Special counsel for election fraud

The Times reported that Trump is considering appointing Sidney Powell, the loonie alt-right conspiracy theorist who allegedly has a law degree, as Special counsel for election fraud. That's good news and bad news. The bad news is that her flailing around may cause lots of needless collateral damage. The good news is that she is so embedded in the tin foil hat brigade that the likelihood of her having any more success that she has to date is somewhere between naught and zero.

Louder than tweets

Silence speaks louder than words the saying goes. And that goes for tweets too. The soon to be ex-president has said absolutely nothing about the Russian hacking offensive; so what does that suggest?

It could be that he's completely preoccupied with his failing attempt to overturn the results of the election. But he's had time enough to play some golf so it's not for lack of minutes in the day. Could it be that he is worried about weighing in on an issue that requires some in-death analysis (which as we know is not his forte)? Unlikely; he's never shown any hesitation about shooting of his thumbs when something bothers him, regardless of whether it's true or not. And it's not that he feels it's important for US diplomacy to maintain cordial relations with Putin since he's not going to have to worry about five a little under weeks from now. 

 So what's behind his silence? There are two possibilities, one future oriented that other historically oriented.  The first is that he still wants to do significant business in Russian and needs Putin's support or at very least acquiescence. The second is that he's already done something somewhat shady that could come back to haunt him; and Putin know what that is and might not be afraid to use it. As Trump always says, it's really something the ought to be looked into. 

Occupy and the Tea Party

Occupy and the Tea Party were both a populist reaction to the "elites". After the economic crisis of 2008, bought about by risk taking on Wall Street and a lack of foresight and oversight by successive administrations, the recovery was hindered by an economic stimulus package focused not on those who needed it but the institutions that apparently we couldn't do without (the investment banks). 

The bailout infuriated both the left who didn't see why the already wealthy should have their firms saved at tax payers' expense and the populist right who did't see that tax payers should be on the hook at all¹.  

But the recovery was slow and populist resentment continued to simmer. The establishment left was unable to pivot to capitalize on it, perhaps being preoccupied with less directly concerns and because of their disdain for the "deplorables". Occupy was of course antithetical to structure and organized action and inevitably faded away. The Tea Party however didn't and the GOP was happy to embrace its members as they embraced the establishment (or at least the levers of establishment power). And the result was Donald Trump.

Covid presents another economic crisis. If the GOP has learned anything from the last 12 years it's that they are better organised and positioned to harness the resentment economic hardship generates; so they have an incentive not to provide economic relief. Their best bet for getting back into power is to make life sufficiently difficult for people who are struggling financially² that those people will turn to the only populist party we have. This one of the three levers by which the GOP and the minority it represents cling onto power; that, gerrymandering and voter suppression. Their only problem is that they will have to wrets power over their party from a flagrantly self-dealing family who has found another grift to exploit. 

¹ In the end it appeared that the toxic assets the government acquired in the bailout actual made it money rather than costing it money.

² while cleverly avoiding blame by rediscovering the "we can't raise the debt" mantra to justify their actions - something they conveniently forgot when dishing out huge tax cuts four years ago.

Distorting mirror

Part of Fox' formula is to take a critique of the right by the left and flip it. For example, fake news was a term originally coined (at least in my recollection) by Jon Stewart about Fox a decade ago; but the term was picked up by Fox (and then by Trump) and leveled at the mainstream media.  

The latest example is "banana republic"; it's a term many on the left have used to characterize Trump's efforts to subvert democracy and disenfranchise Biden voters, both before and after the election. Yet today, Fox is using the very same term to attack those states which legally altered their voting procedures in the light of the covid pandemic for doing something nefarious.

What makes the appropriation of terms and their "mirrored"  application so insidious is that for Trump supporters it creates confusion and, for any who had been paying attention, a false equivalence. Now when Fox viewers hear the term fake news they probably don't realize that it was their favorite channel that is actually fake news. And they may even believe that their attempted coup wasn't what made the country look like a banana republic but a perfectly legal process to make voting easier.   

Did he jump, was he pushed?

Of course he was pushed... Well, maybe it was a bit of both.  

Barr's resignation was a RINO, (resignation in name only). He was saved from the humiliation that befell so many of Trump's other acolytes who weren't quite subservient enough by penning a sickeningly sycophantic resignation letter.     

