I got an e-mail from Victor Harris, assuring me that the DDN report is accurate and that he will interview with the Senate Democratic Caucus on Tuesday for consideration to be appointed senator for the 5th District.

Lynn Hulsey reported on Friday that, regardless that the Montgomery County Democratic Party has come out four-square in support of Fred Strahorn, the Senate Caucus still wants to hear from Vic Harris before making its decision. Hulsey quoted Mike Rowe, spokesman for Sen. Minority Leader Capri Cafaro, D-Hubbard, as saying, “The minority caucus will interview both Strahorn and Harris on Tuesday, and take into consideration the recommendation from the local party,” implying that the Caucus is determined to act objectively. Implying that Vic Harris, rather than Fred Strahorn, might be appointed 5th District Senator.

I love that phrase “take into consideration.” I’ve got to wonder if the implied message — No, the fix isn’t in, we are still open to finding the best candidate, regardless that our respected senate colleague of many years and the county organization seemed agreed that there is really only one choice — could possibly be true.

I told the Montgomery County Party Executive Committee that I felt it was a sure thing that Senate Democrats would follow their retiring colleague’s request and appoint Strahorn to the 5th District position. My point was that it would be good to recommend both Fred and Vic, and agreeing to help build up the public confidence in Vic would not change the ultimate outcome.

No one on the Committee was buying that argument. My motion to include Vic in the Committee’s recommendation died for lack of a second. No one wanted to encourage discussion. I was surprised that the group would have such an obdurate, unified view.

I wish now, that before the Executive Committee meeting, I had reread the recent DDN editorial, “Ohio Senate Rises Above Democracy,” that complained that the whole process of replacing Roberts included little democracy.  The DDN’s point of view should have been part of the Executive Committee’s deliberation, I’m kicking myself that I didn’t think to bring it up.

The article said, “Even within that not very democratic process there is apparently to be even less democracy than there might be. Sen. Roberts has said he would propose Mr. Strahorn to the Senate, and Montgomery County Democratic Party Chairman Mark Owens said last week that no other Democrat had even expressed interest.”

Wow. Owens was implying that if other Democrats would express interest in Robert’s position, they would be fairly considered for recommendation. In the meeting, Owens emphasized the difference between a recommendation and an endorsement. And when the Executive Committee refused to budge to make any accommodation to Harris, even as mention as an “also ran,” I think Owens was surprised.

This Committee in the past has made it abundantly clear that it supports antidemocratic actions, also criticized by the DDN, like suppressing primary participation, but I thought, in this case, where the outcome really is not in doubt, they may act differently.

But, now I’m thinking that maybe there were good reasons for the Strahorn dominated Executive Committee to not give an inch. I’m thinking that the absolute refusal of the Executive Committee to in anyway include Vic might be an indication that the view from inside the loop is that, in fact, Vic has a good shot.

It would be a shocking outcome to me, and to many other people too, but I’m beginning to think that maybe Harris, rather than Strahorn, might be appointed to the Ohio Senate. Maybe there is division among the 11 senators who will make this decision and this choice for senator might cause factions to finally identify themselves:

1. If the senators are divided over Strickland, with one component very satisfied with Strickland, one component that is not, if the component that is not satisfied with Strickland dominates, then, it seems to me, Vic has the best shot.
2. If the senators are divided over the fact that often the Democratic Party is justifiably criticized for practicing insider politics, if a component of senators identify themselves as championing reform, then Vic has the best shot.

I am thinking that since Ohio has only 12 Democratic senators, out of 33 possible, these twelve must come from strong Democratic counties. These twelve senators, all strong Democrats, by all rights, should be operating from a point more from the left of the party, than from the right of the party. The 11 senators who get to choose their 12th member, might be looking for someone who can best articulate and show leadership to their point of view. Victor, someone new — with his history of military service, with his bearing of professional poise, with his gift for public speaking, with his understanding of key issues — might be just who they are looking for.

I am preparing myself to be surprised.

