Wednesday, September 2, 2020

We Didn't Start the Fire

I was recently challenged on my dual assertions that 1) the rioting and violence in “Democrat-run cities” is NOT directly related to the Black Lives Matter protests, and 2) the real violent perpetrators are right wing zealots and opportunists. I realized, to my chagrin, that I had not fully researched my claims; therefore my arguments were unsupported. There was nothing for it but to dive into the deep end of the news cycle and swim around until I had a broader understanding of protest-related violence.

To be clear, I was NOT asking “Has there been violence and looting?”, nor "Is there a history of dangerous systemic racism in this country?", nor “Do BLM protestors have a right to be angry?”. The answer to all of the above is a resounding “Yes.” Instead, I focused on the equally complex question, “Who is responsible for the violence at the protests?”

I focused on news sources deemed most reliable by Ad Fontes Media, generally avoiding opinion and bias from the likes of Fox News, MSNBC, Daily Beast, or OAN. What follows are the key points I discovered, along with supporting news articles and summary notes for each article.

So, who is responsible for the violence at the protests? EVERYONE.

KEY POINTS:

  1. Both Biden and Trump have denounced the violence at the protests. Biden condemned violence on both the left and right, but Trump specifically blames leftwing extremist groups. Biden has also condemned Trump for refusing to condemn his own supporters who act as an armed militia.
  2. Most Black Lives Matter protests have been peaceful. However, many people perceive the protests as violent despite the commitment of demonstrators to remain non-violent.
  3. Although most protests are peaceful, there has definitely been documented violence from protesters.
  4. Violence at the protests has been primarily due to gangs, local groups, and extremists across the political spectrum, not the protesters.
  5. There is no evidence linking Antifa or any other organized left-wing movement to the violence and riots.
  6. Right-wing extremist groups and various opportunists have incited violence online, often disguising themselves as Antifa.
  7. Right-wing extremist group have been directly involved in violence at protests.
  8. Protests are now becoming more violent with armed groups on both sides of political spectrum fighting each other.
  9. Police response can exacerbate the situation and turn protests violent.
  10. Self-styled militia have exacerbated the violence, often with the tacit approval of authorities.
  11. Trump’s rhetoric is inciting violence.


Both Biden and Trump have denounced the violence at the protests. Biden condemned violence on both the left and right, but Trump specifically blames leftwing extremist groups. Biden has also condemned Trump for refusing to condemn his own supporters who act as an armed militia.

  • Biden condemns violence and asks if Americans 'really feel safe under Donald Trump' (August 31, 2020; CNN)
    • “The deadly violence we saw overnight in Portland is unacceptable. Shooting in the streets of a great American city is unacceptable. I condemn this violence unequivocally,” Biden said in a lengthy statement. “I condemn violence of every kind by anyone, whether on the left or the right. And I challenge Donald Trump to do the same.”
    • "I want to be very clear about all of this: Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting. It's lawlessness, plain and simple. And those who do it should be prosecuted," Biden said. "Violence will not bring change, it will only bring destruction. It's wrong in every way."
    • Biden also condemned Trump, whose armed supporters have been involved in violent clashes with protesters, saying his refusal to call on his own supporters to "stop acting as an armed militia in this country shows how weak he is."
  • Trump blames leftwing extremist groups or instigating looting and violence (September 1, 2020; Washington Post)
    • “Reckless, far-left politicians continue to push the destructive message that our nation and our law enforcement are oppressive or racist.”

Most Black Lives Matter protests have been peaceful. However, many people perceive the protests as violent despite the commitment of demonstrators to remain non-violent.

Although most protests are peaceful, there has definitely been documented violence from protesters

  • Fact Check: How Violent Are the Portland Protests? (July 28, 2020; New York Times)
    • The crowds have been largely peaceful and have included high school students, military veterans, off-duty lawyers and lines of mothers who call themselves the “Wall of Moms.”
    • NYT has documented that some protesters have thrown rocks, water bottles and fireworks at federal officers. Others have shone lasers at federal agents and at security cameras surrounding the building, in an effort to block their view of the crowd. Several fires have been set near the courthouse, which federal officials have said could spread to the building and harm the agents inside.
    • Some protesters in Seattle lit several construction trailers on fire at a youth detention center, smashed windows of businesses and, according to the police, injured Seattle police officers with explosive devices. The Seattle Police Department released partial body camera video that showed explosions erupting near officers and photographs of cuts and burns suffered by officers that they said were from explosives set off by the protesters.
  • Protests erupt at Portland police building, mayor’s condo (August 29, 2020; AP)
    • Fires set outside a police union building that’s a frequent site for protests in Portland, Oregon, prompted police to declare a riot early Saturday and detain several demonstrators.
    • As officers approached to move demonstrators away from the building and extinguish the fire, objects including rocks were thrown at them, police said. Multiple officers suffered minor injuries, according to the statement.

Violence at the protests has been primarily due to gangs, local groups, and extremists across the political spectrum, not the protesters

There is no evidence linking Antifa or any other organized left-wing movement to the violence and riots.

  • Scant evidence of antifa shows how sweeping the protests for racial justice have become (June 13, 2020; Washington Post)
    • Despite warnings of antifa incursions in scores of cities, there is no evidence linking outbursts of violence to an organized left-wing effort. And those associated with the autonomous groups that went up against far-right figureheads four years ago — and whose roots go back to earlier left-wing causes — say there is no such centralized organization.
    • Federal and local arrest records in dozens of cities make virtually no mention of antifa. Law enforcement officials who had braced for the purported invasion of antifa militants in cities large and small now mostly acknowledge the threat has not appeared.
  • Who caused the violence at protests? It wasn’t antifa. FactChecker. (June 22, 2020;Washington Post)
    • Antifa is a moniker, not a single group with a clear organizational structure or leader. It is a decentralized network of activists who don’t coordinate.
    • Seth G. Jones at the the Center for Strategic and International Studies reviewed protests in more than 140 cities and spoke with U.S. officials within the joint terrorism task force. Most of the violence, Jones said, was committed by “local hooligans, sometimes gangs, sometimes just individuals that are trying to take advantage of an opportunity.”

Right-wing extremist groups and various opportunists have incited violence online, often disguising themselves as Antifa.

Right-wing extremist group have been directly involved in violence at protests

Protests are now becoming more violent with armed groups on both sides of political spectrum fighting each other

Police response can exacerbate the situation and turn protests violent.

Self-styled militia have exacerbated the violence, often with the tacit approval of authorities. President Trump has refused to denounce a vigilante shooter who killed two people in Kenosha.

  • Activists: Militias tolerated, Kenosha protesters arrested (August 29, 2020; AP)
    • Officers in Kenosha watched a group of people fill cans at a gas station, hopped out of black SUVs with guns drawn, shattered van’s passenger side window, pulled a person out, and took 9 members of Riot Kitchen into custody (Seattle-based organization that serves food at demonstrations)
    • “There has been no respect for anybody’s civil rights,” said Isaac Wallner, a 30-year-old Kenosha activist. “It’s been a police free for all. They do whatever they want.”
    • Earlier in the week, sheriff’s deputies shot pepper balls at protesters and arrested them when they failed to quickly leave after being told they were breaking curfew. But officers in an armored vehicle with “Sheriff” on the side were also recorded at night tossing water bottles to men carrying rifles. “We appreciate you guys. We really do,” someone can be heard calling from the vehicle in a video of the exchange.
  • The Thin Blue Line Between Violent, Pro-Trump Militias and the Police (August 28, 2020; The Intercept)
    • In a video that took place before the shooting, Kyle Rittenhouse is seen interacting with law enforcement in an armored vehicle, accepting a bottle of water as thanks for the efforts he and others in a group of armed vigilantes were putting in. An officer in the vehicle says over a loudspeaker: “We appreciate you guys. We really do.”
  • Trump supporters fire paintball pellets at opponents, use bear spray (August 30, 2020; The Standard)
    • The pro-Trump rally’s organizer, who recently coordinated a similar caravan in Boise, Idaho, said in a video posted on Twitter Saturday afternoon that attendees should only carry concealed weapons and the route was being kept secret for safety reasons.
    • Videos from the scene showed sporadic fighting, as well as Trump supporters firing paintball pellets at opponents and using bear spray as counter-protesters threw things at the Trump caravan.
  • Kenosha Shooting Suspect Faces Homicide Charges In Protesters' Deaths (August 27, 2020; NPR)
    • Kyle Rittenhouse, the Illinois teenager accused of shooting and killing protesters in Kenosha, Wis., has been charged with six criminal counts including felony charges of first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree intentional homicide and attempted first-degree intentional homicide.
    • Rittenhouse is accused of killing Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum, a 36-year-old father who leaves behind a fiancée and young daughter, and wounding Gaige Grosskreutz, a volunteer street medic.

