 

But what would have become of the Gore presidency had he been elected and the 9/11 attacks still occurred? I think it's likely Gore would have been a one-term president. Of course, much would have depended on how he executed the war against terror and led the nation in the aftermath of 9/11, but he would have faced a stiffer challenge than Bush in maintaining the public's support. He would have received more blame for the attacks than Bush ultimately received as a relatively new president. Gore's critics would have been able to argue that he was part of the administration that had been in power during the years in which Al Qaeda grew as a threat and plotted the attacks, and had failed to take strong enough action to stop it. Bush's supporters could say that he had been president for less than 8 months when the attacks occurred, and that most of the planning for the attacks took place on Clinton's watch. 

So let's say Clinton resigned, Gore became president in 1998, won in 2000, then lost in 2004, likely to Sen. John McCain. That's my best guess on what would have happened in the years following a Clinton resignation. After that, the hypotheticals grow cloudy. How would a President McCain had executed the war against terrorism, assuming 9/11 had occurred? Would a war in Iraq eventually resulted? And would the 2008 financial crisis had played out the same way? Not knowing how Gore's and McCain's economic policies would have differed from Bush's, it's difficult to say, but many of the factors that led to the economic collapse were structural and beyond the relatively limited scope of any actions different presidents, or their administrations, would have taken in the preceding years (Congress likely would have remained in the hands of the Republicans during the majority of this period). So let's say the economic collapse would have occurred regardless of whether Bush, Gore or McCain were president in 2008. It likely would have doomed any re-election prospects for whichever party held the presidency at the time (I'm guessing McCain, but it's possible Gore would have won re-election). So perhaps Barack Obama would have been elected president in 2008 and Trump in 2016 regardless.

But the one wild card in all this is how a Bill Clinton resignation would have affected Hillary Clinton's political career. The fact that Bill was able to prevail in the impeachment battle and serve out his term certainly made it easier for Hillary to run for and win her Senate race in 2000. But would she have run and won even if her husband had resigned? My guess is yes. Voters largely absolved her of any blame during the Lewinsky scandal, and her standing in voters' eyes actually improved as she became a sympathetic figure, and the scandal shifted focus away from her own controversies, specifically the Whitewater ordeal. But while I think she would have run for and won the Senate seat regardless, I think it's much more doubtful she would have been able to mount a presidential campaign. The Democratic Party's views toward the Clintons and the Bill Clinton presidency would have shifted dramatically had he resigned from office in disgrace, and it's highly doubtful that the Clintons would have been able to maintain their powerful position within the party, particularly if Gore had won election in his own right. And if there had been no Hillary Clinton foil for Donald Trump in 2016, the chances are very high his campaign would have crashed and burned. 

So there you have it. Bill Clinton should have resigned in 1998 not only because it was the right thing to do, but because it likely would have spared us the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, possibly prevented the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq War, and ultimately kept Donald Trump far away from the White House. 

At least that's my best guess. 

The strange parallels between the presidencies of Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, and what it could mean

One of my favorite Google searches since January has been "Donald Trump's approval rating." Much was made of the fact that no president since polling began saw his approval drop so precipitously after taking office. The gap between where Trump's approval stood during the early months of his presidency and that of his predecessors during their honeymoon period was strikingly enormous. For those who believe Trump is a disaster for the country (I'm one of them), his dismal approval ratings have provided a ray of hope.

Clinton vs. Trump approval ratings from FiveThirtyEight.com

But as I've followed his approval ratings in recent months, I've noticed an interesting trend. It has largely flatlined in the high 30s, which of course is awful for any president, and particularly for one in his first year in office when presidents typically see some of their highest ratings. Nevertheless, comparing his approval rating to past presidents at the same point in their presidencies , we see that Trump is largely holding steady, while other recent presidents saw their ratings drop precipitously after their honeymoon period.

