An Affirmation of Democracy

Dear Friends,

In the day following the most startling election since Truman-Dewey, America has had much to think about.  I would like to reflect briefly on the import of the moment, and the path forward for all of us.

For Clinton supporters who saw the election as a referendum on pluralism, globalism and (most importantly) women's dignity, the surprise loss shatters not just political ideals but wounds a sense of identity and security. The loss is personal and devastating in a way most elections are not.  How can healing be afforded in the presence of such a loss, when the cause of the loss stands to hold such power? It is frightening, frustrating or even maddening.

For Trump supporters prior to victory, they often felt ridiculed or degraded. There were called racists and bigots. In NJ, where they were a minority, the affirmation of national victory is sweet.  How can someone surprised by sudden validation have compassion for those who are so pained by the very same result?

First, I believe that this is a natural part of the fabric of American culture.  There have been rapid and unprecedented changes in liberal social norms in the country over the past decade and, much like the stock market, it is not surprising that a “correction” might occur. Social change takes time, and it comes with forward, backwards, and sideways developments.  That process is understandable, no matter our individual views in the moment. I believe the historic trends towards social liberalism will continue, but not unabated. Those who wish to advance and protect that trend will now need to work hard again as if the gains of the past 50 years had not occurred. Those who think those developments are not positive, will now have the opportunity to influence policy in a way they have not had in many years. But the arc of History is forward.

Second, as both Secretary Clinton and President Obama have said in their own ways, this is an affirmation of the democratic process.  The change in policy and vision between Obama and Trump will be dramatic, to be sure.  But in most countries such a shift would come from violence or oppression.  Here, it occurred on a peaceful election day, unmarred by intimidation or injustice. Those who came to vote were counted, and the result is just. As Americans, the obligation is to support or oppose the President as a participating citizen. It is a noble and important role, whether your party is in power, or you are the loyal opposition. Just as those who said Obama was not their president were wrong, so those who say Trump is not their president are wrong. The election was decided by people who got off the couch, went out of their homes, and did something.  The future will be decided the same way.

Third, the Jewish People are divided.  Know that in a typical election 2/3 of the Jews vote Democratic and 1/3 vote Republican.  In this election, due to the issues of civil rights, immigration and others, it seems more like 75% to 20%, with 5% choosing other options.  But that is 1/5th of our people voting for Trump and 3/4's of our people in the category of loss at this time.  How do we care for everyone?  We have significant internal differences regarding social norms, family structures, economic policy, national security, immigration, how best to support Israel, and what our relationships with other people and religions should be. These differences are as deep as those we saw in this election campaign. Yet they do not destroy us.

The answer is community.  Week after week we join together in synagogue for Shabbat, holidays, Torah study or fellowship.  We accept our differences, sometimes teasing and laughing, sometimes ardently engaging the topics, and sometimes politely avoiding them. We have a common bond, and noble ideals in our religion that we share.  And these core beliefs define us not as people who are right and wrong, but as a people who holds many paths to truth and justice and experience of God.Our variety as a people is part of our integrity and our strength, and it is called upon today – whether you “won” or “lost” in the election.

The other answer is activism.  Now is the time to commit to engagement in our synagogue community, our local community and our nation as participating citizens. These are the places where America is experienced and you can have the most profound impact. We are all united by a common commitment to civil liberties and tikkun olam - justice for all and care for the disadvantaged among us. Think globally, and act locally together.

In common love of America, I wish you well, I hope to see you in shul.

Rabbi Robert L. Tobin

One Party Government

While most of the time the President, Senate and House are not all of the same party, Trump, Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Carter, Johnson, JFK, Truman and FDR all had at least one congress that was entirely aligned with them. Those with more than one congressional term aligned with them were Carter, Johnson, Truman and FDR. With the exception of Carter, legislative agendas and government initiatives under the other 3 were broad sweeping and shaped the future of America. Everything from the WPA and Social Security to the Civil Rights Act owe their origins to one party government.

As Trump assembles his team, he will not only have to put together the executive branch and appoint the vacancies in the judicial branch, he will negotiate with the new Congress who the leadership will be in the house and senate. Paul Ryan is clearly dead in the water as Speaker of the House. This new congressional leadership will be the key to Trump's effectiveness as a president and to the range of impact that his policies will have. If history is a judge, he will need not only this congress, but the next one as well, to achieve his most dramatic goals and objectives.