Trump’s rhetoric is inciting violence

  • Former DHS Official: Trump Pouring 'Fuel On The Fire' Of Domestic Extremism (September 2, 2020; NPR)
    • Elizabeth Neumann, former assistant secretary of counterterrorism and threat prevention at DHS and lifelong Republican, reported that Trump is pouring “fuel on the fire” of domestic extremism
    • Trump’s rhetoric has led to increased violence
  • Trump suggests Wisconsin protest murder suspect Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense (September 1, 2020; CBS News)
  • A look back at Trump comments perceived by some as inciting violence (May 30, 2020; ABC News)
    • "When the looting starts the shooting starts.”
    • "These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won't let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!"
    • "LIBERATE MICHIGAN!; LIBERATE MINNESOTA!; LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!"
  • My Words Led to Violence. Now Trump's Are Too (August 6, 2019, Time)
    • Commentary by Rev. Rob Schenck is an evangelical minister and former activist for Operation Rescue and other national anti-abortion groups
  • There are no lone wolves (August 4, 2019, Washington Post)
    • Opinion piece by Juliette Kayyem, a former assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security and faculty chair of the homeland security program at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.
    • "It is too simplistic to blame President Trump and his inflammatory rhetoric for the rise of white-supremacist violence. But that doesn’t mean his language isn’t a contributing factor. Historically, racist ideologies don’t die; Nazism survived World War II, after all. They just get publicly shamed. Communities evolve to isolate once acceptable racism or xenophobia. But they can also devolve back to hate."
    • "Public speech that may incite violence, even without that specific intent, has been given a name: stochastic terrorism, for a pattern that can’t be predicted precisely but can be analyzed statistically. It is the demonization of groups through mass media and other propaganda that can result in a violent act because listeners interpret it as promoting targeted violence — terrorism. And the language is vague enough that it leaves room for plausible deniability and outraged, how-could-you-say-that attacks on critics of the rhetoric."
Posted by at No comments:

Let Talk Messaging

Let’s talk messaging.

NPR recently reported that voter support for Black Lives Matter is decreasing while concerns about rioting and violence is increasing. Even worse, Trump’s message that the rioting is directly related to the peaceful protests is increasingly gaining purchase. A civiqs.com poll showed that support for BLM hit a peak favorability rating in early June, but support has declined since then while opposition has increased. Voters are buying into the message that violence and rioting are directly related to protests against police brutality. Trump even defended Kyle Rittenhouse, suggesting that the 17-year old terrorist “acted in self defense.”

We need a counter message.

How can we assuage John/Jane Q. Public’s fear of violence while still keeping the issue of police brutality and systemic racism front and center? Nuance and ambiguity are the enemies of communication. We need a message that is concise but clear. Something as powerful as “Yes we can” or “Build Back Better” (which I am liking more and more) without the potential for misinterpretation and fearmongering of “defund the police.” We need to send the message that Democrats and Progressives want peace, but not at the expense of a police state. We need to show that the real violent perpetrators are right wing zealots and opportunists.

What do y’all think of the following?

  • #OrderWithoutOppression
  • #StopRightWingViolence

Do they work? Should they be edited/adjusted/scrapped? I want some constructive discussion here on how to perfect the messaging.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, February 6, 2020

Mayor Pete’s Hidden Numbers

Numbers have meaning.

As I sit here, 97% of precincts have reported in on the Iowa Democratic Caucus, and Buttigieg and Sanders won a statistical tie for State Delegate Equivalents or SDEs (Buttigieg 26.2%, Sanders 26.1%). Sanders edged Buttigieg out in second alignment vote totals (Sanders 26.5%, Buttigieg 25.0%). Following the frontrunners in SDEs were Warren (18.2%), Biden (15.8%), and Klobuchar (12.2%). Although many have criticized the Iowa Caucus as 1) not representative of US demographics, and 2) a bizarre non-Democratic system that does not reflect true voter preferences, there is still much to unpack from the results.

  1. The Media doesn’t know how to treat either Sanders or Buttigieg fairly. Although Sanders’ war with the media goes back at least to the 2016 election, Buttigieg is not getting a fair shake either. He is constantly labeled a “moderate” by the media, even though his platform and his constituents belie a much more complex ideology. Bill Mahr, in a recent interview with Mayor Pete, said, “let’s be clear, you’re a progressive. There isn’t a Democrat in this race that isn’t an honest progressive.”

    However, the media can’t bear a political upstart. While both Sanders and Buttigieg claimed some semblance of victory before the official Iowa Caucus tallies were released, Buttigieg, received the lion’s share of criticism for jumping the gun. Buttigieg said, “Because tonight, an improbable hope became an undeniable reality. So we don’t know all the results, but we know by the time, it’s all said and done, Iowa you have shocked the nation. Because by all indications, we are going on to New Hampshire victorious.” Exuberant? Definitely. Presumptuous? Maybe. Disingenuous? A resounding NO. And yet, in consistent tones, the headlines decried his eagerness as braggadocio at best and cheating at worst.

  2. More voters in Iowa see Buttigieg as a viable second choice, bolstering his argument for electability. Although Sanders started out with a higher total vote count, Buttigieg’s numbers went up 3.9% after alignment compared to Sanders’ realignment of 1.8% and Warren’s realignment of 1.7%.
  3. In a representational democracy (such as ours), Buttigieg has an advantage over Sanders of being able to reach a greater swath of Americans. Buttigieg won 58 counties in Iowa, Sanders won 22 counties. Yes, Sanders won a greater share of the popular vote, but in the general election, the question is can he also win the rural areas.
  4. The “gender advantage” of the American electorate favors Buttigieg. In 2016, women made up a greater share of the electorate than men (55% to 45%). Buttigieg did better among women than men (24% vs 21%). Sanders did better among men than women (26% vs 20%). Not surprisingly, Warren also did better among women (18% vs 14%), which will only help her if she can get her overall numbers up. Biden did equally well among men and women (16% vs 16%).
  5. Buttigieg reaches a greater variety of age groups. As expected, Sanders’s voters skewed very young (48% of age 17-29 year olds, 33% of age 30-44, 11% of age 45-64, 4% of age 65+). Biden voters skewed much older (3% of age 17-29, 5% of 30-44, 18% of 45-64, 33% of 65+). Buttigieg and Warren had a much more even spread among age groups. For Buttigieg, the numbers were 19% for 17-29, 23% for 30-44, 26% for 45-64, and 21% for 65+. In the 2016 election, voters age 30-49 made up 30% of the electorate vs. voters age 50-64 who made up 29% of the electorate. We can go round and round on the numbers here, but the key message is that Buttigieg (and Warren) doesn’t only reach a single age group.