His semi-voluntary ouster was an inevitable consequence of his decision to state publicly that he had seen no evidence of widespread voter fraud. That undermined and infuriated his boss, who certainly would have canned him had he not preemptively resigned; but the writing was on the wall.  

So why did Barr choose this particular moment to stop sucking up to Trump? Probably he realized that life after Trump might be irrevocably irredeemable if he stuck it out to the bitter end, associating himself with the fanatics who were still pretending that the voter fraud in the election was a thing. He can now, after all, say that he left the administration, not the other way round; that might help wash off some of the taint.    

Perhaps he realized it was time to retire, write the definitive tell-all book, and get some of that lovely consulting money the revolving door entitles him to.

Mitch McConnell

Mitch McConnell today acknowledged for the first time that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won the presidential and vice-presidential election this year.  On the Senate floor, with what looked like a twinkle in his eye and what might pass for a smile, he sounded remarkably conciliatory. 

Is he relieved, perhaps, at not having to deal with a narcissistic sociopath in the White House? Is he ecstatic at not having to clear up another fine mess the master deal maker, wall-builder and expert-at-winning, got him into?  Will his apparent goodwill towards the incoming administration carry over into a smidgen less obstructionism that he orchestrated so admirably for Obama's last 6 years? And will the aforementioned unstable-nongenius stop tweeting nonsense, retire to Florida and stop tearing down the institutions that make this country great? 

Who knows. But it's step in the right direction.

Suspicious behavior

Proponents of 'stop and frisk', essentially the on right, claim that the policy is justified by reasonable suspicion that those they target (non-whites) are more suspect than others (whites).  But those same advocates are outraged when that logic is applied to "one of their own" (even if he wasn't really). 

Trump's long history of disregarding the rules made his actions in the run up to the 2016 election look highly suspicious; indeed his actions then and subsequently all appear to reaffirm his intent to do whatever it takes to achieve his ends irrespective of their legality, let alone their inappropriateness. Without enumerating all his transgressions here, one simply has to remember that he lies almost constantly, starting with crowd size and ending with voter fraud. 

So if law enforcement had to make a call as to whether to look into the Russia collusion matter or give him the benefit of the doubt, any reasonable person would have erred on the side of caution and investigated. Stop and frisk is "justified" because "African Americans are inherently suspicious" but when a white millionaire with a history of shady dealings does something that most would think is suspicious, well "that's not something we should be looking into"? Please!

Election deniers

Commentators have been asking when will the GOP wise up and admit that there was no significant voter fraud in the 2020 election. The answer is never. 

The question is predicated on the false premise that the GOP was ever interested in the truth; that's why that fact that the courts have thrown out all but one of their fifty fanciful but fact-free law suits has not made any difference to their peddling of this plainly false narrative. The GOP's objective was always a political one, not a legal (or a truth-seeking) one. 

The GOP's strategy is not to "get to the bottom of this" but rather to sow enough doubt so as to provide political cover when it continues to play the role of Grand Obstructionist Party, as it did for the last six years of Obama's presidency. Then it was the birthirism nonsense that it used to undermine Obama's legitimacy and justify in their voters' minds their obstructionist strategy; but that doesn't work for Biden (because he's white and because he comes across as less erudite than Obama, both of which undermine the right's implicitly racist and anti-intellectual narrative). 

So they are looking for another ploy and they have found it in the election fraud tomfoolery. While it's conception was Trump's habitual stance of not playing by the rules if they inconvenienced him, it makes a perfect substitute for birtherism as a vehicle to question Biden's legitimacy. Some have suggested that the GOP are only pretending to be election deniers because they are afraid of Trump's ire and being "primaried" by a Trump lackey when they are next up for reelection. While this may be a factor, the political utility of election denial remains whether Trump continues to play a role in politics or not¹.    

And if anyone thinks this will finally be settled when the Electoral College votes today, or when Congress confirms the Electoral College votes, or when Biden is sworn in, think again. Remember "Benghazi", or Hillary's emails; they kept that nonsense going for years, long after the facts were clear that, while unfortunate, these were fundamentally non-issues.  

That's the beauty of conspiracy theories; they live on because they are inherently fascinating to their believers even when there is a complete lack of evidence; just like Area-52, Roswell, Hilary's child sex ring, vaccines causing autism, global warning is a progressive hoax, windmills cause cancer, high marginal taxes depress GDP, 5G causes covid...   

