Posts Tagged ‘Republicans’

The Thinker

Republicans are simply racists and classists

Did you watch the last night’s Republican debate; you know the one where Donald Trump snippily decided he would not attend because he doesn’t like questions that Megyn Kelly might ask? You did? Good for you and apparently you are more into politics than I am. I was certain I’d learn nothing new and from the reviews I was right. So now voters wait warily for the results of the Iowa caucuses next Monday night. Let’s hope the Republicans get it right this time.

Some pundits are predicting the demise of the Republican Party after the next election. I’ll be lifting a glass of champagne if that happens to be the case. Abraham Lincoln wouldn’t recognize his own party anyhow. Republicans after all freed the slaves and today’s Republicans want to make them slaves again. I won’t be lifting my glass too high though because as bad as the Republican Party is, I do think whatever phoenix emerges from its ashes could actually be worse.

What got me thinking this way was reading the latest Washington Post OpEd by conservative Charles Krauthammer. After the obligatory sentences saying how Bernie Sanders couldn’t get elected because America doesn’t elect socialists (conveniently ignoring the fact that Franklin Delano Roosevelt won four terms on an effectively socialist platform, and by overwhelming majorities), Krauthammer looks at the factions within the G.O.P. In particular he notes that Donald Trump is not really conservative, certainly not in the sense that he wants to rollback social programs. In the same paper, Fareed Zakaria notes that Republicans have given lip service to getting rid of social programs and in many cases expanded them. In fact, he notes polls that economically conservative Republicans are going for Cruz over Trump by 15 percent, while Trump wins by 30 percent over Cruz from Republicans holding “progressive positions”, such as on health care, taxes, the minimum wage and the benefits of unions.

Well, this is a head scratcher, until you think about it a little while. One possibility is that Trump is expanding the Republican base, pulling in (principally white) people that don’t tend to vote Republican, or vote at all, because no one in the party represents them. However, there is no evidence that Republican Party registration is increasing significantly nationwide, as this recent Gallup poll attests. Zakaria does quote Michael Tessler of the Rand Corporation, who provided his statistics. Tessler says: “Trump performs best among Americans who express more resentment toward African Americans and immigrants and who tend to evaluate whites more favorably than minority groups.” This is a polite way of saying Trump does much better with the party’s racists. This is not surprising until you think about what this actually means.

What principally unites the Republican Party (to the extent it is united) is not fiscal conservatism. It’s not the importance of federalism (state control). It’s not God, an aggressive foreign policy and it’s certainly not Jesus. It’s not even guns. Their principle shared-value is that they think they are special and deserve a singular status over the rest of society, who they mostly look down on. In short, most of them are racists, even if they can’t even admit it to themselves. It’s more acceptable to be a classist, instead of a racist, which many will openly acknowledge. This basically means they don’t believe in egalitarianism and that some for whatever reasons (status, wealth, race, education, values) deserve to be privileged. Moreover because they are privileged, they should not feel (and apparently don’t feel) ashamed of this. It’s this energy that Trump is harnessing. When push comes to shove, this is what Republicans care about.

I believe it is part of Carl Rove’s master plan. He fed these primal fears to give the Republican Party oversize stature. They feel it slipping away, which is why Republican-led states enacted onerous voting restrictions. Their loss of their status, real or in many cases imaginary is their greatest motivation. Trump was savvy enough to cut through the bullshit and go for the jugular. This is why he is leading in the polls. (It does help to have so many competing candidates that the opposition is scattered.)

After all, if you want power it’s not about making a logical case; it’s about making a resonating emotional case. Fear is a great motivator and Republicans excel at looking behind their backs. Trump succeeds by saying that those others not like us are the cause of our fear of loss of status and privilege. Throw out the “illegals” and things may not be well, but they sure will be better. He has ruled out major changes to Medicare and Social Security because he’s read the polls and knows his fans support programs like these. Tax cuts go disproportionately to the wealthy but welfare goes disproportionately not to the poor, but to the middle class.

Medicare and Social Security are just two ways to keep the middle pacified, but it’s only the beginning. There is the employer health insurance tax credit, which annually costs three times as much as food stamps. There is the home mortgage interest deduction, tuition tax credits and even energy efficiency credits that go only to those who can afford to take advantage of them. Power is secured through keeping the rabble happy. Trump knows there are plenty in the middle who understand their standard of living is wobbly. The last thing most of these people want is more uncertainty to their standard of living, but they are perfectly happy to add uncertainty to those who don’t think and act like them: the others. Me first!

The Romans quickly realized that the rabble wasn’t happy unless the lions ate a gladiator or two now and then. They made it convenient for citizens to enjoy this entertainment by allowing everyone in for free. Trump is metaphorically doing the same thing: he is harnessing the power that is already there. He plays the crowd the same way Itzhak Perlman plays the violin. He plays up the juicy expectation of red meat to come: walls along the border with Mexico and less of the other among us. He says: less of them means more for us and will make us (the privileged) great again. And so they dance and he knows that the rest of the party will come along in time. The Republican Party leadership seems to understand which way the wind is blowing. Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus recently said as much, and even elder statesmen like Bob Dole seem to be acknowledging they will fall in line too. Power is what counts; whatever message gives them that power is okay.

It’s just that because of Donald Trump it’s now out in the open. Even Republicans can’t deny it anymore because their leading candidate simply won’t. They are the party of people like them: white racists and classists. They just can’t hide from it anymore.

 
The Thinker

Recipe for dysfunction: the Flint water crisis

My wife and I have been watching the Flint Water crisis for the last year or so. It has been in the news for a long time, just on back pages of papers or in obscure news articles when it was mentioned at all. Now, of course, it is suddenly a national story.

We were following it in part because my wife was born in Flint, Michigan so stories from Flint will naturally flag her interest. When she first heard that the state of Michigan (acting as its manager) had changed Flint’s water source from Lake Huron (via Detroit’s system) to the local Flint River, she said, “This isn’t going to work”. Although considerably cleaned up from its polluted days, she knew the Flint River was still an unsafe water source, much like the Hudson River near Albany is after decades of General Electric dumping PCBs into the river. The river is not the sewer it once was but lots of crap still ends up in it.

In the auto industry’s heyday, Flint was Detroit’s younger brother, living off the auto business. While cars were certainly built in Flint, equally important was its role in supplying auto parts. ACDelco, for example, still has a plant in Flint although it is certainly smaller than it was. Over the years we have made a few trips to Flint. Like many cities in Michigan, it’s a pretty sad place. If you’ve been paying attention to Flint stories, you’ll learn there is much that is dysfunctional in Flint. For example, it has a police force that works 8 to 6, Monday through Friday. If you need help at other times call the county police and hope that they will respond. This was due to the city’s declining tax base. It could no longer afford a full-time police department. Long ago Flint was pimped for its cheap blue-collar labor, found even cheaper elsewhere, so the city underwent hard times from which it never recovered. It became another sad tale of urban blight, if you can call of city of 100,000 with lots of boarded up houses and a declining tax base “urban”.