Of course, all this number crunching and interpretation is really nothing more than early conjecture As of now, Buttigieg only has 0.46% of the 2,376 delegates needed to win a majority, and the polls have not been terribly kind to him. Much ink has been spilled on Mayor Pete’s difficulty attracting African American voters. Furthermore, the momentum he had hoped to gain with an Iowa win was killed by the horrible screw-up in caucus vote reporting.

Nonetheless, there is deep meaning hidden in the Iowa numbers. With a creative visual arts team, brainy informatics wizards, and some solid campaign messaging, perhaps he can use this to argue a strong case for electability.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Saturday, November 30, 2019

Two Questions No One Will Ask

America Dissected, a provocative podcast on the politics of healthcare, discusses how and why our healthcare system is so diseased. The host Abdul El-Sayed outlines five causes for this dysfunction:

  1. Healthcare is a business. Multiple industries profit off of people only when they get sick, so patients pay for “healthcare” rather than for the “health” that they actually want.
  2. Illusion of choice. With fewer and fewer medical providers, particularly in rural areas, patients are stuck with whatever is available.
  3. Upselling. The same people who tell us what is wrong with us sell us on the solution to fix it. This inevitably incentivizes prescribing unneeded and expensive tests.
  4. After-the-fact reimbursement. Third-party payer systems leave patients asking insurance companies to pay for healthcare costs after the services have been delivered, which runs the risk of leaving the entire burden of cost to the patient.
  5. Cost. Costs are out of control, and instead of finding ways to reduce the cost system, payers and healthcare providers find ways to pass on the costs to patients.
El-Sayed then goes one to compare three potential policy solutions offered by the 2020 Democratic candidates to address our failing healthcare: Public Option, Medicare for All, and Medicare for America. In brief, Medicare for All extends the existing government Medicare system to everyone, the Public Option allows people to buy into either Medicare or a private insurance plan, and Medicare for America does something in between. To be clear, all of these are more progressive than the existing Affordable Care Act, and much, much more progressive than any plan the Republicans are offering. El-Sayed suggests that the Public Option would likely be cheaper than private insurance and might eventually out-compete private plans over time. However, he warns that under the Public Option some people would still be priced out of the market and left without any healthcare at all. Furthermore, doctors and hospitals could choose not to accept the Public Option and only see patients with private insurance.

Medicare for All (MFA), he argues convincingly, is the only way to solve our country’s healthcare woes. MFA is a single payer health plan that would extend healthcare to everyone in the country. Doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies would remain private, while the government becomes our public insurer. The cost of the program would be borne out by some combination of taxes, but if done properly, this system would eliminate copays and deductibles and cover all healthcare expenses. Simply put, MFA would eliminate the problems of healthcare as a business.

Given all of this, why wouldn’t all progressives support Medicare for All? As Senator Warren commented, “I’ve actually never met anyone who likes their health insurance. I've met people who like their doctors. I've met people who like their nurses. I've met people who like their pharmacists. I've met people who like their physical therapists. What they want is access to health care.” Supporters of the far left candidates are not only annoyed at the rest of the electorate for dismissing MFA, but genuinely perplexed by anyone’s hesitation.

Except, well, here’s the thing. Actually two things. Two big things. Two key questions hang over the entire healthcare debate and no Democrat wants to give them voice, at least not directly.

  1. Who do people trust, big business or big government?
  2. How much are people willing to gamble on getting NOTHING?
For years (and years and years), progressives and conservatives have tackled the first question. Does the solution to our country’s economic woes lie with an uncontrolled free market, a government welfare state, or a corporate welfare state? Conservatives argue that a competitive free market is essential to our democracy. Progressives argue that government support and oversight is necessary to help the poor and control the baser instincts of corporate greed. Oligarchs argue that government should only be used to maintain the power and riches of the already rich and powerful.

MFA requires complete trust in the government. Despite a reliance on government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, despite worrying about corporations incentivizing profit over public good, despite some beautifully outlined villains in the healthcare debate in the form of Big Pharma and Big Insurance Companies, PEOPLE DON’T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT. A recent Gallop poll reported that 60% of surveyed Americans have “not very much” or “no confidence” in the government to handle domestic issues. Compare this to 29% in 1972 and 33% in 1998. Until Democrats face this deep-seated mistrust head on, MFA is a non-starter, no matter how many poor people lack basic healthcare. Republicans will seize on this doubt and suspicion and kill any attempt to socialize medicine.

This leads to the second key question that no one wants to discuss. Given the immense challenges in passing MFA, how much are voters willing to gamble on destroying what they already have? Assume for the moment that candidate X wins the presidential election and decides to push forward an aggressive progressive healthcare plan that will effectively eliminate the insurance industry, lower pharmaceutical profits, and disincentivize hospital upselling. The Healthcare Industrial Complex would rain down on this president with fire and fury the likes of which even Obama didn’t see with the Affordable Care Act. The disinformation scare campaign would be rapid, intense, and brutal, and legislators would scurry for the hills. Once the dust had fallen, the ACA, if it survived at all, would be on life support, gasping for air.

Or perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps our country would fight the entrenched momentum and rally behind a progressive agenda to deliver a healthcare system that would truly cover all Americans. Perhaps a system could be put in place that would salve all the wounds of the Public Option.

The question is, how much are you willing to gamble? Are you willing to bet it ALL on the BEST plan or bet just a LITTLE on a GOOD plan? Do you have a safety net in place but believe there is a better way forward for our country, or are you afraid to give up what little medical coverage you already have? Like any day at the casino, it all comes down to what is in your pocket as well as what is on the table. And a lot of people with plenty in their pocket are asking a lot from people with very little on the table.

Where does that leave us? Is a cautious measured approach better than a radical restructuring? Not necessarily. Our healthcare system is horribly dysfunctional, and nothing but an economic revolution will save it. But until the Democrats are willing to acknowledge the unspoken risks, the gamble just might be too rich for our blood.

Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, November 19, 2019

Your Candidate Enters a Castle

A couple of months ago, a Gen X friend who is a staunch Bernie Sanders supporter lamented the centrist Democrats who complain about Sanders yelling all the time. “These complainers,” he commented, “are just outing themselves as people who’ve never known a Jew from Brooklyn.” Now as a Jew from the Midwest with family ties to NYC, I questioned his assertion. But the larger point was that to him, Sanders was channeling a righteous anger at the corrupt state of the world. As podcaster Paul Rieckhoff said, “if you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention.” My friend was right.

Another friend, a Baby Boomer, told me that he was supporting Joe Biden. He commented on Biden’s long history in government, his experience working across the aisle, and his affable personality. “Frankly,” he said, “I’m tired of feeling angry all the time. I feel comfortable with Joe.” He was right too.

No matter what rational or intellectual criteria we voters believe we are using to weigh each candidate's strengths and weaknesses, in truth, we apply our own non-intellectual determinants. Perhaps we lean toward the candidate that makes us feel angry or comfortable or hopeful. Perhaps we tilt toward the candidate we see as most radical or most practical. Perhaps we favor a white male septuagenarian or a female woman of color or a gay veteran millennial because we are convinced that particular person is the most “electable.” And since each determinant carries a different weight, it is near impossible to compare and contrast each candidate’s personality, experience, temperament, and policy on any standard scale.

Until now.

The best paradigm for classifying and codifying candidates comes from a model developed nearly half a century ago. I am speaking, of course, of Dungeons and Dragons.

D&D, the grandfather of fantasy roll-playing games, was created by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson 45 years ago and is now a billion dollar industry worldwide. Although D&D gained an unfair reputation as an enterprise glorified by socially awkward nerds overloading on junk food in their parent’s basement (as best illustrated by Stranger Things), in fact, the game is played by millions of people worldwide. In fact, the hottest game of D&D in Los Angeles is hosted by actor Joe Mangiello, a man who himself appears to be the result of a particularly lucky roll of the character dice. (“Your barbarian approaches a castle. In front is a beautiful Columbian actress. What do you do?” “I marry her, you losers, and tell you all to SUCK IT!”).