¹ Which he will, not because he wants the job - he clearly hates it as to do it well requires intelligence, engagement and hard work, none of which are in his wheelhouse - but because he can't bear to be thought of has a "loser".

Divergence

 

Red states have a preponderance of people who support Trump, and as a result believe that covid is a hoax or not that serious, that mask wearing is of little benefits and an infringement on their "civil liberties",  that mitigation efforts in general are unnecessary and that the vaccine is either of little use or a plot by Bill Gates to implant microchips into their brains (OK not all red-staters think that but more do in red than blue states).  

Blue states, by and large, distrust everything Trump says, think that covid is a big problem, that mitigation is important and most believe the vaccine will be safe and effective. (There are of course some, particularly among African Americans who, for understandable reasons, distrust the vaccine). 

That suggests two distinct paths to herd immunity. In blue state, mitigation and vaccination will provide the main path to immunization, while in red states, becoming infected and developing immunity naturally will be the principle route.  

If vaccines are distributed based on demand the, synergy between these two routes will shorten the time to herd immunity.  If not, red states will have vaccines no one wants and blue state won't have the vaccines they do, and we will remain in purgatory for longer. 

Going on record

 

The Washington Post carried an article this morning about a small town in South Dakota that has now been confronted by the reality of covid with positivity rate of 49% and members of its community dying every day.   

The article also mentioned the vocal opposition from some in the community: "During the public comment section in Mitchell, a handful of anti-maskers spoke, alleging that masks don’t work and that the measure was an overreach that would violate their civil rights". And at a local school board meeting"...a vocal group of anti-maskers continued to protest... That led to a viral video in September showing a burly man refusing to leave the meeting after being asked to put on a mask"

I hope there is more video that will serve as a record of their actions and of those like them which has contributed to the dire situation their town now faces. 

And in a similar vein, those who make public statements that are demonstrably erroneous but have tragic consequences for society should also be  memorialized. That list includes anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, and last but not least 2020-election fraud conspiracy theorists.  

All should be remembered as having contributed to the woes that could have been avoided had they deferred to those who know what they are talking about.      

Unbelievably low Barr

Attorney General William P. Barr has had an epiphany; the election wasn't rife with the kind of massive fraud he and his boss warned us about repeatedly before November 3rd. After toeing the party line for his entire term in office, peddling conspiracy theories along with the best of them, he's suddenly seen the error of his ways. To what might one attribute this miraculous enlightenment? Well probably not the complete lack of any evidence, or the bewildering insanity of Rudi Giuliani and Sidney Powell's Chavez, China, CIA, Dominion Voting Machines theory of the case; that's been out there for a while. The most likely explanation is that he no longer sees the need to debase himself in the service of Trump since they will both be looking for new jobs come January, and his current boss won't be able to offer him the power and status to which he was becoming accustomed. 

All of which goes to show that while he may have acted 'crazy', it was really crazy like a fox.

Profiles in Cowardice

John F. Kennedy's book, "Profiles in Courage" ghostwritten by Ted Sorensen, describes acts of political bravery by eight US senators. A much shorter sequel, "Profiles in Cowardice",  is today overdue. Shorter it may be, but with a great many more entries; only a handful of sitting Republican senators have spoken publicly in defense of democracy and against its ongoing subversion by the current, but soon to be legally evicted, occupant of the White House. The vast majority have either pretended not to hear the question or, bless your heart Lindsey, come out in full-throated defense of Trump's ludicrous and unfounded claims of election fraud. 

While "Profiles in Cowardice" will have nearly 50 entries, each will be short and sweet: "Senator <X> was too afraid for their own political future to call out Donald Trump's gangster-style intimidation of election officials and his attempts to subvert the election".  

Courage is doing the right things when it is personally disadvantageous. Cowardice is doing the wrong thing when is is personally convenient.  Congratulations GOP; a party that once stood for values higher than oneself is now the party of "me first and f*** y'all".  

Rights and obligations

 

A argument in the Senate between Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Dan Sullivan (R-AK) illustrates how people weigh the rights and obligations. Brown asked Sullivan to wear a mask while in the chamber; Sullivan refused. 