A perfect storm came together to cause the Flint water crisis. It would be easy to blame this entirely on Michigan State government, and it certainly does earn the majority of the blame. But it’s clear that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had a hand in the problem, basically by not providing the oversight that was needed. When it detected a problem, it didn’t take effective action to hold Michigan accountable.

The impact of the problem is easy enough to see now: thousands children and adults with elevated lead levels, which are not easily corrected and will likely lead to lifelong cognitive problems. The problem is more than the lead, which is mostly a factor of the differently treated water going through old pipes rather than of contaminants in the Flint River. It’s mostly a story about an absence of government, but it’s also a story of ideology overriding common sense. It’s also a story about the drawbacks of federalism. I’ll tackle each of these.

For several decades now Republicans have been pushing the rube that government is the problem instead of the solution. The government than governs least governs best they opined, channeling Thoreau. Michigan voters bought into this and turned the state bright red when it elected Rick Synder in 2010 as its governor. That was also the year its legislature went red, when Republicans won the State House (they had previously controlled the State Senate). It was quite a change, with the house going from 67 Democrats to 47 Democrats. Republicans got carte blanc, controlling all the levers of state government. The usual stuff that happens when Republicans claim a state government started. This included legislation allowing the state to take over local governments that could not stay fiscally solvent. Flint was one major city (the other being Detroit) to be taken over by the state.

From Governor Snyder’s perspective, Flint residents proved they couldn’t govern themselves. This was their fault: they were incompetent. In fact the city was a victim of economic forces largely beyond their control. The city needed “adults” (i.e. mostly white men from nowhere near Flint) to take charge, adults appointed by Snyder with the consent of the state government. And thus half-baked solutions like changing Flint’s water supply became a way to make the city more lean and efficient. (In fact, the City of Detroit offered Flint a 50% discount to keep it as a customer but the offer was spurned.)

Unsurprisingly the new city managers were tone deaf to complaints from citizens about their discolored water or from a local pediatrician who kept trying to get their attention with actual test results. They were not accountable to any voters and being challenged on their actions simply set up a wall of cognitive dissonance: if you are so smart why did you let things get so bad? Those cute, misinformed and principally black Flint residents simply didn’t know what they were talking about. It’s clear though that had Flint not been taken over, it would not have done something so radical as to quickly change its water source, at least not without considerable deliberation and testing. The mayor and city council would have probably raised concerns like whether it would have affected the aging lead pipes in the city. Not doing so might jeopardize their reelection. But when you are an out of town manager not running for reelection, you do what you think is right and aren’t concerned much about local input.

Federalism empowers regional control by allowing states to make regional decisions. There are obviously virtues to federalism, but occasionally there are drawbacks as well. This was pretty obvious by the way the EPA mishandled this crisis. The regional EPA senior executive was mindful of the political consequences of getting too involved in the issue. Michigan was now bright red, and he could expect interference and hostility if he went out on a limb for Flint. He chose not to, which was obviously a mistake, but an understandable one given that the job requires making political choices. In politics sometimes you overlook individual deficiencies to address a larger goal. That’s probably what happened here, but the judgment was obviously a flawed one and led to his resignation. Michigan deserved to have its hand slapped, but more importantly it’s the EPA’s job to raise these issues to prevent exactly these sorts of situations.

And so a perfect storm happened. A tone-deaf and ideologically driven state government tried to do things its way with entirely predictable results. Thousands were sickened and will endure lifelong disabilities. Government served no one here, certainly not the residents of Flint, and became an obstruction to common sense governance.

It’s unclear to me if we will learn any lessons from this. Here are mine:

  • Government should not be run by ideologues but by people who want society to run like a well-oiled engine.
  • We need local input and local control if possible but sometimes local government can’t do it all and are victims of macro forces beyond their control, like Flint’s shrinking tax base and it’s not necessarily their fault.
  • State and federal resources should be used to empower and supplement local control, not to countermand it.
  • Government exists to serve the people, not just the people that fund politicians’ campaigns.
  • Most importantly, anyone who serves in government has the role of a fiduciary. They should be there not to destroy government but to make it run better. Gumming up its machinery won’t make it better, and that’s what happened here to tragic effects.
 
The Thinker

The southern strategy bites back

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson recently wrote that Donald Trump has changed the Republican Party permanently. In the past the establishment elite controlled the party. Unfortunately well-moneyed Republicans were relatively few in number. They had to find votes somewhere so they adopted a “southern strategy” that pandered to the fears and prejudices of those principally in the south. This included crass appeals to classists, racists, fundamentalist Christians and to those who wished for things to be the way they were in the 1950s, you know, when non-whites knew their place.

It worked quite well. Essentially the Republicans picked up formerly white southern Democrats when Democrats (some say unwisely) moved toward being more inclusive instead of the party of the white working class. Starting with Richard Nixon, Republicans realized that catering to people’s prejudices was a reliable vote getter. Republicans stoked then exploited these class divisions and anxieties so well that today the south and much of the non-coastal west is now a deep shade of red. Robinson said that Trump’s genius was to call to task Republicans because they didn’t follow through on their promises to this new base, actions like sending undocumented immigrants home. He said that Trump has fundamentally changed the party, wresting control from its establishment and making it explicitly a party centered on addressing these fears rather than merely pandering to them.

It used to be that in the Republican Party the tiger controlled its tail. The tail (the Tea Party, racists and Christian fundamentalists) now appears to control the party. We’ll find out for sure if Trump wins his party’s nomination. Even if Trump somehow slips, anyone who takes his place will have to sound a lot like him, which is why Ted Cruz won’t say anything bad about Trump while echoing most of his talking points. Counterproductively, the remaining Republican candidates are busy criticizing each other instead of focusing on Trump, at best a pennywise but pound-foolish strategy.

The Republican Party is thus on the cusp of becoming an officially anti-democratic party. It’s clear this is where they’ve been heading for a long time given their hostility toward the poor made manifest in egregious gerrymandering and increasingly odious voting restrictions. It’s like George Orwell’s Animal Farm and Republicans have decided they are the pigs. What Republicans don’t want to admit is that any control they get must be tenuous at best, as the nation’s changing demographics will eventually overwhelm them. They already recognize their reality by creating egregious voter restriction laws. These stack the deck in their favor but they cannot last forever.