Just like in a presidential election, D&D characters go on “campaigns.” Each character has experience points, a Class (e.g. Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, Rogue, etc.), an Alignment (Chaotic Good, Neutral Good, Lawful Evil, etc.), and Abilities: Strength (physical power), Dexterity (agility), Constitution (endurance), Intelligence (reasoning and memory), Wisdom (perception and insight), and Charisma (force of personality). The Abilities are determined stochastically, typically by rolling five six-sided dice, removing the highest and lowest roll, and adding the remaining three dice to create a value between three and eighteen.

What a beautiful way to capture a candidate’s strengths, weaknesses, personality quirks, and experience. In fact, I don't know why career advisors haven't switched to D&D attributes instead of Myers-Briggs personality assessments and questionable aptitude tests. Just imagine the conversations at the Department of Workforce Development. "Well, you have high Charisma, Dexterity, and Intelligence, but low Strength. I recommend a career in sales or marketing, or perhaps roguish thievery."

OK, I realize this is all a gross over-simplification, but for now, please just go with it.

In fact, I posit that these abilities could be redefined as “political” abilities, and each ability would comprise three determinants each worth six points. Each determinant stands in for a roll of the six-sided dice. For example:

I ran this experiment with the top five polling candidates: Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris. Scores were calculated based on external polls, published data, and, only when necessary, my own perceptions of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.

The advantage of this model is that candidate characteristics and personalities can be separated from their policies. In fact, policies are no longer endemic to the character of the candidate but are rather viewed as “spells” and given a maximum strength score of nine, just like in D&D. The strength of a spell is the product of the Degree of Change from the status quo (1= not change, 3 = major change) multiplied by the Level of Detail of the plan (1 = broad strokes, 3 = full details for funding). For example, a radical healthcare plan with a high level of detail on how to fund it might be a Level 9 Medicare For All spell, whereas a moderately funded climate change policy with little detail might simply be a Level 4 Clean Energy Revolution spell.

The results are interesting to say the least. Joe Biden, with his ability scores of S(15), D(14), C(12), I(13), W(15), C(13) leads the field in Strength due to his name recognition and endorsements but lags in Constitution due to the least number of days campaigning. Warren, with scores of S(13), D(14), C(17), I(15), W(8), C(15) leads the pack in Constitution but lags in Wisdom due to a lack of executive and general government experience. Buttigieg leads in Intelligence and shares top spots with Harris on Dexterity. Sanders is an overall balanced candidate; he doesn’t lead on any particular attribute but doesn’t lag in any either.

I investigated the healthcare and climate change plans (spells) as well. Not surprisingly, Warren leads the pack with a powerful Medicare for All spell (9) and six distinct climate change spells. Biden lags with a few relatively weak healthcare and climate change spells.

Now some may question my subjective analyses, and if so, they are welcome to recalculate and effectively “re-roll the dice.” However, the important lesson here is that no matter how strong your character, no matter how potent your spell, in the end, it will be the skillful application of ability, experience, circumstance, and occasionally luck that determines a successful campaign. A good supply of chips and soda couldn’t hurt either.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, August 28, 2019

On Pedantry

In a recent Omnibus podcast, hosts John Roderick and Ken Jennings discussed “pedantry," a slavish devotion to detail. When is it acceptable to correct someone else’s grammar, style, or facts? What does it accomplish? What is the potential damage to reputation and social construct?

The two hosts are both learned men, brains overflowing with “esoterica and wonder,” and yet neither was willing to defend undue displays of knowledge. Jennings said that as a smart kid growing up, he was very sensitive to being labeled a know-it-all. Roderick invoked Judith Martin’s Miss Manners as his guide to social acceptability. In the end, they both agreed that correcting someone in a social setting rarely changed the opinion of the infractor and only created uncomfortable situations. They then proceeded to illustrate how grammatical rules themselves are “arbitrary, made-up, out-of-date, or all three.”

Fine. I accept their premise that English is an evolving language, and as such, its rules are not necessarily set in stone. On the other hand, I respect the keepers of the language who see proper English as more than simply a vehicle for concepts, but rather an entity with its own rules, history, style, and prestige. Yes, English will evolve, but slowly and purposefully, not simply at the whim of practitioners of slang who are too lazy to learn the rules of engagement.

Wow. That sounded sanctimonious, even for me. Yet my point is that all “truths” crumble under too much scrutiny. For example, I have a relative who is quick to complain about the rules of grammar he deems illogical or outdated. This same relative (whose name I will keep secret, partly for privacy, but mostly to create a sense of mystery and literary tension) is quick to correct others when they mispronounce a word, misstate a fact, or misrepresent a concept. “You don’t understand,” he says in the imaginary discussion I am having in my head, “I am preserving facts, not classist rules that are irrelevant to the people actually using the language.” “Yes,” I respond in this imaginary debate, “but wrong is wrong. Who gets to decide which is the wronger wrong?” At this point, the conversation devolves into name calling.

Pedantry is certainly alive and well on the Internet. I would wager the most common word in Facebook comments is, “actually…” Everyone has their own personal unforgivable sin that MUST be called out. Everyone is a purveyor of the truth. But are they?

Take the following hypothetical statement.

"On January 1, 2000, on the first day of the millennium, me and Joan were literally over the moon that are friends brought our favorite cokes (A&W Root Beer and 7 Up) to our party to celebrate Russell Means, our favorite Indian activist."

Now, what did you want to correct first?

  1. Was it the improper use of “me and Joan”? [But that’s based on classist old-fashioned rules that do not affect ambiguity of meaning]
  2. Was it the improper description of the millennium as the year 2000 instead of 2001? [But that’s what everyone commonly called the year that all the digits changed over.]
  3. Was it the improper use of "literally," instead of "figuratively?" [But many people now use "literally" in a non-literal context.]
  4. Was it the colloquial use of “coke” as generic soft drink, even though “Coke” is a trademarked name and does not own A&W or 7 Up? [But that’s just a regional way of saying soft drink.]
  5. Was it the use of “Indian” instead of “Native American” to describe Russell Means? [But Indian is still commonly used to describe Native Americans, even in official government documents.]

Which was the worst offender? What was the “wrongest wrong”? Who gets to decide? Pedantry is definitely a minefield, not just in how we correct, but in what we correct.

And yet, some statements do call out for public response and correction, particularly when they are expressed by those seeking unabashed self-promotion, spreading dangerous myths, or simply trolling. For example, take the following hypothetical statement:

“You know, it’s amazing that Barack Obama played more golf than any other president, considering that he was a foreign-born, Muslim, socialist.”

Even I am screaming at the computer right now, and I wrote the damn sentence.

So, maybe pedantry does have its place and time. Maybe some truths are immutable. Maybe we should all become defenders of veracity. Or perhaps “truth” itself is a malleable social construct, subject to the shifting tides of perception.

Actually…

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Wheat and Chaff

Let’s face it. Progressives in the country are in Trump sensory overload. There are too many lies, too many offensive statements, too many destructive policies, too many incompetent appointees, that progressives end up re-Tweeting the latest offensive statement and miss the consequential story.

The latest Trump quote about Jewish people who vote for Democrats showing, “either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty,” is a prime example. Yes, it is horribly offensive. Yes, it is divisive. Yes, it is controversial. No, it is not really news. He was offensive yesterday. He’ll be offensive tomorrow. Today just plots to the same trend.

However, the Trump administration move to detain migrant children and parents longer at the border should give everyone real pause, and this should be sparking comments from every Democratic representative and senator, every religious group with progressive ties, everyone who has a conscience. But it barely registers a blip.