Sullivan, as have many Trump supporters was likely asserting his right not to be inconvenienced. He is correct that there is no statue that compels him to wear a mask and that he is therefore in his right to refuse a request to do so. Similarly, Mitch McConnell is correct when he asserts that Donald Trump is within his legal rights to explore all available avenues to try to turn the election in his favor. 

But often rights and obligations are in opposition. Sullivan's assertion of his right comes at the expense of his moral obligation to protect others. Similarly, Trump's assertion of his right to challenge the outcome of the election in court comes at the expense of his moral obligation not to undermine faith in the cornerstone of democracy, the electoral process. 

Acting within your rights does not mean you are doing the right thing.         

Concession stand

Trump's resolute stance on not conceding the election he has just lost is not about seeking a fair counting of the votes; and it's not just about salving his bruised ego; its a political tactic that is a step towards another run in 2024. 

Were he to concede, his supporters might interpret that as admission of defeat and might simply move on with their lives. By not conceding, he he maintains the fiction, so important to his supporters, that he is still a "winner".  That in turn allows him to continue play the grievance card that he was unfairly treated and they, like him, are the "oppressed minority" whose voices weren't heard. That will help the keep money rolling in to pay down both his campaign, and likely his personal, debts, as well as beginning to build a war-chest for his next run. (So much, by the way, for a self-funded campaign). And it will keep them on the boil until the next election.   

Put another way, his refusal to concede presages another run for the presidency (God help us all).

Hammer time

Lewis Hamilton, now a 7-time world champion, clinched the 2020 F1 title in spectacular fashion yesterday. One of the few rain-soaked events this season, it was a race full of surprises. 

Despite starting from 6th on the grid, Hamilton showed what the combination of extraordinary skill, deep experience and determination can accomplish. Having made up 3 places by the third corner, Hamilton drove a perfect race in truly terrible conditions; a newly surfaced, smooth track, rain and cold weather. Getting tires and brakes to optimal operating temperatures was a challenge. Bottas span out six times; he was one of many.    

What made the race particularly fascinating was the question of when (or if ) to change tires. Hamilton had been driving for more than half the race on his second set of intermediate wet weather tires ("inters"). By lap 60 they were getting very worn with most of the tread gone; they were almost slicks. As the track dried out the advantage of changing to dry weather super-soft ties, said to be about 5 seconds a lap, became less and less attractive as the opportunity to make up the pit stop delta, probably about 25 seconds, diminished; but  interestingly the 5-seconds a lap advantage of super-softs vs. inters was for new inters, not worn ones, so that gap was probably much smaller. At the close of the race Hamilton's tires were up to temperature and he was able to get the extra grip in the dry that came from having almost slick tires; and that made the difference. So when the team called him to pit, just in case there was rain, he decided instead to stay out and as a result finished a one-stop race an astounding 30 seconds ahead of second place Sergio Perez. That's quite a way to clinch a 7th world title.

  

Bitter ending

One can imagine that Trump is angry at the repudiation of his four years in the White House, losing his reelection bid when Republicans generally did better than two years ago. It was billed as a referendum on his first term and a clear majority of voters, a 3.4% margin,  delivered a decisive "no thank-you" to four more years.

But Trump's refusal to face reality it will make his defeat bitter not only for him but for everyone else; it will lead his supporters to recent Biden's occupancy of the Oval Office; and though he may leave the White House, he will never leave the stage, making Biden't job all the harder and a Republican Congress less likely to depart from the McConnell doctrine and reach compromises with the Dems; and last, it will cause Dems to be rightly fearful that Harris, as heir apparent to the top job, will face Trump in the 2024 election, a context that will inevitably come down to race and gender.   

Not a bitter ending, but a bitterly divided country for years to come; that will be Trump's legacy.   

Transition trivia

Assuming at some point, Trump does admit defeat, at least to himself, several not very important questions arise. First will he ever admit publicly that he lost?  That's an easy one: of course not; his fragile ego could not cope with having to admit he was not the all-conquering hero of his minds eye. 

Next, the letter: it is common practice for the outgoing occupants of the Oval Office to write a letter with sage words of advice for their successor. Will Trump write one for Biden? That's harder. On the one hand he thinks he's so much smarter than everyone else that he might jump at the opportunity to tell Biden what a great job he'd done under the pretext of offering advice. Of course he wouldn't give Biden any useful advice as that might help Biden do a better job than he had and that would make him look bad. That fact that a monkey with a stick would have done a better job is not something Trump is likely to consider.  On the other hand, he might just be so petulant as to not want to conform to any of the usual niceties; I wouldn't be surprised if he nicked stuff from the Oval Office on his way out. So on balance I'd say no letter.    