Of all the recent presidents, Trump's current average approval of 37.3% is closest to Bill Clinton (44%) at the same point in his presidency. In fact, Clinton's approval actually fell lower than Trump's was 134 days into both presidencies (36.8% for Clinton vs. 39.6% for Trump). Meanwhile, while George W. Bush and Barack Obama both began their presidencies with generally high approval ratings, by this point in their first years, both were hovering around 51% approval (Obama would drift under 50% as his first year continued, while Bush saw a huge spike after 9/11).

For those who continue to count on Trump's presidency to implode, or at the very least for him to last only one term, this trend poses both cause for concern, and optimism. First, the concern. The similarities between Bill Clinton and Trump stretch beyond their generally rocky presidential starts and low approval ratings in their first year. Both ran campaigns that almost from the start were engulfed in scandal and controversy and seemed poised to implode at various points. Of course, there were the sexual-related scandals (Gennifer Flowers for Clinton, the Access Hollywood tape for Trump). But it's easy for forget that with Clinton, there was a lot more (accusations of draft dodging and the Whitewater land deal to name a few). Time magazine ran a cover of Donald Trump melting down during last year's campaign when it appeared he had offended his way out of the race; but how many people remember the Time magazine cover of candidate Clinton's face shown through a negative photo image of him, to highlight his broader image problem. Almost from the moment his presidency began, it was under investigation for one thing or another, or at the least clouded by controversy and questions about his moral and ethical compass.

We all know what eventually happened with Clinton. Despite the scandals and low early approval ratings, he would easily win re-election and end his presidency as one of the most popular presidents in modern history -- despite being impeached. Few people would have predicted at this point in his first year as president that he would coast to re-election; in fact, by 1994, there were rumblings about whether he should be dumped from Democratic ticket in 1996 so that his more presidential-looking vice president (Al Gore) could take his place. The scandals never left Clinton, but the low approval ratings did. The reason was simple. The economy soared during the 1990s, the country largely avoided foreign entanglements and wars, and most people in the country were generally happy with their lot in life. Hence, they were more than willing to overlook their president's personal shortcomings and give him credit for what was going right in America. By almost every measure, Obama had nowhere near Clinton's baggage weighing him down, but he never approached Clinton's popularity, because the economy under Obama never approached its glory days under Clinton (few people seemed willing to give Obama credit for preventing another Great Depression, which many thought possible when he took office).

Could the same thing happen with Trump? Could voters ultimately overlook the Russian election tampering, the never-ending lies and self-absorption (and everything else), and reward Trump with a second term if the economy grows even more healthy and the country avoids international crises?

I think the answer is yes, but not likely. If unemployment stays low, the stock market continues to advance and things stay calm the next three years, there is a chance that Trump's approval rating could inch higher, especially if he finally decides to act somewhat presidential, and the Russia investigation bears no fruit. But I also believe the upside for him is much lower than it was for Clinton. For all his faults, Clinton was not nearly as polarizing and divisive as Trump has been, he was an intellectual heavyweight, and he acted presidential (at least much of the time). Enough people had an open mind about Clinton that when things started to look up in the country, and optimism about the future grew, there was lots of room for his popularity to soar. Trump, on the other hand, has offended so many people so quickly, has acted so unpresidential in so many ways, that a large segment of the American population simply will never change their opinion about him. The fact that his current approval rating is so dismal even though the economy is generally healthy, and even though he hasn't yet completely botched any domestic or international crisis, is a telling sign that  people are paying more attention to him (which seems to be his ultimate goal) than what's happening in the country as large.

Nevertheless, the Clinton example should be sobering for those who believe it's just a matter of time before the Trump nightmare ends. If the economy falters in the next year or so, or something else goes wrong, and Trump has no accomplishments to show for his time in office, his base could begin to desert him, and his approval could sink toward the 20s. But if that doesn't happen, it's not hard to see a scenario where his approval rating starts to inch back into the 40s and maybe even approach 50%. And as Bush and Obama showed, an incumbent who can keep about half the electorate behind him has a great chance at re-election.