Frankly, if we want to separate the wheat from the chaff, the distraction from the content, we need to bucket all the Trump stories into 7 categories, and report them on a daily basis. The categories are:

  1. Trump states/restates something offensive
  2. Trump lies
  3. Trump does something consequential that pleases conservatives
  4. Trump does something consequential that (should) anger/annoy everyone
  5. Trump appointee does something consequential that pleases conservatives
  6. Trump appointee does something consequential that (should) anger/annoy everyone
  7. Other Trump news

My test for whether a headline would anger both conservatives and progressives is I substitute "Obama" for "Trump", and predict the public response.

For example, I scanned the headlines from August 20 and 21 in the Washington Post to better understand what our president was up to in the last two days. Use these to better organize and galvanize your anger.

TRUMP STATES/RESTATES SOMETHING OFFENSIVE

  • Trump: Jewish people who vote for Democrats are showing ‘great disloyalty’ or ‘lack of knowledge’
  • Trump quotes conspiracy theorist claiming Israelis ‘love him like he is the second coming of God’

TRUMP LIES

  • Fact-checking President Trump's remarks on the economy
  • Trump attacks on Google recycle baseless claims

TRUMP DOES SOMETHING CONSEQUENTIAL THAT PLEASES CONSERVATIVES

  • Trump officials move to detain migrant children and parents longer (Trump administration moves to end limits on child detention)
  • Trump tells NRA chief that universal background checks are off the table (Trump insists US already has ‘strong’ gun background checks)

TRUMP DOES SOMETHING CONSEQUENTIAL THAT (SHOULD) ANGER/ANNOY EVERYONE

  • In Denmark, surprise and fury after Trump cancels visit over Greenland (Danish lawmakers furious at Trump’s cancelled visit, as prime minister voices regret)
  • Trump is ramping up his economic double-talk to tamp down recession fears
  • Trump acknowledges China policies may mean US economic pain
  • Trump again floats E.U. auto tariffs
  • Trump renews call for Russia to be readmitted to G-7

TRUMP APPOINTEE DOES SOMETHING CONSEQUENTIAL THAT (SHOULD) ANGER/ANNOY EVERYONE

  • After Trump blames mental illness for mass shootings, health agencies ordered to hold all posts on issue

OTHER TRUMP NEWS

  • As Trump tries to end ‘endless wars,’ America’s biggest Mideast base is getting bigger
  • Trump confirms he’s considering a payroll tax cut amid mounting economic concerns
  • Trump and Maduro confirm talks between high-level officials
  • Trump looks to discuss defense, energy with Romanian leader
  • Trump on Afghanistan: ‘We’re not supposed to be a police force’
  • Trump: ‘Kashmir is a very complicated place’ (President Trump on Aug. 20 said he would do his “best” to “mediate” in the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan.)
  • Trump considering State Department official (Deputy Secretary of State John J. Sullivan) for Russia post
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Saturday, August 3, 2019

2020 2nd Democratic Debate - New York Times Ratings

The New York Times analyzed the first and second night Democratic debates by asking columnists and contributors across the political spectrum to rate each debater on a 1-10 scale (10 being highest) and then averaging each candidate's values. I analyzed all of scores using Microsoft Excel to find the standard deviations for each candidate. Since standard deviation provides the average distance of all the values from the mean, a candidate with a high standard deviation represents a high variance in opinion among the commentators. In other words, the higher the standard deviation, the more the pundits disagree with each other. What? How do you all relax?

My wife challenged me to create "a pretty graph that visualizes both mean rating and standard deviation, with a minimum of three colors." She was trolling me about my PhD thesis advisor who always admonished us to make our graphs and charts more visually appealing. This was not always easy to do when you were discussing plant Golgi body morphology, but, I digress.

I took on her challenge. Not as easy as it sounds. Converting hard data to a visually compelling story-telling format is more art than science. My first attempt was shot down both by my wife (not enough colors) and my son (improper use of a line graph to illustrate discrete variables). They were both right, dammit.

So, here is my second (and hopefully final) version.

Just to stuff a little more data into the graph, I color-coded the bars “most progressive,” “mid progressive,” and “least progressive,” based on a recent Business Insider reader poll. Bill de Blasio and Marianne Williamson were not ranked in the poll, so I used my best guess. De Blasio is coded blue since he at least tries to portray himself as the most progressive candidate. Marianne Williamson is rainbow because she is Marianne Williamson. In plotting the standard deviation range instead of simply the mean, my goal was to illustrate the variety of opinion for each candidate. This is the advantage of averaging multiple experts instead of relying on single opinions. I’m sure Nate Silver would agree.

Also note that Williamson had the highest standard deviation, followed by Delaney, which means that the pundits argued the most on how to rate them; they either loved them or hated them. Bill de Blasio, on the other hand, had the lowest standard deviation, which means that the pundits were united in their opinion that he did horribly.

Finally, I fully realize that comparing all the scores together is a clever fiction. Since the candidates did not debate on a single stage, comparing Biden’s score to Warren’s score (for example) is not empirically valid. Nonetheless, the average score is a useful way of illustrating how well each candidate on “the debate stage” in general.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL SIZE

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, August 1, 2019

2020 2nd Democratic Debate - Word Cloud

I blame it on my wife.

After the first night of the second round of 2020 Democratic primary debates, she asked me, "I wonder if anyone has done a word cloud for the candidates?" That got me thinking. Which got me doing. Which got me wasting way more time than necessary.

Below is my word cloud analysis of the first night debate. I used WorditOut as my tool of choice, and narrowed the clouds down to words repeated at least five times in the debate transcript.

Please note that word clouds are illustrative only at a high level. These pictures remove all the nuance of the speakers words as well as their speaking style, combativeness, humor, and occasionally dropped zinger. Having said that, most of the clouds are not terribly surprising. Buzzwords, such as "people", "country," "going (e.g. "we are GOING to do this or that), "about (e.g. the problem is ABOUT the one percenters)," and "donaldtrump" come up over and over. However, some of the data took me off guard. I did not expect Mayor Pete's most common word to be "president". And I did not expect Marianne Williamson's cloud to look so, well, normal. I leave further analysis as an exercise for the reader.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL SIZE

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, March 14, 2019

A New Book of Esther

There is an old joke about a young Jewish boy who comes home after an exciting day at Yankee Stadium. “Grandpa!” he says, “Today A-Rod hit a home run!” “Tell me,” the single-minded old man asks, “was it good for the Jews?”

Given a recent report by the Anti Defamation League identifying 1,986 anti-Semitic incidents in the US in 2017, given the 182% increase in anti-Semitic incidents across the country after white supremacists in Charlottesville chanted “Jews will not replace us”, and given the horrific shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh last October, many might see the world today as a new Book of Esther, complete with new Hamans and new genocidal edicts.

Of course, such comparisons are misguided and simplistic. First, the politics of anti-Semitism today are much more complex than the politics back in ancient Persia. Second, the actors of modern politics don’t conform to clear archetypes or narratives.

Take Representative Ilhan Omar, for example. Is she a Haman or a Vashti? Or possibly, in her own way, an Esther? What about President Trump? Is he King Ahasuerus or Haman? Or perhaps one of the eunuchs? It’s all jumbled up, and last month’s political shenanigans didn’t help.

First was Rep. Omar, whose antipathy toward Israel and support of BDS culminated in her comment in February that support for Israel among members of Congress was “all about the Benjamins.” She did apologize for her remarks, but she dug herself in deeper when she questioned the pro-Israeli lobby in American politics, saying, “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country” and then compared the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to the NRA, the fossil fuel industry, and big pharma. More than anything, I was disappointed in Rep. Omar, partly because she pulled attention away from her own progressive economic agenda, but mostly because as a Somali-born Muslim-American, she has undoubtedly had to unfairly prove her allegiance to this country many times over. To suggest that Jews have dual allegiance to the US is beneath her.