Finally, were Trump to write a such a letter, would Biden read it? I think the answer to that one is yes. Biden, in contrast to his predecessor, doesn't take every opportunity to belittle his opponents and most of those around him. And politically he'd want to try to mend the rift that Trump has created so making a show of trashing the letter (as Pelosi did after one of Trump's State of the Union addresses to Congress) would not help case (not is it his style). 

A new normal

 

It has been noted, here as well, that after covid we may not return to normal but to a new normal. The discontinuity that has opened the door to a re-writing of the rules of the game, the emergence of a new paradigm in Tushman and Anderson's words, is covid. But there has been another societal-level discontinuity; Trump.  Yes, Trump was as much a product of social undercurrents in some parts of the country as the cause, but there is no doubt he was a catalyst that has caused a reaction that has changed the nature of the compound we think of as societal norms. Trump has dismantled long held beliefs in the importance of those norms and what new norms emerge is yet to be determined. 

Covid has bought on an era of ferment in the ways we live our lives; but we are also in an era of ferment for our values that Trump set in motion. Trumpism is the culmination of tides that have their root in the financial crisis and the Tea party, in shifting demographics, in the propensity for America to see its problems first and foremost through the lens of race, and the fragmentation and balkanization of information with cable and AM radio and more recently social media platforms. The Great American Experiment survived Trump, but history will record that it has been forever changed as a result of his term in office. 

Tracy Chapman has changed little in 30 years

Last night's musical guest on Late Night with Seth Meyer was Tracy Chapman. 

I have her first two albums, release in the late 1980s. I hadn't listened to them in a very long time, partly because even though they are beautiful and poignant they are, frankly, really depressing.

Her performance of "Talkin' bout a revolution" on Seth Meyer's show was stark (just Chapman with an acoustic guitar) and powerful. He voice has lost nothing in the 30 odd years since she recorded the album.  

I found myself deeply deeply moved this morning listening to her after so long, like being reunited with an old friend; and, tragically, the song is as relevant today as it was 30 years ago.       

The Joker's strategy

"Introduce A Little Anarchy, Upset The Established Order, And Everything Becomes Chaos". 

Trump and his GOP enablers have clearly taken a leaf from The Joker's book. If you throw enough mud at the wall some of it will drop into the gears and gum up the works. 

That's the strategy: file one trivial groundless suit after another until the system no longer functions. Then argue that since the system is stalled get the GOP controlled legislatures step in to "fix" the problem by appointing a slate of electors to the electoral college who will vote for Trump. 

That's how the will of the people is subverted; that's where we are today. It's cynical, unethical and dangerous. But it's how bad things have gotten.  

We are living in "interesting" times (supposedly, a Chinese curse).

"Better to be a dog in times of tranquility than a human in times of chaos" (an actual Chinese saying).

A simple model

Using data from Nate Silver's FiveThirdEight project, I built a simple model to estimate the likelihood of the outcome of the election. I probably should not has wasted the morning doing it but... 

It uses the 'presidential_poll_averages_2020.csv' data file, assumes a uniform distribution of error in the polling data of plus or minus 15%, and runs the experiment one hundred thousand times. The polls are discounted for age with more recent polls being weighted more heavily. 

The results are: Donald Trump wins 3.4% of the time, Joseph R. Biden Jr. 96.6% of the time. 

To get results comparable to Silver's latest projection (a 90% Biden win) would mean setting the margin of error in the polls to 25%, which seems rather large. 

Since Silver's model and mine both predict a Biden victory, there is no obvious way to say, ex-post, which was better... other than running the election itself hundred thousand times and comparing the distribution of outcomes to the predictions. What a terrible prospect! One election like this is quite enough. 

Flooded

It's October 31st, three days before election day. Between 6:30pm yesterday and 6:30pm today I have 128 emails in my inbox asking for money.   

Other than that I have 19 from news sources (The Guardian NYT, the Wapo, the Economist, The Atlantic). Then there are bass related emails (Scott's Bass lessons, For Bass Players, zZounds, Sweetwater, and Fender, 1 each), computer or photography (Newegg, Adorama, Mpix B&H, again one each). And one from a friend.  