Trump’s policies are popular with his supporters because he is proposing actions that explicitly redress these problems. He wants to deport the undocumented and cut off a path to citizenship for those here legally. Do this and you can at least push off the date of white disempowerment. When Trump proposes a wall along our border with Mexico, what his supporters hear is not that it will deter the undocumented from coming into the United States, but that it is a concrete step toward moving us back to the 1950s when they were in charge and minorities knew their place.

An explicitly anti-democratic party should be very scary to the rest of us. It suggests that Republicans want a radical change to our constitutional government. Trump’s words at least suggest he plans to govern by fiat if he cannot get his way.

It’s understandable that many voters are frustrated with the gridlock in Washington. I am one of them. They want to elect someone that can end it. By supporting someone who will use non-constitutional means though, they tacitly are saying that this is the only way things can change. If elected, Trump’s methods appear to be to take action unlawfully and unilaterally if necessary. He can say that he ran on this promise, voters voted him in anyhow and thus he has their sanction. However, the problem of Washington gridlock has everything to do with excessive gerrymandering that Republicans spent decades working on to garner disproportionate political power. Gerrymandering gives power to the extremes and disempowers the middle.

Curiously many of Trump’s political supporters are not new Republicans but frustrated disempowered people in the middle who see him as their savior. You can see this because some of Trump’s policies are not traditionally conservative at all. His supporters are less concerned with whether the policies are conservative but whether he can make government function for the people again. They see Trump as a man of practical action who by using the force of personality and the presidency will untangle this Gordian knot. For decades the disenfranchised white working class has propped up the Republican Party’s power, with little to show for the support they were given. This gave an opening for the daring (Trump) to exploit.

I contend that what really irks Trump supporters are not the loss of white political power, but their ability to influence politicians to work for the middle class, as evidenced by their declining wages and more problematic standard of living. As Jimmy Carter has pointed out, we effectively live in an oligarchy now. The Republican Party is the champion of the oligarchy. And the oligarchy wants a sense of stability that leaves them in charge. Then they can exploit government and the country for their benefit, which in recent decades has meant a decline in the standard of living for most of us be redistributing income to the rich.

Trump supporters are realizing that they have been had and their votes for Republicans have been counterproductive, but for many they still can’t vote for a Democrat because most Democrats don’t believe in the specialness of whites that Republicans have skillfully exploited. However, it’s why Bernie Sanders can appeal to many Trump supporters, and visa versa, by channeling their economic frustrations. Both are speaking to them in a language they understand. Trump though has chosen to pander to the white working class.

Both parties have exploited working whites for many decades. Whites perceive that Democrats favor minorities at their expense resulting, which they attribute to erosion in their standard of living. They also perceive that Republicans pander to them for votes but give power to the oligarchy instead. They don’t realize that by uniting with many of those they instinctively revile that government could work for them, and in the process work for everyone else too.

To make that leap they must see behind the façade, which is that white Christians are somehow more special than everyone else. I expect the smarter Trump supporters will leach off toward supporting Bernie Sanders instead.

Trump is a showman and a fraud. Those who want the real deal though need to support someone whose entire career has been toward making the government represent the people. By raising the boats of the middle and lower classes, the anxiety about these others should ease.

 
The Thinker

Following the leader

Oh good, I’m not the only one horribly alarmed by Donald Trump. Actually there are plenty of us, including the editorial staffs of The New York Times and The Washington Post. It shouldn’t take much to feel very alarmed if you actually listen to what Trump has to say. He asserts wild claims as facts that are wholly untrue; such as thousands of Muslims in America were cheering when the Twin Towers went down on 9/11. If that weren’t enough, he is now openly racist. This should not surprise anyone who has been paying attention to him. Trump is one of the earliest to claim that Obama was not born in the United States. Now when members of his overwhelmingly white audiences beat up Black Lives Matters protestors at his rallies, he encourages their lawlessness by saying that maybe protestors had it coming. He wants more waterboarding of terrorist suspects, and wants to surveil American Muslims and mosques.

Normally competing candidates would distance themselves from such wild remarks. With one exception though the remaining Republican candidates seem to be busy following the leader, moving sharply to the right on most of these issues and at best offering nuanced differences between themselves and Trump. I had thought for a long time that the Republican Party was a racist party. Research now proves me right. Some will doubtless point out the success of some black candidates like Ben Carson as proof that the party is not racist. However, when a Carson or Herman Cain comes along they only “succeed” when they parrot principles that keep members of their own race from succeeding. In short, if a black candidate in the Republican Party is stupid enough to say stuff that amounts to “let the beatings on us continue” then the party is happy to let them in.

Still, it’s very discouraging to realize that the Republican Party is basically about maintaining white privilege at all costs. This is after all the party that succeeded in freeing the slaves. Republicans talk all about their party being for an opportunity society while giving those without opportunity fewer means to climb the ladder. In fact, they work actively to remove rungs from that ladder. They actively disenfranchise voters likely to vote for candidates they don’t like. Most red states won’t extend the Medicaid franchise to the working poor (which includes lots of whites). With Medicaid there is some semblance of a floor under their feet that might allow them to get to the next rung. They actively whip up the poorer white folk to work against their own interests. Kentucky governor-elect Matt Bevin won office principally from votes from poor white Kentuckians who are likely to have their new Medicaid benefits (under a KyNect program umbrella) removed. It’s so sad to see these racial levers pushed because it depends on selling poor white people on the notion that they may be poor but are “better” than their darker poor neighbors because they don’t get help from the government, help they desperately need simply to survive.

In any event Trump has moved from carnival barker to pied piper. If the Republican Party were a church, a great revival would be underway, the parishioners would be dancing in the pews and more than a few would be talking in tongues. Trump has effectively hypnotized his own party and has whipped them into a frenzy. He is counting on this of course, because enthusiastic voters vote disproportionately and he will need an overwhelming white vote and a lackluster Democratic vote to win the presidency. The nightmare for most of us is imagining how a President Trump would actually govern. One would hope he would quickly sober up, but there is little likelihood of that. This is because he shows no signs that he actually believes and respects the constitution and laws of the United States.

Trump is an egomaniac. He believes himself not only gifted but also faultless. Of course he is the only person savvy enough to navigate us through these turbulent times, in spite of his many failed marriages and four bankruptcies. He has many of us hypnotized. Since civics is rarely taught anymore he has many of us believing that he could actually do things like building a wall along the Mexican border and making Mexico pay for it. The real danger is that he will do by fiat the stuff he says he will do, which will be against the law. However, he will be counting on the American people to stand by his lawlessness. In short he is showing every sign of being a fascist: an American Mussolini. His tendency to double down suggests that he believes the end justifies the means.