The response to Omar’s comments was swift and severe. Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared her support for Israel, her support for legitimate criticism of Israel, and her condemnation of Omar’s “use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel's supporters.” Two Jewish House Democrats, Josh Gottheimer and Elaine Luria, circulated a letter, which was signed by 25 House Reps condemning anti-Semitism from “certain members within our Caucus."

Although the letter did not name Omar specifically, the implication was clear, and Sens. Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren immediately came to Omar’s defense, warning that targeting Omar was stifling debate. House Democrats drafted a resolution to decry anti-Semitism which was proposed, pulled, reworked, and finally passed as a resolution against, “anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, and other forms of bigotry.” It was beautifully written and, in my opinion, totally unnecessary.

In the end, Jews were made to look like both victims and aggressors, Muslims were made to look like both aggressors and victims, and House Dems were made to look like idiots. No, Grandpa, it wasn’t good for the Jews. Worst, all it did was distract from an honest discussion of the role of Israel in American politics and the hypocrisy of the BDS movement.

According to its Website, the BDS movement calls for “boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel until it complies with International Law and Universal Principles of Human Rights.” The movement targets civilian and corporate as well as political Israeli institutions. Its stated goals are to 1) end occupation and colonization of all Arab lands, 2) recognize the fundamental rights of Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and 3) allow Palestinians to return to their lands as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

Never mind that “all Arab lands” include countries who lost land after attacking Israel. Never mind that the six Arab league countries back in 1948 voted against UN Resolution 194. Never mind that BDS does not support a two-state solution, simply a removal of Israel. Never mind that Hamas is given a free pass for both firing rockets on Israeli civilians and, as Amnesty International reported, torturing and killing Palestinians during the 2014 conflict.

It is notable that no country with a worse human rights record is called out by the BDS movement, which is why many have complained about the unbalanced, anti-Semitic nature of its vitriol. To put this into context, one need only look at the annual report by Freedom House, a US-based nonpartisan non-governmental organization that researches political freedom and human rights. In 2018, Freedom House rated 210 countries with aggregate scores of their political rights and civil liberties. Finland, Norway, and Sweden tied with top scores of 100. Eritrea, North Korea, South Sudan, Tibet, and Syria came out at the very bottom. Israel rated an aggregate score of 78, which put it in the top 35%, compared to the US (86) which just barely squeaked by in the top 25%. Israel scores higher than all of its Middle Eastern neighbors, and it even comes out better than many of our “friends”, such as Brazil (78), India (77), Peru (73), and Hungary (72). And yet BDS complains about Israel alone.

Some have argued for different standards because of the combined $3.2 billion in US aid Israel receives annually (according to USAID’s 2018 figures). True, but shouldn’t this call to question the $5.7 billion in US aid given to Afghanistan and $3.7 billion given to Iraq? In fact, out of 158 countries each receiving over $1 million total aid from US in 2018, 85% have composite Freedom House scores lower than Israel. In other words, we give a lot of money to a lot of countries a lot worse than Israel.

But all this high-minded rhetoric on balanced criticism and relative culpability is complicated by the fact that Israel has been behaving very badly. Above and beyond the governmental decisions to extend construction into Palestinian territories and perpetuate a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Prime Minister Netanyahu has added even more gasoline to the political dumpster fire. In 2018, he pushed through a largely symbolic “Nation State Bill” that, among other things, justified further Israeli settlement-building and denigrated the position of non-Jews in the county. If there was any doubt about Netanyahu’s intentions, he recently commented, “Israel is not a state of all its citizens. According to the Nation-State Law that we passed, Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish People - and them alone." Netanyahu is no longer ignoring Israel’s brand, he is actively working to undermine it. Once again, Grandpa, this isn’t good for the Jews.

Not surprisingly, President Trump is trying to drive a wedge between the American Jewish community and the Democratic Party. Knowing that 69 percent of Israelis express confidence in Trump (according to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz), Trump recently told a group of Republican National Committee donors, “the Democrats hate Jewish people.” He went on to say that he didn’t understand how any Jew could vote for a Democrat these days, noting his decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. Whereas such blatant grandstanding is unlikely to take hold in the U.S., it only helps the BDS community equate every decision Trump makes to Israeli politics and by proxy to the Jewish people. Whoever wins this ideological fight, I fear it won’t be good for the Jews.

Frankly, Israel and the American Jewish public need better spokespeople, people like actresses Rotem Sela and Gal Gadot who can challenge the policies of the Israeli government and yet raise up the image of the Israeli people. Sela recently posted on Instagram, “when will someone in this government broadcast to the public that Israel is a country for all its citizens. And every person was born equal. Arabs, too, God help us, are human beings. And so are the Druze. And so are gays, by the way, and lesbians, and…shock…leftists." Gadot also commented on Instagram, “This isn't a matter of right or left. Jew or Arab. Secular or religious. It's a matter of dialogue, of dialogue for peace and equality and of our tolerance of one towards the other."

Imagine that. Beautiful, powerful, intelligent women reframing the conversation and saving the Jewish people. Maybe this is the Book of Esther after all.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Post-Mortem Analysis

A friend from Israel asked me a question that was at the same time both simple and ridiculously complex. “So, what did you think of the election?"

I side-stepped her question, mumbling something about how there wasn't enough time to give a good answer. The truth was that I was still in shock, still trying to wrap my brain around the election results. It simply did not compute. I analyzed the data, then reorganized my thoughts, then retooled my thesis. Then I started all over again. This is my best attempt at a written response to my Israeli friend. Please forgive anything I have forgotten, such as the impact of the alt right or the question of Trump's international business dealings or...whatever. There are just too many moving pieces to include them all. However, if you question any of the facts in my statements, please message me and I will back them up with references from reputable sources.

I think I speak for half of this country when I say that this election was an UNMITIGATED DISASTER.

There is no other simple way to put this. What is more important and more alarming is that Donald Trump is not the disease itself. To continue the medical metaphor, he is only a symptom of a greater sickness in our country.

To understand what happened, why it happened, and what it means, I need to break down the past year into three topics:

  1. The environment that lead to a Trump presidency.
  2. The danger of a Trump presidency.
  3. The possible future of a Trump presidency.

THE ENVIRONMENT

First of all, to understand U.S. (American) politics, it is important to understand that we are for all intents and purposes a two-party system (Republican and Democratic). In the past, this has kept our politics relatively centrist, since extreme political ideologies can never get a foothold in the U.S. at a national level. Second, our electoral college system is an antiquated system that gives each state a certain number of electoral votes more or less based on the number of Congressmen from that state. However, since this does not reflect the actual population of each state, and since in most states, the winner of a state gets ALL the electoral votes from that state in a presidential election, the system gives less-populated rural states more voting power than more populated urban states. The result of which is whichever party can mobilize the rural areas of the country wins the election. This is also why Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by at least 1.5% but lost the overall election.

Finally, there is documented evidence of voter suppression, disenfranchisement, and “gerrymandering” (drawing voter districts to favor certain groups) throughout our country that makes it more difficult for people of color, immigrants, and the poor to get their vote heard. Some states, such as North Carolina, have been in the news recently for actively making it difficult for African Americans to vote. Laws that were put in place a generation ago to prevent voter disenfranchisement have been recently struck down by our court system as “no longer necessary”. This can all be verified with documents, news articles, and academic analysis.