So 29 not asking for money (at least directly). So 81% political "spam". I am dreading tomorrow and Tuesday.  

Post-election blues

An early Trump lead followed by a blue wave and mail-in ballots are counted sweeping that aside has all the makings of a dystopian political thriller. Except this is not a screen plan nor is it a drill. It's likely to happen, as evidenced by something I never in my wildest dreams expected to see: store owners boarding up their shops in anticipation of a violent reaction, whatever the election results begin to reveal on November 3rd. In failed states this happens; but in a supposedly civilized democracy?  

What then might we expect? In close races in swing states, expect the GOP to sue to stop vote counting and challenge the process. Even as that is going on expect right-wing militias to intimidate election officials to interfere with vote counting; any delay helps the right get cases in front of sympathetic course and ultimately to the Supreme Court. These vigilante groups will be given relatively free rein by law enforcement who will be largely sympathetic, favoring a red outcome, and fearful they they are out numbered and out-gunned. 

The courts will likely end up curtailing the tally prematurely. If that does not deliver the victory Trump wants, expect him to declare massive voter fraud and call (implicitly if not explicitly) for an armed insurrection ('will no one rid me of this turbulent ex-vice president?') to prevent him being evicted from the the White House. Expect more well armed thugs to take to the streets. And if the left pushes back either with protests or riots, expect him to demand that the National Guard are called out to put them down. With extreme force.   

This is one scenario; there are doubtless many others. But I am fairly certain, and with a heavy heart, predict that before Christmas, political violence will have resulted in scores of murders mostly at the hands of the alt-right and the police. And that may be the best case scenario.  

Not so bad. Really?

The Economist this week has two articles that are openly apologist for Trump's four years of chaos. That's disappointing.  With respect to foreign affairs the newspaper argued that things aren't as bad as they might have been. That's a ludicrous standard. To suggest that we are better of because, for example, Trump didn't start a nuclear war is absurd. It also ignores the fact that we only avoided many of the sinkholes into which Trump was happily careering because of the guardrails erected by the few adults in the room and the stalwart efforts of the civil servants (thank heavens for the "deep state").  

He has made no progress with North Korea other than to give Kim Jong Un more time to develop ballistic missiles. His China policy has failed;  China has made no concessions on intellectual property, and the Sino-US relationship is worse than at any time since before Nixon and Kissinger. His tariffs have had no effect on China's policy other than to make it more obdurate, but have cost Mid-western farmers dearly, and as a consequence American ta payers everywhere.   Iran is only exercising restraint in the hope that once he's gone the JCPOA will be effectively reinstated (though Biden will have his work cut out here given the damage done to that relationship by Trumps "maximum pressure" policy). He has alienated European allies and befriended autocrats like Putin, Erdogan and Bolsonaro.  He has sided with Israel over the Palestinians and its policy of annexation in the West Bank. While that may be morally hard to defend, politically the consequence in the Middle East are less sever than they would have been 15 years ago; the advent of fracking has removed the US dependency on Arab oil which in turn has weakened the Arab states bargaining  power. Fracking was not Trumps invention, nor have his policies here done much (excluding environmental damage) except at the margin.  And that reduced dependency on foreign oil and that anticipation of reduced world demand was the driver behind the deals between several of the smaller Arab states and Israel. None were the monumental foreign policy achievements he trumpeted, but the result of pushing against a now open door. Mid-East petro-states understand that they meed to move their economies away from oil and Israel is a local tech giant that has much to offer. NASFA 2.0 was in the works before he took office - so by the "he didn't do too much damage" logic the Economist is using that he didn't screw it up ranks as an achievement.  He has cut immigration which while "keeping the country white" may have adverse long term consequences for tech and demographically.      