I’m thinking that one way to hawk my new LuLu book, “Why You Are Not Entitled To Your Opinion,” might be to start going about and making speeches.

Last night I was the special speaker at the Northridge Kiwanis Club — guest of my high school teachers, Larry O’Donnell and Mary Jo Withrow, and my high school neighbor, and friend, Vaughn Beams. Northridge Kiwanis meets every Thursday at the Airport Hotel Restaurant. The same people have been meeting together for years, sometimes as few as three or four people show up and sometimes more than twenty. It’s a great group of people.

As I drove from Kettering to the airport, I was thinking of the advice that it is good to start a speech with a joke. The last joke I heard, a very old joke recently revived by my brother-in-law, I was thinking might work. The joke starts, “A man comes home from church choir practice with two black eyes.” It’s sort of a “how do you explain the unexplainable” sort of story and I was thinking this story might be a good introduction to my question: Why is our country getting black eyes, why are we suffering from man-made, unnecessary disasters?

My goal in meeting with the Northridge Kiwanis was to work on developing a presentation promoting DaytonOS. I feel that DaytonOS has great potential, but, I know if DaytonOS is ever to take off, I need get on the ball and start talking to people and groups who might be interested in helping. Service clubs often invite speakers to their meetings, and, my thought is that eventually I might have the opportunity to explain DaytonOS to some interested service clubs throughout the county.

Larry asked about the title of my speech. I didn’t have a good answer. I’m now thinking a possible title might be, “When Democracy Fails.” Maybe something more pointed might be better, like, “Our Democracy Is Failing And It’s All Your Fault.” Or maybe I could take Dennis Kucinich’s cue and entitle my speech, “Wake up America. Wake up America. Wake up America.”

An evangelical approach, I’m thinking, as a speech structure might be best. After raising the tension in the room to a new sense of urgency about the dangerously degraded state of our democracy, after raising a sense of conviction that each of us has failed our democracy, I then would offer an avenue for salvation. My message: Get involved in DaytonOS.

Sorry to say, I pooped out on the joke about the choir member with black eyes. I couldn’t quite muster enough gumption to tell it. Now, I have speaker’s remorse.

After Larry’s nice introduction, I gave everyone a paper with four questions. The first question: “Lincoln spoke of assuring that a government of the people, by the people and for the people should not perish from the earth. On a scale of zero to 100, to what degree do we have a government of the people, by the people and for the people?”

The average of the answers to that question was 40%. The numbers ranged from 20% to 60%. I said 30%.

These numbers inspired a good conversation. The point I emphasized was that even if the most positive of these numbers — 60% — is the most accurate, our democracy, compared to its potential has a lot of room for improvement. On most scales, a score of 60% is failing or near failing.

I’m wondering what a Gallup poll might show about how Montgomery County citizens, in general, rate the effectiveness of their democracy. I’m wondering what the trained objectivity of an anthropologist might show. The evidence to me seems pretty overwhelming that ours is a weak and failing democracy, but it would be nice to have a 200 page, well footnoted report, to help make the case.

The fact that our democracy is weak has exacted a big price from all of us. We are all missing out on what could have been.  I told the group about a famous book I saw in college.  It was written in 1967 by Herman Kahn and Norbert Weiner, “The Year 2000.” (I need to reread this book. Amazon has used copies for $2.99.) Kahn predicted that by the year 2000 things would be wonderful. Prosperity would be widespread. People would be earning a good living and would be working many fewer hours doing so. Everyone would have gobs of leisure time.

In 1967 when Kahn’s book was written, auto workers were doing great. There were a lot of good jobs. Unions were strong. The book correctly predicted that great leaps in productivity would create enormous new wealth, but its assumption that this wealth would be fairly distributed was flat wrong. I recently quoted Robert Reich: “In 1980 the top earning 1% of Americans took home 9% of the nation’s total income — but in 2007, the top 1% took home over 22% of all income.” (I need to find how the top 1% fared in 1967.)