On this political backdrop, add lots and lots of voter anger. In fact, I would argue that “anger” was the primary emotion that drove this election. I have to tried to analyze why the anger was so different this election cycle than compared to any other. This is not the first time that the working class were poor, that young people were in debt, or that the government was seen as corrupt. However, this time around, the mostly-liberal Millennials (those born between 1982-2002) are struggling with college debt, making less than their parents did, and seeing the largest wage gap between our richest and poorest. The White Working Class are actually better off than they were a decade ago (with improved access to health care and an economy that is no longer in free fall), but they are still facing an economic recession and job losses in a world that no longer looks like the world their parents grew up in (the first Black president, acceptance of LGBT rights, and increasing numbers of Arabic and Spanish speaking immigrants). They have been told over and over by conservatives that all of their pain is due to the changing environment. So, as my son put it, those people who valued education and those people who didn’t value education were both angry because they were poor.

Republican obstructionism partnered with effective Republican messaging (slogans, sound bites, etc.) also played a huge part. Since President Obama took office 8 years ago, the Republican party has tried to undermine him at every turn. Remember that our economy was in shambles after 8 years of President Bush (again, this is all verifiable information). Obama tried to address our lack of national health care policy and our need for internal investment with the Affordable Care Act and economic stimulus plans. Most economists supported everything he proposed, and in the past, his policies would have been the very plans that Republicans would have supported. Instead, the Republicans, supported by an ultra-right “Tea Party Movement”, set out to block everything Obama tried to do simply to prevent his re-election. The final (and best) example was the Republican refusal to allow him to appoint a new Supreme Court justice in the final year of his presidency, something that had NEVER been done before by either party.

So, the only president in recent memory with impeccable academic credentials, an elegant speaking style, and absolutely NO scandals in his background was presented as an elitist, socialist (not true), Muslim (not an issue, but not true), non-American (not true) who is out to expand his powers, steal our guns, and let illegal immigrants run rampant throughout our country. And since the Democratic party sucks at communication, they were never able to convince rural America that the reason they were still stuck at the bottom was Republican obstructionism, not government in general. The Republicans, on the other hand, were GREAT at communication, and they told the American people that the reason their insurance premiums were going up, the reason there were no working-class jobs, etc. was all because of President Obama.

Now, add to this Hillary Clinton. On paper, she is an excellent candidate. She was a First Lady, senator of New York, and U.S. Secretary of State. She is fiercely intelligent, practical, and committed to governing. However, her enemies do not just dislike her, they HATE her. And, unfortunately, her tenure in the public eye is not without potential scandal going back to her husband’s presidency. However, despite all the scrutiny, despite the hours and hours of congressional testimony, despite a news media fascinated with every one of her missteps, she has never faced disciplinary action. Her supporters argue this is because there is NOTHING THERE. Her enemies argue that this is obviously because the entire system is corrupt and protecting her. If you actually review all her scandals with a discerning eye (the private email server, the Bengazi attack, Whitewater, etc.) you quickly discover that although she may be flawed, she has not done anything that her MALE counterparts have not done. However, as I said before, her enemies HATE her. When Donald Trump starting calling her, “Crooked Hillary”, I knew we were in trouble. It was exactly the type of schoolyard taunt that would catch on in the public eye.

Finally, the Democratic party failed to EXPLICITLY reach out to the White Working Class. Instead of appealing to the country’s appetite for “change”, they spent too much time explaining how good things actually were. Instead of countering Trump’s VERY effective slogan “Make America Great Again!”, she used “Stronger Together”, which just didn’t address the anger and pain. She presented herself as a candidate who “can get things done” and stressed that she would be the first female president. This was not what the rural population wanted to hear.

THE DANGER

However, despite all of this, despite this economic backdrop, despite the anger toward an antiquated two-party system, despite the anger toward Hillary Clinton, despite missteps by the Democratic party, we honestly never thought Trump would win. It was too ludicrous.

First, he has absolutely no experience with public service, nor has he shown any interest in learning. Let that sink in. A man who has never been elected governor, senator, representative, mayor, city council, or even school board member is now at the helm of our country. The presidential debates made clear that he has little understanding of world politics, and he has no plan for the future.

Second, he is a bully, cheat, and a liar. Politifact, a non-partisan fact-checking organization rated 51% of his public statements as “false” or “pants on fire” (wildly untrue). [Clinton, in contrast, was one of the most truthful at 12% “false”/”pants on fire”.] Trump's business dealings over the past decades are filled with stories of the people he has cheated or refused to pay. He used money from his own non-profit charitable foundation to pay legal fees and buy personal items. His history of bullying extends from his love of firing people to his public rallies where he encouraged violence toward protestors, kicked out the press, made fun of a handicapped journalist, made claims of assaulting women, committed (and bragged about) adultery, and has heckled and insulted his rivals and enemies at every time with language that should NEVER have made it to the public stage. The Southern Poverty Law Center (a respected nonprofit organization that fights hate, intolerance and injustice) wrote about the Trump Effect in our schools, where teachers have seen a rise in incivility based on what kids have seen and heard during the election. It’s as if a spoiled 3rd grader was suddenly given a national stage.

Third, he is a bigot and a misogynist. Trump has fomented anti-immigrant, racist, antisemitic, and generally xenophobic attitudes throughout his campaign. He referred to Mexico sending over drug dealers, criminals, and rapists. He charged that a U.S.-born judge of Mexican descent should not be allowed to officiate over a case against Trump, because the judge could not be impartial, “because he’s a Mexican”. He was a vocal proponent of the discredited "birther" charge that President Obama was a Muslim, African-born candidate not eligible to be president. He has made statements pushing Jewish stereotypes and making thinly veiled comments about the world Jewish conspiracy. He publicly attacked the parents of a Muslim-American soldier who had died for his country, suggesting (or implying) that the reason his father, and not his mother, spoke publicly was that she was not allowed to speak. He has been supported by white nationalists, the Ku Klux Klan, and other hate groups and has only weakly disavowed their support. He has insulted women journalists and politicians using the coarsest anti-female language. And every time he said something even more outrageous than before, he would complain people were being too sensitive and politically correct, and his poll numbers would go up.

Fourth, he is a con man. Despite his shady business dealings, despite his refusal to release his income tax returns (suggesting he has something to hide), despite the fact he clearly took advantage of the economic system that he claims is the problem, despite his privileged upbringing, despite his complete lack of experience or understanding of how to govern, and despite a lack of an actual platform of ideas, plans, or details, he convinced nearly half of the country that he was the preferable candidate. The few unrealistic and ludicrous ideas he did espouse should have shown the country that he had no concept of reality. For example, Trump claimed that he would:

  1. Round up and deport ALL undocumented immigrants in our country (despite the impossibility of sheer numbers).
  2. Build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico long enough and high enough to keep out all illegal border crossings and get Mexico to pay for it (despite the enormity of the project and Mexico's stated refusal to be a part of this).
  3. Set up a registry for Muslims in our country (despite the national shadow of shame that still haunts us regarding the Japanese internment camps).
  4. Punish women for getting abortions (despite abortions being legal in our country).
  5. Appoint a special prosecutor for Hillary Clinton with the expressed goal of sending her to prison (despite the FBI clearly stating many times that she did nothing illegal or worthy of prosecution).

Finally, he is a dangerous, unpredictable, megalomaniacal authoritarian. He responds to any perceived slight with short, bitter, insulting statements on Twitter that bely a lack of tact, decency, or understanding of the world around him. He has consistently fought to delegitimize the press, calling into question actual facts and selling the idea that the media and the government are all out to get him. He foments violence and anger at his rallies particularly toward protestors and reporters, leads chants of “Lock Her Up!” toward Hillary Clinton, and generally has given white supremacist groups the confidence to increase their hate speech, vandalism, and violent attacks against anyone that does not fit their world view.

This is our new president.

THE FUTURE

What this actually means for the country is impossible to say. I have read too many pundits with too many theories. Will Trump dial back his rhetoric and follow a more conventional Republican party line? Will he dismantle our government institutions and send our economy into a new Depression? Will he distract the country from the real problems by encouraging anti-immigrant, anti-African American, anti-LGBT, anti-Muslim, and anti-Jewish hatred? Will he become a one-term president when his followers realize they have been duped by a con man who had no plans to actually address any their concerns?