Is there a sane Republican on the debate stage? The lone sane one remaining is Ohio Governor John Kasich, who recently released a damning video on Trump. Due to his poor fundraising it will largely be ignored. What should a sane Republican do? Since Republicans supposedly stand on principle, those who have any left should bail. Perhaps John Kasich and Jim Webb could form a party for sane moderates. There are Republican candidates who if they showed spine could also set an example by leaving. You know most of the candidates on stage don’t believe half the crap they are spouting, including Trump who is more about the end than the means. It’s largely Trump’s presence that has them saying such weird anti-immigrant stuff.

I study American history and frankly I can’t think of a time in our history quite as dangerous today. Our constitutional government is seriously threatened by a Trump presidency. Trump is showing that he has neither morals nor scruples and will do or say anything that will get him nominated. Polls seem to be bearing this out. Democrats will nominate someone sane, but they will need someone sane but passionate to close the enthusiasm gap. Hillary Clinton is not that candidate. However, Bernie Sanders is.

The 2016 election will be an enthusiasm election. Whichever side has more of it will win. Traditionally you could count on the American people to act rationally, but not this time. Which leaves me (an agnostic) considering prayer. Pray for our country.

 
The Thinker

2016 Republican Presidential Debate #4

By now these candidates are all getting a bit uncomfortably familiar — at least to those of us that tune into these debates. With some exceptions though they all pretty much sound the same and parrot the same ideas. What made this latest debate a bit more interesting than the other ones is that from time to time some actual debating happened.

This debate, hosted by the Fox Business Channel and held in Madison, Wisconsin had a heavily conservative tone to it, which made the candidates happy after the last debate when the moderators had the audacity to backtalk the candidates with actual fact checking. Moderator questions came laden with assumptions that doubtless made its owner Rupert Murdoch happy. Stuff like this from moderator Maria Bartiromo:

Today the national debt is at record highs and growing unsustainably. Interest will be the fastest-growing part of the federal budget, tripling over the next 10 years. Social Security, the lifeline of millions of American seniors, is rushing toward insolvency.

In fact, the budget deficit has been cut by more than two thirds since the start of the Great Recession, virtually zero interest rates have made financing the debt a lot more sustainable, Social Security is reaching a point where it may pay out more than it receives, but is not anywhere close to insolvent as its assets are invested in U.S. Treasury Bills that will be redeemed to pay benefits. Given the false assumptions that underlined many of the questions asked, the only surprise was that some actual debating took place. As usual, it was the marginal candidates that did most of the pot stirring, i.e. John Kasich and libertarian Rand Paul because what do they have to lose?

Kasich went for being the only grownup in the room again, which he was. In fact much of the time he sounded like a Democrat, which was why toward the end he was actually booed by the audience. Kasich did feel neglected and felt compelled to barge into the debate at inopportune moment near the end, but in fact he got plenty of airtime. Kasich’s sensible and pragmatic solutions though were not something fellow candidates and the audience wanted to hear. I found myself agreeing with much of what Kasich had to say. If he had a realistic chance at the nomination, the party might also have a realistic chance of winning next year’s election.

Rand Paul was the other discordant note, in particular when he called out Marco Rubio for not being a true conservative because he wanted to give a tax credit to lower income people, which he accurately portrayed as an entitlement. On foreign policy Paul was definitely the isolationist and kept noting that defending the country costs lots of money and our foreign interventions usually backfire. Again, this did not win him any favors from other candidates or the audience because cognitive dissonance like this apparently gives them severe migraines. Everyone was like: just shut up Rand and John already!

I really wanted Carly Fiorina to just shut up already. She went on an impassioned rant about the need to cull regulations and to have zero-based budgeting. However, she wouldn’t adhere to the regulations of the debate to stop talking after her ninety seconds was up. Two bells calling time went blithely ignored as she just kept yammering and yammering. While the most egregious violator, she was hardly alone. One of the biggest yammerers from the last debate, Chris Christie, has been disinvited to the debate and sent to the humiliating “undercard” debate instead.

Picking winners was hard, but picking losers was easy. Kasich is likely to get undercarded soon because he speaks to a vanishingly small moderate base. Ditto with Rand Paul, for stroking libertarian feelings largely absent in the Republican Party. And Carly Fiorina is coming across as a simply nasty lady, so she will likely get undercarded again soon, particularly given her mediocre polling numbers which barely qualified her for this debate.

Donald Trump specializes in nasty, but with a dose of humor that Carly doesn’t have. He was repeatedly called out by Kasich for his impossible to enforce plan to deport all undocumented immigrants but as usual he said he could part water and get it done along with his thousand mile wall along our border to Mexico, which presumably they will somehow pay for. On this topic none of them noted that President Obama has been vigorously removing undocumented immigrants, something that gives most Democrats heartburn. However, they did latch on to his executive order that makes it less likely that these immigrants who are caregivers would be deported anytime soon. Apparently it’s really evil to keep parents and their legal children united.

Jeb Bush managed to improve his performance but not in a distinctive way. Marco Rubio held steady, coming on strong but falling back toward the end of the debate in part due to lack of airtime. Ted Cruz will probably get a bump, as he stayed with nasty and unrealistic, which is what Republicans want to hear. He did say he wanted to eliminate the Department of Commerce twice, which would be quite a feat. He also wants to eliminate the IRS, which is a great thing if you don’t want to go to prison for not paying your taxes. Cruz was mostly in comfortable La-La Land, which is where most of the audience wanted to be as well.

There were other amusing faux pas:

  • Marco Rubio actually talked about the “Democratic Party” when every good Republican knows the Right and Fox News has rebranded them as the “Democrat Party”.
  • Ted Cruz also talked about going back to the gold standard and how great the country was when we were on the gold standard. The Washington Post wonk blog though noted that the Great Depression was caused by slavish adherence to the gold standard.
  • Ben Carson claimed that by 1876 the United States was the largest economic power in the world, which no doubt was news to the United Kingdom, which claimed that title at the time.
  • Carson also said that the Chinese were deeply involved in the conflicts in the Middle East, while China has wisely largely stayed out of the conflict.
  • Donald Trump said we are losing jobs like crazy when we added 270,000 jobs just last month and we have netted jobs every month for the last seven years.
  • Macro Rubio said there was nothing more important than being a parent, effectively slamming singles.
  • Rand Paul wants everyone to pay a flat tax of 14.5 percent, less a home mortgage and charitable deductions. So a poor person earning $10,000 a year should pay $1450 a year income taxes, in addition to the sales taxes they disproportionately pay? It’s sounds fair I guess in Rand Paul’s insular world.
  • Carly Fiorina thinks it’s bad that Obamacare brought the uninsured rate below ten percent because of socialism or something.
  • Ben Carson said only 19.8 percent of black teenagers have a job, which would mean 80% of black teens do not, when in fact more than fifty percent of black teens do have jobs.

