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.

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…

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

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

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

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.

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