From www.wiredpen.com here is the historical chart of political party control of the Presidency, Senate and House:

Year 2017  - Trump	Congress 115th	President        R	Senate 100    R: 51	House 435 R:239	Wars & Economics
2015	114th	D	R: 54	R: 247[5]
2013 – Obama	113th	D	D: 52	R: 232[4]
2011	112th	D	D: 56	R: 241	Iraq (2003-11) Great Recession (2007-2011)
2009 – Obama	111th	D	D – 57[3]	D – 256	Iraq, GR
2007	110th	R	D – 49[2]	D – 233	Iraq, GR
2005 – Bush	109th	R	R – 55	R – 232	Iraq
2003	108th	R	R – 51	R – 229	Iraq
2001 – Bush	107th	R	D[1]	R – 221
1999	106th	D	R – 55	R – 223
1997 – Clinton	105th	D	R – 55	R – 228
1995	104th	D	R – 52	R – 230	Savings& Loan Crisis (1986-95)
1993 – Clinton	103rd	D	D – 57	D – 258	S&L
1991	102nd	R	D – 56	D – 267	S&L Iraq (1990-91)
1989 – Bush	101st	R	D – 55	D – 260	S&L
1987	100th	R	D – 55	D – 258	S&L
1985 – Reagan	99th	R	R – 53	D – 253	S&L
1983	98th	R	R – 54	D – 269
1981 – Reagan	97th	R	R – 53	D – 242
1979	96th	D	D – 58	D – 277
1977 – Carter	95th	D	D – 61	D – 292
1975	94th	R	D – 60	D -291	Vietnam (1975)
1973 – Nixon	93rd	R	D – 56	D – 242	Vietnam US withdrew (1973)
1971	92nd	R	D – 54	D – 255	Vietnam
1969 – Nixon	91st	R	D – 57	D – 243	Vietnam Draft began (1969)
1967	90th	D	D – 64	D – 247	Vietnam
1965 – Johnson	89th	D	D – 68	D – 295	Vietnam
1963 – Johnson	88th	D	D – 66	D – 259	Vietnam
1961 – JFK	87th	D	D – 64	D – 263	Vietnam
1959	86th	R	D – 65	D -283	Vietnam
1957 – Eisenhower	85th	R	D – 49	D – 232	Vietnam
1955	84th	R	D – 48	D – 232	Vietnam (1955)
1953 – Eisenhower	83rd	R	R – 48	D – 221	Korea (1953)
1951	82nd	D	D – 49	D – 235	Korea
1949  – Truman	81st	D	D – 54	D – 263	Korea (1950)
1947	80th	D	R – 51	R – 246
1945 – Truman	79th	D	D – 57	D – 242	WWII (1939-45)
1943	78th	D	D – 57	D – 222	WWII
1941 – Roosevelt	77th	D	D – 66	D – 267	WWII Pearl Harbor (1941)
1939	76th	D	D – 69	D – 262	WWII
1937 – Roosevelt	75th	D	D – 75	D – 333	Great Depression (1929 -39)
1935	74th	D	R –	R –	G.D.
1933 – Roosevelt	73rd	D	D – 59	D – 313	G.D.
1931	72nd	D	R – 48	R – 218	G.D.
1929 – Hoover	71st	R	R – 56	R – 267	G.D.
1927	70th	R	R – 48	R – 237
1925 – Coolidge	69th	R	R – 54	R – 247
1923 – Coolidge	68th	R	R – 51	R – 225
1921 – Harding (d)	67th	R	R – 59	R – 300	Depression 1920-21
1919	66th	D	R – 48	R – 237
1917 – Wilson	65th	D	D – 53	R – 216	WWI (1914-18)
1915	64th	D	D – 56	D – 231	WWI
1913 – Wilson	63rd	D	D – 51	D – 290	WWI
1911	62nd	R	R- 59	D – 228
1909 – Taft	61st	R	R – 59	R – 219
1907	60th	R	R – 61	R – 222	Panic of 1907
1905 – T. Roosevelt	59th	R	R – 58	R – 250
1903	58th	R	R – 58	R – 207
1901 – McKinley (d) T. Roosevelt	57th	R	R – 56	R – 198
Yellow years mark Presidential inauguration.

Sources:
Senate, House, Janda, InfoPlease, Wikipedia

[1] There were 50 Ds and 50 Rs until May 24, 2001, when Sen. James Jeffords (R-VT) switched to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001; he announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage.

[2] Two Independents (Lieberman-CT and Sanders-VT). Lieberman was reelected in 2006 as an independent candidate and became an Independent Democrat;  Sanders was elected in 2006 as an Independent.

[3] Two Independents (Lieberman-CT and Sanders-VT);  Arlen Specter (PA) was reelected in 2004 as a  Republican and became a Democrat on April 30, 2009.

[4] House data (3 vacancies); Senate independents caucus with Democrats

[5] As of October 20, 2016, there was one vacancy (only 434 members)