So there was the usual obfuscation and erroneous claims, par for the course for these fact-free debaters, but it seemed the more wrong the statistics were the more the audience ate it up. More dubious facts will doubtless be revealed in their next debate, which fortunately won’t be until December.

Next up: a second Democratic debate this weekend.

 
The Thinker

2016 Republican Presidential Debate #3

I’m not much on Twitter but I decided that if I was going to watch the latest Republican Presidential Debate at least I could be trendy and live tweet it. Alas, it didn’t occur to me until shortly before it started. So unless you happened to follow me on Twitter you wouldn’t have known. (And if you aren’t following me on Twitter, why not? Follow me here.)

Those asking questions got dinged by a couple of the debate participants. The questions did not seem too bad to me and if the questions seemed unusually snarky then it’s because the candidates don’t watch much CNBC. I’ll agree the question on fantasy football was a bit silly, but most of the rest were actually fair questions. The questioners were not shy about pushing back with facts when the candidates steered away from toward their own versions of the truth. I’d like to see more of this in future debates. In fact, live fact checking should be a feature of debates, with check-ins from the fact checkers periodically so viewers could know when candidates are blowing a lot of smoke. So overall, I liked CNBC’s format, although I know I am in a minority.

Live tweeting the debate also gave me a great way to take notes, and I use them here as memory jogs. You can see all of them on my Twitter feed.

I didn’t like the opening question when candidates were asked about their weaknesses. This is another “When did you last stop beating your wife?” sort of question. There’s no good way to respond to it. You invariably pick some tiny little thing no one will care about and go with that, which always comes across as insincere. In any event, it takes enormous ego and chutzpah to run for president in the first place. Just by declaring your candidacy you are stating that there is something extra special about you compared to the rest of us.

You could tell Donald Trump didn’t like this debate any more than the last, mainly because he wasn’t allowed to dominate it. He looked sort of neutered and peevish. It would not surprise me if he invents a reason to opt out of these soon. He did manage to get off one attack on John Kasich, but only after Kasich had offered the opinion that many of his policy solutions were nonsense, which in fact they are. This immediately elevated Kasich in my mind, which sort of gave permission for others in the debate to speak moments of actual truth. Some of these moments were pretty bizarre. Ted Cruz, whose campaign is largely funded by moneyed business interests, said that principally the middle class was supporting his campaign. Carly Fiorina cried out about “crony capitalism” which she said was a result of corrupt government when it’s a result of policies championed by pretty much all Republicans since after Teddy Roosevelt to put the interests of the moneyed and businesses ahead of everyone else. That’s what caused our oligarchy.

Many of these candidates went into friendly la-la land when responding to questions. Ted Cruz basically said that Democrats were communists. Even Senator Joseph McCarthy would not have gone this far. Everyone said that Social Security and Medicare were failing systems but no one bothered to mention that Social Security would be solvent if the payroll cap was simply raised. No, benefits had to be cut and the retirement age had to be lifted. For many poor people whose life expectancy is about 70, this effectively means never even getting to retire. Some talked about reigning in government spending, but not one of them had the courage to say that you can’t keep cutting taxes and solve the budget deficit.

Certain words grated, like Chris Christie’s repeated declaration that the government was “stealing” your social security deposits. It was known from the start that the system was pay as you go system, not a lockbox system. The reason why it is under stress is there are fewer workers paying into the system than in the past, something that could be mitigated with immigration reform. These are the real causes of the actuarial problem; there was never anything nefarious about it.

Kasich again was the sanest person in the room but also its least photogenic. He looked grey, washed out and unattractive as well. I enjoyed watching Trump, particularly the violent way he turned his neck toward someone saying something he doesn’t like. Ben Carson looked so unanimated it’s a wonder why anyone would be enthusiastic about him. Ted Cruz bizarrely talked about how much he respected the constitution, even while he and his party worked hard to keep people they don’t like from voting. Jeb Bush had a hard time getting noticed or even called on. Trying to reproach Marco Rubio for voting so infrequently got him bitch slapped by an animated Rubio. Pundits said Rubio won the debate. I doubt that, but I do think Bush lost it by sounding petulant and insincere when he did talk, and by otherwise fading into the background.

No one asked the obvious question about Trump’s wall: even if you build it, how do you keep people from digging tunnels under it? It has been done for decades as a way to smuggle both illegal immigrants and drugs into the country.

Policy though did not matter as much as attitude, or maybe I should say sassitude. They were going for applause and that mainly occurred by berating the questioners or finding some other way to sound mean or pissed off. This record has been played too many times before. You would think even Republicans would be tired of it.

If Rubio “won” the debate, it’s only because he made himself look marginally better than the rest of the tired candidates and was more prepared with scripted comebacks. It’s an advantage of relative youth, perhaps.

Anyhow in less than two weeks we get to go through this whole tired scenario again. I’ll try to live tweet that debate as well as it helps to stay awake through it. They sure don’t make it easy.

 
The Thinker

Dear Pope Francis: you are half the way there

Presumably Pope Francis is now back in Rome and settling in after a whirlwind tour of Cuba and the United States. He’s a pope who is hard to dislike, perhaps because he comes out of the Jesuits. For a pope he is also suspiciously pragmatic.

He was not shy expressing his opinions while in the United States. Mostly they gave Republicans heartburn as he preached to them on subjects they did not want to hear: that poor people had equal rights, that income inequality had to be addressed and that global climate change was a serious problem. He spoke passionately of the refugee crisis affecting mostly Europe and asked America to do its part compassionately. He complained that corporations were not working in the interests of the people as a whole.

Democrats did not wholly escape his preaching. He spoke passionately about the family, but his idea of a family looked a lot like June and Ward Cleaver’s and seemed to exclude marriage for same sex couples. Still, overall it was refreshing to hear messages from a pontiff that were truthful and people-centric. Francis is a catholic in the apostolic and universal sense of the word. He even acknowledged that those who do not believe in God could be good people simply by acting as good people.

It’s not enough to make me return to the Catholic Church. It’s a lost cause in my case, as I don’t believe Jesus was God, and I don’t believe in miracles, saints and most of the peculiar beliefs of Catholics. I’m too left-brained. But his words as well as his actions (like having dinner with homeless people and riding in the back of a Fiat instead of a limousine) convinced me he is a much different pope, beloved as few will be, and acting in the spirit of Jesus. Pope John Paul II was much loved and is even on his way to sainthood, but Pope Francis’ appeal extends significantly beyond the Catholic faithful to much of the world at large.

