The "Good Old Days"

They were certainly old, and it's hard these days to fathom that they could have been that good.

You and I get e-mail pleas all day, every day, trying to get us to donate to any of hundreds of causes and organizations.  Who sends these pleas depends on which petitions each of us signed in the past, or probably our listed party affiliation.  But the pleas certainly are non-stop.  Among the things I "always say," is that if I gave the minimum requested amount to every organization I myself consider very worthy, I'd go broke fast.  And I'm even omitting requested donations or support to candidates, because I don't believe in private money in politics, so the answer to those is always a categorical no.

For almost 24 years, I was what was called a contractor to the Social Security Administration.  This was always part time, there were several or many of us who did it, and we were called either Medical Experts or Vocational Experts, depending on whether we were medical doctors or vocational rehabilitation professionals.  We reviewed medical records, and we testified in appeals hearings involving people who argued that they were disabled, and thus entitled to Social Security Disability benefits, but Social Security disagreed with them, and the claimants wanted to appeal the denial to a Social Security judge.  Judges, and local offices, were different, and some wanted the help of Experts, and others didn't.  But in its heyday, there was plenty of work to do.  And it was interesting.  In theory, no part of this system, except for the claimant and the claimant's representative/attorney, cared which way these cases went, so it was generally refreshingly fair and unbiased.  We had some very good conversations, which sometimes devolved into arguments, sometimes nasty, but I liked it.  The pay was...shit...and the last time the compensation was increased was 1970.  Another of the things I "always say" is that if anyone makes a list of all the people who will work without a raise for 53 years, there won't be anyone on the list.  None of us did it for the money.  We did it as a public service, and some of the older doctors, who had retired from clinical practice, just wanted to have something "medical" to do, in honor of their careers, and to keep their minds sharp.

So, here's why I'm telling you this otherwise uninteresting and irrelevant-sounding story.  I rarely change my pattern of donating, but from time to time, I've had an opportunity to donate to an organization I wanted to support.  But some of them had a rule that in order to donate, the donor couldn't be a federal contractor (for who knows what reason).  And I was.  So I couldn't donate.  But I've quit doing Social Security, as the work has gotten more difficult to access, it's gotten harder to get even the small amount of pay, and the pay has become an increasing insult.  Social Security, and its use of Experts, is now in the "no good deed goes unpunished" category.  So now, I can donate.  Today's opportunity was to Common Cause.  (If you're wondering when on earth I'm going to get to the "good old days" part, I'm about there now.)

Common Cause is described as a "watchdog group" based in DC, and it has chapters in 35 states.  It was started in 1970 (yeah, that 1970..grr) by John Gardner.  If I summarized John Gardner, you wouldn't believe me, so I'll quote from the Wikipedia page: John W Gardner was a "Republican, who was the Secretary of HEW in the administration of LBJ as well as the Chair of the National Urban Coalition, an advocacy group for minorities and the working poor in urban areas.  In its early days, Common Cause focused its efforts on ending the Vietnam war and lowering the voting age from 21 to 18.  Sometimes identified as liberal-leaning, Common Cause has also been identified as nonpartisan and advocates government reform.  It is identified with the 'good government' movement...The organization's tagline is 'holding power accountable,' and its stated mission is 'upholding the core values of American democracy.  We work to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; promote equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all; and empower all people to make their voices heard in the political process."  The introductory part of the Wikipedia post goes on: "The organization's stated issue areas are 'money in politics,' 'voting and elections,' 'a fair economy,' and 'media and democracy.'"

I'm not sure if the last Republican who was interested in that kind of USA was John Gardner, but if he wasn't the last, there haven't been many more since.  Although it's certainly fair to say that Nixon resigned because enough Congressional Republicans cared more about laws and decency than they did about party and power.  But once we got to Reagan, it was pretty much all over.  When Republicans couldn't have Reagan any more, they settled for his VEEP, but they dumped GHWB, because he told them it would actually cost them money (taxes) to live here and support this country.  The more intense fiscal sabotage, and the lying, took root with W (Cheney, really), and skyrocketed with Trump (who is somehow, bizarrely, leading the pack of Republican hopefuls at this moment).  With the "Tea Party," and subsequently, the extraneous stuff (religion imposed on everyone, fierce gun advocacy, anti-abortion crusades, increased racism and police brutality, voter suppression, hyper-gerrymandering, general blind, deaf, and dumb lust for power) have been off the charts.

I've never really understood the Rep/con agenda.  At its base seems to be a wish not to pay taxes and not to have to follow rules (not to have government make rules).  This seems selfish, greedy, and childish, but I do realize some people feel that way.  And they have to have sufficient disregard for other people that they can expect it all to be about themselves.  But why do they want to live in a country they don't want to support?  Or why don't they want to support the country in which they want to live?  And how many rules don't they want to have to follow?  They claim to believe in the police, so they must accept some concept of rules.  We incarcerate a uniquely high proportion of our own citizens.  They think someone has to be accountable to follow rules.  Why doesn't this apply to them?  (There's been a lot of commotion lately about Clarence Thomas and Harlan Crow.  If George Soros created a luxury lifestyle for Ruth Ginsburg and her husband, and in exchange, she took every position Soros wanted her to take, the problem would be more obvious to Reps/cons, right?)  And what's all this other extraneous stuff, that starts out being personal (religion, etc), and then is expected to control everyone else's life?  As is increasingly commonly said these days, Reps/cons seem devoted to removing, not expending, rights from other people.  I get the impression John Gardner wouldn't approve.  (I got another e-mail today about the 10 year old raped and impregnated girl who had to go to Indiana to get an abortion, and now, the doctor who performed the abortion is being challenged by Indiana.  Is this insane, or am I missing something?)

It's been a long time since John Gardner started Common Cause.  They're an excellent organization.  I became a monthly donor starting today.