I don’t know. What I do know is that many of us woke up the day after the election and realized that half of the country did not care that their president was uneducated, bigoted, misogynistic, xenophobic, and unhinged. The United States had long moved beyond the ability to find common ground, and it had lost the ability to compromise and negotiate. White supremacists were now feeling empowered to come out of the shadows, and the alt right was finding legitimacy. After eight years of progress moving us toward the best social policies already in place in the Netherlands, Israel, Canada, Australia, and Scandinavia, many diehard patriots like myself are finding themselves for the first time thinking long and hard about whether it is worth fighting for the soul of our country or whether we should seek residence elsewhere. This is why the Canadian immigration site crashed after the election.

The next four years do not bode well for African Americans, who have been trying to get the country to address the disparity in police violence toward them. They don't bode well for Hispanics (from Mexico and South America), who will face increased prejudice whether they are citizens, green card holders, or undocumented workers. They don't bode well for Muslims, who will be considered un-American, nor for refugees fleeing Syria and other repressive regimes. And they won't bode well for the Jews, who will be blamed no matter what happens.

Why do I say the Jews will be blamed? Despite Trump’s “dog whistles” suggesting a Jewish world conspiracy, and Trump's statements that have empowered neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan, alt right, and other white supremacists, Jews can’t even find safety among other liberals. Black Lives Matter, a grass roots organization committed to preventing police violence against African Americans recently added strong anti-Israel language to its platform, calling Israel an “apartheid state” and suggesting that Americans are “complicit in the abuses committed by the Israeli government.” Any support Trump gives to Israel will only increase anti-Jewish feeling on the left, despite Israel's strong ties with the U.S. across party lines.

In the end, I leave you with a snapshot of the two presidential candidates in their own words. Compare the final television ads for both campaigns. I ask, which ad reminds you more of Germany in the 1930s?

  • Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shqblcQW2RI
  • Clinton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPOPbwZ8FNE

    • "We must fight against normalization of the unacceptable" - Christiane Amanpour

    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels:

    Monday, August 8, 2016

    Midwest Meets Mideast #8: The Socialist Agenda

    The kibbutz is a uniquely Israeli institution. For those of you not in the know, the kibbutz is a rural socialist collective community in which members work together, farm together, live together, protect each other, and embrace the socialist philosophy, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” The first kibbutz (Degania) was established in 1909, nearly 40 years before the establishment of the State of Israel. Currently, around 270 are scattered throughout the country.

    The kibbutz was both an ideological and practical solution for Jewish pioneers trying to reclaim their ancestral home. Ideologically, Eastern European Jews embraced a socialist doctrine where Jews looked out for one other, particularly after centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust. Practically, the kibbutz was the most effective way of farming a desolate land, protecting each other from unfriendly neighbors, building a community of shared values, and raising and educating a new generation.

    A couple of months ago, I found myself explaining kibbutzim to my children. Although I assume they must have learned SOMETHING about Israeli history in Hebrew school, apparently the kibbutz movement got short shrift in their studies. How disappointing. When I was a kid, the kibbutz was the most fascinating part of Israel. I could scarcely imagine a place where people all worked together to farm bananas, oranges, dates, almonds, and other exotic non-Midwestern crops; where children lived together in a separate house and only saw their parents for 4-6 hours a day; where everyone shared meals in a central location, just like at summer camp; where hard work was not only expected of everyone, but was considered a virtue. These were all foreign concepts to me.

    Certainly, much has changed in the kibbutz movement over the years. Fewer Israelis embrace the kibbutz, preferring a more capitalistic lifestyle. Children in the kibbutzim now live at home and are raised by their parents. Salaries in the kibbutzim are often commensurate with experience and level of training, not based solely on need. And the primarily agricultural nature of the kibbutz has shifted to a much more industrial model. However, at its heart, the kibbutz still represents the soul of the country. The belief that all your countrymen are your family is what has kept Israel alive and kicking for 68 years. It is an amazingly seductive philosophy.

    In fact, when I was 12, my parents, embracing this thinking, formed a family co-op with another family in Indiana. I suppose to them the concept was not far-fetched. My father was raised by socialist Workman’s Circle parents. Both of my parents earned their PhDs in California in the late 60s, and therefore were not strangers to non-traditional family structures. The adults in the other family were modern-thinking academics who had lived in Israel for many years and seen the kibbutzim first hand. To all of the adults in the equation, merging the families into a single household of four adults and four children for four years made perfect sense. Housing, food expenses, and childcare (particularly babysitting) became much more manageable. And as strange as this arrangement seemed to their own parents, to their friends, and frankly to the Indiana community as a whole, all members of the co-op have remained incredibly close to each other, even after our two families went our separate ways. Our relationship is non-traditional, but they remain misphacha (“family”) in every single way, except by blood.

    When we were planning our trip to Israel, I desperately wanted to show my children a kibbutz up close and personal. Luckily, I had re-established Facebook ties with Yonat, the daughter of a “shaliach” (Israeli emissary) who had been assigned to South Bend, Indiana, when I was a lad. The fact that I had not seen Yonat in 30 years didn’t make no never mind. Remember, this is Israel. We are all mishpacha.

    So, on Monday July 11, we piled into our rental SUV and drove from Haifa to Kibbutz Mishmar HaEmek, located in the beautiful western Jezreel valley in northern Israel. Yonat met us once we announced ourselves at the gate. Naturally, she looked fit, trim, and gorgeous, as one would expect from a kibbutznik who had become a physical therapist after a lifetime of activity and hard work. Naturally, I did not look fit and trim, as one would expect from an office-bound Midwesterner.

    True to Israeli form, she and her family showed us amazing hospitality, taking us on a tour of the kibbutz, taking us to the “chadar ochel” (dining room) for lunch, taking us all back to their house for dessert and schmoozing, and eventually taking us to the kibbutz swimming pool. In return, I brought her exotic spices from the United States: cajun spice blend, filé powder, and BBQ rubs.

    After all of the days of touring historical sites, the down-to-earth nature of the kibbutz fascinated my younger son. He asked question after question about the cow barn (which smelled horrible), about the cheese shop (which smelled, but not too horrible), about the fresh lychees (which smelled and tasted wonderful), and about the childcare center (whose smell I am sure varies from day to day). My older son was interested in the memorial overlooking the kibbutz, a stone structure listing the names of the kibbutz members who had fallen during the Israeli wars or while serving in the army. Both boys however were perplexed by the dining hall. “You mean, you can take as much as you want?” I think they might have opted to stay and volunteer on the kibbutz right then and there if it weren’t for that whole hard work philosophy thing.

    We ended the day with a relaxing swim in the community swimming pool. A bunch of grandmotherly types were organizing games for the young children. Realizing that Pugsley, my younger son, did not speak Hebrew, they bounced between Hebrew and English and immediately included him in the activities. I was impressed at how easily and naturally the elderly ladies played with the children. They were clearly equally comfortable with children they knew from birth as well as strange children they knew for all of 30 seconds. It was a beautiful example of Israeli hospitality, Israeli kindness, and Israeli mishpacha all rolled into an afternoon of fun.

    The trip to Mishmar HaEmek was definitely a highlight of the vacation. I nearly had to drag my family from the pool so we could head back to Haifa, partly because I wanted to hit the road before dark, but mostly because I felt we had used up our welcome. As we were leaving, Yonat pulled me aside. “Zev,” she asked, “can I ask a personal question?”

    “Sure,” I answered.

    “What was up with your family and the co-op? I mean two families living together in one house? Who does that? I can’t even imagine.”

    I had absolutely nothing to say.

    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels:
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)