I really tuned into his message on climate change. He introduced a small ray of hope into a problem that looks gloomy at best and catastrophic to humans and most species on the planet at worst. Perhaps some of his grounding on the matter came from outside the church. Before becoming a priest, Francis worked as a chemist. He earned the rough equivalent of an associate of science degree in chemistry in Argentina. Francis understands enough about chemistry to know that when you introduce too much carbon dioxide into an atmosphere, with no other changes to the system then temperatures will increase and it will affect most living species. He sees the obvious costs of our industrialization and acknowledges that the earth is finite and we cannot continue to exploit the earth’s resources so unintelligently.

What he did not acknowledge was that population growth is a major driver of climate change. Without an end to population growth and probably a long-term effort to reduce the earth’s population, climate change cannot be reversed. Humans drive almost all climate change because we all put demands on the earth simply to survive. The problem is much worse in industrialized societies because with increased standards of living we want more stuff, and this consumption also feeds climate change.

It’s not enough to practice “natural family planning” as a population control solution. The Catholic Church advocates refraining from intercourse during a wife’s fertile period and abstinence as the only non-sinful ways to limit family size. The rhythm method of course is chancy at best, which leaves abstinence as the only foolproof and sinless methods of birth control for devout Catholics. It makes it virtually impossible to be both a devout Catholic and an environmentalist. If you are familiar with Catholic theology then you know that using birth control pills, IUDs and prophylactics are sinful.

If Francis truly wants to take a concrete action to address climate change then simply giving Catholics permission to use these and similar forms of birth control would be a huge step forward. Of course in many parts of the world, people are too poor to afford birth control, so also stridently arguing that governments should make birth control universally available for free to all citizens is as necessary as giving birth control devices church sanction. Among the many benefits will be a reduction in abortions. Children never conceived cannot be aborted.

China’s somewhat loosened one child per family policy was effective at limiting its population growth, but at a horrendous cost. It meant forced abortions mostly of females and arguably wreaked a lot of psychological damage. It’s not hard to envision a time when climate change becomes so pressing that something like this becomes policy in most countries. While it may be necessary to do this simply to survive as a species, such policies would be the opposite of humane.

This doesn’t have to happen. With over a billion adherents, if the Catholic Church were to change its policies on birth control then it would do a huge amount in the medium term to limit population growth and subsequent climate change. It would be a humane step forward. Francis has the power to do this today.

I am not a praying man by nature, but I pray that Pope Francis will see the light on this and very soon. Our future, and the perpetuity of the Catholic Church may depend on it.

 
The Thinker

2016 Republican Presidential Debate #2

I skipped the first of these interminable Republican presidential debates because I simply couldn’t stomach it. I did watch the second debate last night with some misgivings, mostly because like everyone else I wanted to see if Donald Trump would get his comeuppance. Still, I have limits and yesterday’s was two hours worth. I kind of felt sorry for them forced to stand there for three hours with Reagan’s Air Force One as a backdrop. I know my bladder wouldn’t hold out for three hours and I’m betting most of the men on the stage have enlarged prostates too. I’m betting they were wearing Adult Depends.

Trump did not exactly did get his comeuppance but he was sort of neutered because the moderators wouldn’t allow him to yammer on and hog the stage like he did during the first debate. This was good because it gave other candidates a chance to talk about issues instead of personalities. With the exceptions of John Kasich and Ben Carson though the rest seemed shopworn, irritating at worst and uninteresting at best. Carson was clearly going for the nice guy angle, which helped contrast him not only with The Donald but everyone else except Kasich. Granted that Carson’s actual policies are just as wacky as the others’ are, and are in some cases even wackier. Kasich was the sole moderate on the stage, although even Ronald Reagan would not have recognized him as a moderate Republican. Kasich at least sounded reasonable and pragmatic, as did Carson at times simply because he wouldn’t raise his voice or criticize any of his fellow candidates. That doesn’t seem to be what Republican voters want in a nominee this time, but we’ll see.

Carly Fiorina generated the most buzz. She did so right near the start with some false statements about the highly doctored Planned Parenthood videos. She essentially inflamed the Planned Parenthood funding issue in highly emotional and clinical terms to shamelessly draw attention to herself and it obviously worked. She also one-upped The Donald with her caustic reply to a question about Trump’s earlier remarks about her ugly face. I hope that Republicans are wising up to Trump, who is basically a very rich bully. In any event these two events allowed Fiorina to look sort of presidential, at least by comparison to the low standards the other candidates set. Trump’s rampant sexism and plain bad taste seem to have finally become counterproductive. He also made a snide remark about Rand Paul’s disheveled hair, perhaps because his hair is a frequent news story in itself.

More revealing was his degree of sexism, which should disqualify any thinking female from voting for him. He had already criticized Megyn Kelly with a vague reference to menstruation. In trying to dodge his remarks about Fiorina’s ugly face, he dug himself in further. He had earlier said he meant her persona was unpresidential, not her face. In the debate, after Fiorina caustically replied to his comment, he said she had a beautiful face. Would he say this about one of the handsomer men on the stage, like Marco Rubio? Not likely. He sees beauty as an important aspect of a woman. Beauty however is simply a matter of genetics and taking care of yourself. Beauty has nothing to do with judgment. By seeming to suggest it’s important for a woman to be beautiful to be successful suggests that he is handicapping all women that are not or won’t try to be. It must be his cluelessness because there is nothing clever about this at all.

It’s not surprising that when they weren’t criticizing each other or the minutia in their policy differences they were complaining about President Obama and his “disastrous” presidency. They said he was weak on foreign policy, which was laughable as he was the president that got Osama bin Laden, a goal George W. Bush saw as unimportant. Obama also got us out of an unwinnable war in Iraq and is getting out of a similar one in Afghanistan. They chastised him for the nuclear agreement on Iran, even though it keeps us out of the folly of a pointless war and reduces Iran’s potential to develop nuclear weapons. They said he was a disaster for the economy, even though he created more jobs than any other modern president and dropped the unemployment rate lower than their hero Ronald Reagan ever did. It all sounded so hollow. Obama is simply a projection of their own inner frustration at his many accomplishments in spite of their relentless obfuscation. Their solutions to his alleged deficiencies were to do more of the same failed things that haven’t worked before. Not one of them had the courage to admit this was retarded.

At least there was more debate about issues last night and less blather from Trump. Their solutions did not vary much, but it took the focus off of Trump, who seemed out of his element. Trump spent much of his time off camera giving peculiar stairs at the other candidates when they spoke. He seemed to have lost his footing and was only willing to engage when it gave him the opportunity to be judgmental about other candidates. He is a one trick pony who looked very played last night.

It was so painful to watch certain candidates. They are all pretty grating, but Ted Cruz just oozes obnoxiousness. No wonder he doesn’t have a single friend in the U.S. Senate. Ditto Scott Walker and Chris Christie, both well seasoned bullies. Cruz though just has this look that is totally off-putting. Seeing someone like him on the street I reflexively move to the other side. Memo to Cruz: picking fights all the time and saying “my way or the highway” is not leadership. Taking the initiative to solve problems, generally by collaborating with others to find common ground, is leadership.