The world in the year 2000 turn out quite differently than what Kahn predicted. I’m theorizing that Kahn’s predictions were very wrong because he failed to foresee the tragic failure of our democracy.  He failed to foresee the fact that in election after election our democracy would bring to power governments hostile to the interests of average people, indifferent to the common good.

Because our democracy failed to protect and advance the common good, the last forty years, for great portions of our citizenry, have brought big disappointments. We now could be enjoying the world envisaged by Kahn, but, because our democracy failed, we have settled for so much less. As a nation, we arrive at the year 2009 in a frightful state. We face the prospect of great disasters — all unnecessary, all man-made. Obama writes, in the preface to his budget, that our financial mess was “neither the result of a normal turn of the business cycle nor an accident of history.” Obama blames the crisis on “irresponsibility.” He doesn’t go far enough. He needs to connect the dots. He needs to be clear that the plague of irresponsible behavior arose because our democracy failed, because our government became the government of special interests, not the government of the people.  (I recently posted, President Obama Must Make This Wake-Up Call To Action: Our System Of Democracy Has Failed Us.)

The fourth question on the paper, I gave to the Kiwanis club attendees, got personal and asked each person to rate themselves.  The question asked: On a scale of zero to 100, to what degree do you, personally, understand what is actually happening in government, to what degree do you understand the issues and challenges that government needs to address?

Here, the average of the answers was 30%. Quite an admission. Connect the dots: We have met the enemy and it is us. We are all sinners. I encouraged my listeners to confess and made my own confession that, although I live five blocks from the Kettering Government Center, I don’t know beans about what goes on in that place. There wasn’t a dry eye in the house as we each told of our shortcomings as citizens.

Well, it wasn’t quite that way. But it was a nice evening and when I asked for my food bill, I was told that the club picked up the tab. Wow. My first perk as author.  And one person even offered to buy my book. I didn’t have any.  These books are going fast.  I’m already through my second edition (5 copies each addition).  I need to order more from Lulu.  The idea is that for each new order I’ll correct more errors and other changes and declare a new edition.  Maybe I’ll make a new cover and new title:  “Our Democracy Is Failing And It’s All Your Fault. So, Buy This Book.”

I didn’t quite make it to my grand conclusion last night. My time was up and then some, and the place to wherever we were headed was still on the horizon.  But I’ve been trying to envisage myself in front of a meeting of people I don’t know.  My whole point in making such an endeavor would be to promote DaytonOS, so, right now, I thinking the conclusion to my presentation might be some improved version of this:

“In conclusion, We are in trouble because our democracy is failing and even worse trouble will certainly befall us, unless we can get our democracy to work. We cannot have an effective democracy without an informed and engaged citizenry. We cannot have an effective democracy without meaningful community.  Help DaytonOS become a transformative educative community.  Join DaytonOS.  Become a leader. Donate money. Buy this book. (Profits go to DaytonOS.)  Thanks for having me.  And yes, I accept checks.”

Economist Paul Krugman in a recent blog writes about Dayton congressman, John Boehner: “Boehner’s idea of economics is completely insane.”

Krugman absolutely disagrees with Boehner’s thinking and seems to be in honest despair that a congressional leader with a lot of influence could actually advocate Boehner’s view.  Krugman asks, “Can this country be saved?”

Krugman strongly disagrees with Boehner’s hard stance on government spending. Boehner keeps repeating this theme: “It’s time for government to tighten their belts and show the American people that we ‘get’ it.”

Krugman writes, “He (Boehner) is talking about the current economic crisis as if it were a harvest failure — as if we faced a shortage of goods, so that the more you consume the less is left for me. In reality — even most conservatives understand this, when they think about it — we’re in a world desperately short of demand. If you consume more, that’s GOOD for me, because it helps create jobs and raise incomes. It’s in my personal disinterest to have you tighten your belt — and that’s just as true if you’re ‘the government’ as if you’re my neighbor.”