It's hard to image at this point Trump's approval rating ever approaching the level it would need to be to give him a realistic chance at re-election (or even being renominated). But then again, the Clinton presidency also was shaping up as a disaster for much of his first term. Things can change quickly in a country where people largely judge their president based not on how they feel about him, but how they feel about their own lives.

Why are people praising Fidel Castro?

Why are so many world leaders, including some in our own country, praising Fidel Castro's murderous reign over his country and offering condolences to the Cuban people on his death? The man was an evil monster who destroyed countless lives. End of story.

I usually refrain from black and white assessments of issues or people, but there are cases where there is truly no gray. Fidel Castro is one of those cases.

Cuban refugees during the Mariel boat lift 

Of course, a lot of the political expressions about Castro's death can be chalked up to typical diplomacy and respect for foreign heads of state. But would North Korea's Kim Jung-on be getting the same degree of respect if he was the one who just died? Or even Vladimir Putin?

It's unfortunate how the end of the Cold War and fall of communism has rehabilitated figures like Castro over the years and turned them into respectable statesmen. To hear some of the things spoken about him yesterday, you can't help but wonder why thousands of Cubans fled the utopian island paradise he created for the despair of the United States? Was that whole Mariel boat lift thing a 1980s example of fake news?

Maybe it had something to do with losing every basic freedom humans are entitled to, from the freedom to speak your mind, to worship as you choose, to the freedom to own your own property and build your own life? Maybe it had something to do with political opponents being tortured and killed? Maybe it had something to do with a lack of food and basic necessities? Or losing everything you worked your life to build?

That was the fate of my wife's family, who lost their land, home and hope for the future when Castro rose to power. I've heard my mother-in-law break into tears many times over the years recounting all she and her family lost. She left behind a husband to find freedom for herself and her young son. My wife's father was a successful university professor who also lost everything, including nearly his life, in escaping to freedom. He and my mother-in-law found a new life here, and started a new family, but that never took away the pain of all they lost.

It's ironic that my wife and my children owe their lives, and I owe my marriage, to the fact Castro forced so many Cubans to flee to the United States in search of freedom and liberty. It's a testament to the greatness of America that so many Cuban refugees were able to build new lives for themselves here, and to the fact immigrants, particularly those fleeing persecution, are historically such an important part of our national fabric. Which is all the more reason to acknowledge who Castro really was and the suffering he caused for so many.

Many people have been expressing fears about what Donald Trump's election will mean for our way of life. Well, imagine if Trump immediately seized all  your possessions, threw you in jail, or worse, for criticizing him, and shut down every church, mosque and synagogue in the nation? What if he denied you the right to vote and the right to leave this country for a new home. Imagine if he then plunged our nation to the brink of nuclear war? That's basically what Fidel Castro did to the people of Cuba. So for those who want to compare Trump to Hitler, how about starting 90 miles off the Florida coast instead?

The dictator Castro overthrew in seizing power was also an evil murderer. But that doesn't justify what Castro did to the people of Cuba. He had an opportunity to rid the nation of corruption and oppression and institute a true democracy that respected the rights of all Cuban people. Instead, he replaced one form of oppression with another that was even more evil and sinister in that it stripped the entire population of basic human rights. 

A revisionist history has taken hold about people like Castro and communism. Communism has been sanitized into just another acceptable, though flawed, political system. It's fair to point out that right-wing, fascist dictatorships that the United States supported during the Cold War were also evil and equally disdainful of basic human rights and freedoms. Our actions in supporting those regimes were shameful.

But that doesn't change the basic truth that communism was, and is, a fundamentally evil system of placing the state in control of the individual, and disregarding the value of human life. For nearly a half century, he was one of the world's prime practitioners of that evil. Now that he's gone, there's no reason to sugarcoat who he was and what he did to his people; to do so is an insult to all who lost their lives.

And until Trump murders someone for expressing a differing political view, let's keep the Hitler comparisons where they belong.