Jeb Bush tried hard to sound reasonable and affable but none of it made him particularly interesting or helped him shine. Did you notice him standing on his tippy toes when pictures were taken? He was already the tallest candidate but he had to be seen as taller, maybe because he knows history tends to favor the tallest candidate. He wants to look as dominating as possible but this was over the top.

Most of the other candidates tried to get words in edgewise but didn’t have much luck. None of these candidates though, not even Donald Trump, can master a stage like Barack Obama. Of course he’s not running although they were talking about him so much he did sort of command the stage in abstention.

My dream would be to have a debate between Trump and Obama. Trump thinks he’s a wizard on the stage. On the same stage with Obama debating the issues, he would be road kill under Obama’s shoes. I hope during the final campaign the Democratic nominee is wise enough to bring Obama on the road with him/her. History will vindicate Obama’s presidency. None of these potential Republican nominees is ten percent of the person that he is.

I’ll try to critique more of these debates in the future, but it is a struggle. It is intensely painful at times to hear such ridiculous tripe and such nonsensical and counterproductive solutions to our many vexing problems. With the possible exception of John Kasich, it’s horrifying to think what wreckage any of these people would be likely to do if they actually became president. On the plus side, any of these candidates except Kasich might actually make George W. Bush look the better president in retrospect.

 
The Thinker

Kim Davis’s rights are apparently more equal than yours

Kim Davis, the elected county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky is sitting in a jail in Ashland, Kentucky tonight. She is in jail after being held in contempt of court by a U.S. district court judge for refusing to issue marriage licenses. The thrice-married Davis has been refusing all applicants (gay and straight) since the Supreme Court ruled in June that no state could prohibit two people of the same sex from marrying.

Davis says she cannot issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians because gay marriage contradicts her sincerely held religious beliefs, i.e. her freedom of religion. She is an apostolic Christian and she believes that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Five of her six deputies who were also called to the hearing have seen the light and plan to issue marriage licenses starting tomorrow. The other deputy, curiously Davis’s son, is not in jail.

Unsurprisingly this is national news. Both sides have been hanging outside the courthouse yipping it up at each other. To most Republicans it’s pretty cut and dry stuff. They have been promoting freedom of religion for a while as a way to selectively circumvent the law. Unfortunately for Davis, her case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that she must follow the law. Davis meanwhile seems to be suffering from a case of cognitive dissonance, unable to reconcile her oath to uniformly execute the law with her religious beliefs. It looks like God is winning, at least for the moment. It remains unclear if she will see the secular light, linger indefinitely in jail as a cause celebre or do the honorable thing for someone in these cases: resign.

Republicans definitely seem energized by this “freedom of religion equals freedom to discriminate” argument. This is hardly surprising but it certainly is curious. An oath is a solemn secular promise, and Davis swore it when she entered her elective office that pays a comfortable $80,000 a year (great money in rural Kentucky). An oath is a requirement of being in the civil service. I ought to know because for thirty-two years I was a federal civil servant. When our careers began we all raised our hand and swore the same oath: that we would faithfully serve the constitution of the United States. (Curiously I had to end it with “So help me God,” although I was an agnostic.) Davis is not a federal civil servant, but it’s likely that her oath contained similar words.

While I was a civil servant, upholding the oath was not just the law and a good idea, not following the oath was grounds for my dismissal and/or possible other criminal penalties. In 32 years I served five presidents from Jimmy Carter (very briefly) to Barack Obama. The presidents I served frequently wrote stupid executive orders, and some of them were deeply offensive to me. Congress wasn’t much better with the laws it was passing. For much of that time I was a Unitarian Universalist. Although its adherents have no creed to profess, lots of stuff I had to do contradicted my religious beliefs. The first part of my career was with the Department of Defense. I aided in the printing of maps and charts used to direct our armed forces, sometimes to kill people. As part of holding a security clearance I could not disclose things that I knew. To this day I still can’t, and some of the stuff I learned shook me to the core and was both personally offensive and violated my religious beliefs. To get a security clearance in the first place I had to swear I wasn’t a homosexual. (This fortunately has changed.)

While working at a more benign department, Health and Human Services, I had to sometimes provide support to the office that promoted President Bush’s faith-based initiatives. This was pretty obvious to me a violation of the boundaries between church and state, but I shut up about it while expressing my opinions freely outside the office. I didn’t like it, but Bush had been constitutionally elected and if it was unconstitutional, it was an issue for the courts. So like Kim Davis, there were many aspects to my job that rubbed me the wrong way. I knew if it became too much to bear that there was an alternative: resign and find a job without these conflicts. Davis has that option right now. All she has to do is use it and she gets a get out of jail free card, quite literally.

Oaths are there for a very good reason: government can’t run if civil servants can selectively decide which parts of the law they will follow or ignore: laws can become toothless if they are not uniform. These same Republicans who are gung ho supporting Davis’s religious rights would not for a moment allow it from a soldier who refused to fight. “It’s against the commandments to kill, sergeant. Sorry, I’ll opt out of this battle. Maybe the next one if it’s not lethal.” It won’t work for the food inspector with a sincere religious belief against GMOs. It won’t work for the judge who refuses to give a mandatory sentence. Our constitution says that the Supreme Court gets to decide what is constitutional, the court decided it about gay marriage and it conflicted with her religious beliefs. The constitutional approach if she doesn’t like their decision is to push for a constitutional amendment prohibiting same sex marriage.

Instead, Davis’s response was to deny all who came to her the right to marry. In doing so she violated couples’ civil right to marriage and all the benefits that come with marriage. Her “right” to freedom of religion effectively trumped the rights of lots of others and put others through unnecessary hassle, expense and emotional trauma.

It should be obvious that any right that restricts someone else’s rights is not a real right. But that’s essentially the argument she and Republicans are making, and in her case she is doing while executing the law. If all civil servants had the right to rewrite or sidestep laws they don’t agree with while retaining their position, government would be mostly dysfunctional.

Republicans basically want anarchy anyhow, so maybe that’s why they are cheering her on. They are cheering anyone who will push policies that they agree with, legally or illegally. It’s affecting the ends they want that matter, and most are not principled enough to see this is both illegal and wrong. This variant on the freedom of religion ruse is just one more.

Fortunately, at least U.S. District Judge David Bunning gets it. A fine would not be enough here. Right-wingers would simply set up a fund that would allow her to flaunt the law indefinitely. So I feel no pity for her whatsoever. If her convictions are as sincere as she claims, the honorable thing to do is to resign. Otherwise, she should follow the rule of law for her public position that she swore to uphold and for which she is paid to uphold. Or she can choose to rot in jail on principle, which is fine with me.

Update 9/4/15 – Clarified post to note that Davis’s son has not been jailed.

 
The Thinker

Trump tries the master illusionist trick

About a month ago I took my first look at the Donald Trump as a presidential candidate phenomenon. A month later he’s still a phenomenon. The press goes gaga over the man, as apparently does a good portion of the American public. This creates something of a virtuous loop, at least if you are Donald Trump. Even his detractors will admit that while he may be jingoistic and a misogynist, he rarely fails to entertain. He’s been the subject of countless editorials, op eds and internet comments. I too am feeding the beast with this second post on Trump.

Political analysts are spending a lot of time trying to understand the Trump phenomenon, as he comes out of far right field. Holding left field of course is Bernie Sanders. Sanders is actually attracting a bigger crowds than either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but the press for the most part is not interested and is chasing Trump instead. I was at the health club the other day and watching the TV screens on the walls there in front of the exercise machines. I was wondering if CNN had become 24/7 Donald Trump channel. He was at the Iowa State Fair and the camera kept lingering on Trump and his showy helicopter. He was attracting crowds but Bernie Sanders was drawing bigger crowds. CNN didn’t bother to follow Bernie, maybe because he doesn’t have a private helicopter.

Trump remains mesmerizing to watch not to mention to try to figure out. Trump is an expert at understanding his brand, as he’s been in the self-promotion business for most of his adult life. With his bombastic comments and his reality TV show where he kept busy firing underlings, virtually every American already knew him. We all had opinions on the man. Most were negative but even I would not say that Trump is not interesting. To quote some lyrics from the band Heart, he’s a magic man.

Magic of course is purely illusion and Donald Trump is an illusionist. The author of the comic strip Dilbert, Scott Adams, is fascinated by Trump (see his blog), in part because Adams some years back took a course on hypnotism. He is convinced Trump is hypnotizing us and he gives him 98% odds of being our next president. I can’t be as clairvoyant as Scott Adams, but I can read the polls. While he definitely appeals to Americans who want a strong leader, and particularly those who want someone of action instead of another weaselly politician elected in 2016, the polls are clear that while most of us find him entertaining, the majority of American have still soberly assessed the guy and won’t vote for him under any circumstances. I’ll never say never, however. Americans have a history of voting for bamboozlers. I mean we put George W. Bush in the White House twice, although technically the Supreme Court put him in the first time.

The best characterization of Trump I’ve seen is his comparison to Ronald Reagan. Reagan said it was Morning in America when he campaigned. Trump goes everywhere with his branded baseball cap saying “Make America Great Again”. Like Reagan he is a divorcee and like Reagan he is an accomplished actor and salesman, although Reagan sold mostly Borax. Reagan was elected twice and had pretty good approval ratings, even though he proved to be a pretty poor president. We identified with him as a sincere common man who spoke his mind and did what he thought was right.

Trump is betting on a number of things in his campaign. He is betting that even though almost no Hispanics or Blacks will vote for him that he can whip up white voters to vote massively and mostly for him, which is the only way he can overcome the quickly changing voter demographics. And since white voters as a class tend to be Republican, he looks for our soft underbellies. Just like Nixon realized his path to the White House went through white voters in the South, Trump realizes that he must make outrageous statements about Mexicans, women, John McCain and a whole lot of other people to gain the attention and affection of white voters, many of whom are scared that their country is in decline because of those others. Unlike most of the other candidates who have no name recognition to most voters, he was already a brand. It’s not surprising then that he quickly rocketed to the top of preferred candidates among Republicans.

His success at least so far has opened my eyes a bit. He understands that what Republican voters really want is not necessarily someone with conservative values, but someone with a certain attitude. It’s his in-your-face attitude that connects to these voters, and it’s what they admire. Trump says occasional things that should be anathema to Republican ideologues, things like the rich should pay more taxes and there are parts of Obamacare that he likes. None of this seems to matter to his fans, most of who are Tea Party types. They just sense his character, latch onto his pugnacious style and see a successful businessman who manages to get his way. They project this to the national stage and think: if anyone can make Washington work, Trump can!

Trump of course has never held an elective office, something his supporters see as an asset. Given Trump’s attitude, he would likely take liberties with the Office of the President far beyond what even George W. Bush or Richard Nixon could have ever imagined. If he takes these sorts of liberties, he stands an excellent chance of being impeached and convicted rather quickly. Even Donald Trump cannot trump the Constitution of the United States. Moreover, he will encounter the same institutional forces every president has to deal with, as well as lots of pesky rules and regulations that he ignores or bypasses at his peril. Whoever is president must be a politician first or he or she will fail. It drives us voters nuts, but that’s the way it is. Trump too will have to do inconvenient things like follow contracting laws to build his wall along the Mexican border, assuming he’s sincere about it, which I doubt. He will also have to persuade Congress to fund it. The president is not a dictator. The president must persuade not just voters but Congress to actually wield power his way. Democracy is slow, painful and inelegant by design. Trump won’t make it dance.

I continue to believe (perhaps naively) that Trump understands all this upfront. He understands that he won’t be the next president so perhaps his aim is to change the national conversation, or to push for his agenda or he is a secret Democratic operative that even the Democratic Party is oblivious to. I wouldn’t put it past the man. Or I could be all wet and he actually plans to be our next president and his following his instincts that served him well so far. All he has to do is persuade enough of us, and he’s a master at the persuasion business. It starts with commanding our attention, and he sure has done that. Maybe for him the thrill is to close the ultimate sales pitch. If anyone has the skills to bamboozle us into doing so, he probably has it, which makes him dangerous to our democracy.

I am certain that Trump is being disingenuous and doesn’t actually believe half the stuff he is saying. I’m hoping that voters will eventually figure this out. Perhaps many of them have and simply don’t care because they like his pugnacious attitude. It’s clear though that voters are looking for someone who can break our national gridlock and institute real change. Many see in Trump that shiny man of practical action that could do this.

While Trump is not sincere, Bernie Sanders is sincere and has a forty plus year career of sincerely pushing his agenda. When Sanders starts attacking Trump directly, the fireworks are going to get very interesting, assuming the press deigns to pay attention. Like Jimmy Carter, Sanders can speak with a consistent moral authority. Trump simply cannot. If anyone can pull the curtains and expose the mere mortal that is the Great and Powerful Trump, it’s probably going to be Bernie Sanders. There is authenticity and there is showmanship. Sanders has authenticity, which is why at least so far Trump can only dream of getting the crowds to his rallies that Sanders draws routinely.

 

Switch to our mobile site