Domestically the Economist touts the gains in the stock market. But the market is only where it is because of the transfer of wealth to companies' bottom lines from future generations who will have to pay down the debt incurred in the process. That's not a policy achievement but a fiscal a slight of hand and the vaunted reinvestment the tax cut was supposed to bring about never happened. Some may have seen a reduction in their personal income tax except in the states Trump wanted to punish for being Democratic (California and New York) where he eliminated the federal tax deduction for state and local income tax, and that may have buoyed some economic growth. But employment grew no faster under Trump than under Obama. Manufacturing jobs have not come back to the US in anything like the numbers Trump boasted they would.  He has undermined trust in institutions from science writ large, the press, and government. He has made relying on instinct and emotion a legitimate alternative to facts, knowledge, research and hard work. He has stoked white supremacy and division, a Pandora's box it will take generations to shut, and tacitly encouraged armed insurrection in the defense of whiteness. He has politicized historically apolitical government agencies like the CDC, the EPA, NOAA, the USPS and Department of Justice by appointing loyal sycophants with right wing agendas at their heads. He has sidelined, or worse yet threatened retaliation, against career diplomats and civil servants when they present him with facts and analyses that puncture his Fox-induced alternate-reality bubble. 

And of course there is the covid-19 debacle. The botched response was a much to do with messaging and public perception as it was to do with a policy failure. Two things might have prevented the US from suffering the horrendous death toll it has endured, not to mention the economic consequences of not getting the pandemic under control. The first was testing a tracing which the administration failed to ramp up with sufficient urgency to make a difference. The second was mask-wearing which would have slowed the spread,  allowing hospitals to cope better, reducing the death toll and allowing testing and tracing efforts to isolate cases, again arresting the progress of the disease.  Relatedly, Trump's (and the GOPs) failed attempts to eliminate Obamacare and the healthcare coverage it provided, without any coherent solution with which to replace it is another case of a the Economist's "success" in spite of, not because of, Trump.

To note, as even some of his supporters do, that he is a terrible human being but excuse his personal failing and foibles because he has "gotten so much accomplished" is to ignore and misconstrue his record. History will document his four years as nothing but a string dismal failures, mitigated only by the groundwork laid by his predecessors and the efforts of civil service policy professionals. 

In the end, the damage he has caused to the fabric of society is severe and possibly irreversible. If America makes it through the next two months without politically motivated bloodshed that will be a miracle. But it remains to be seen if in fact he has so damaged the institutions of democracy to mortally wound the American democratic experiment. Indeed Trump was an experiment from which the US could learn never to repeat. But if things go badly, indeed if Trump were somehow to remain in office, the possibility of the US, the worlds preeminent military and economic power, becoming an autocratic or even a failed state is a terrifying prospect truly worthy of Halloween.    

We're there and Meadows admitted it on air.

On Sunday Mark Meadows admitted to Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union that the Trump administration was no longer trying to control the spread of the corona virus pandemic. While I noted in August, and before that in July, that the density of infection could reach a point that testing and tracing would be overwhelmed, and it is clear that we have passed that point, there are still mitigation measures, specifically mask-wearing, that could help slow the spread, keep hospitals from running out of beds and save lives.  

But Meadows' comment shows that the one simple strategy that could help is not one Trump's administration wants to support. One can only imagine that it is hubris that is preventing them from doing the right thing; or perhaps they realize that at this point changing their message would not materially change behavior; Democrats have been wearing masks anyway and Trump supporters could not face the thought that they'd been duped and would continue to ignore sounds scientific advice. Even it it were to come from the administration, they would find a way of explaining the about face as a fiendish plot by the Dems who had somehow deep-faked Trump and so this was another example of media bias. 

Amy Barrett's judgement

Amy Barrett is by all accounts a gifted legal scholar. But when it comes to judgement writ large, hers is clearly lacking. For a Supreme Court justice that's a problem. 

He decision to accept Trump's invitation to appear on the White House balcony after her rushed confirmation and inauguration illustrates her inability to distance herself from politics. It shows her failure to understand the implications of that decision in the current climate in which SCOTUS is increasingly seen as entirely partisan. Had she a modicum of respect fort the independence of the judiciary and the appearance of propriety, she would have politely but firmly declined Trump's invitation.  But she did not; and that says more about her than anything she said (or more accurately avoided saying) during her confirmation hearings.  

Expect her not to recuse herself from Republican attempts to rig the election in their favor when those GOP voter suppression cases reach SCOTUS.

Draining the swamp

One of Trump's 2016 selling points was that he was so rich he didn't need to take money from corporate or wealthy individual donors; that meant he wouldn't feel obligated once in office to act on their behalf. There are two problems with that argument, one which was could have been deduced at the time, one of which is now clear. 

First he has no shame and no qualms stiffing people who have helped him. He's shafted his creditors left right and center.  When Deutsche Bank got 'uppity' and insisted on getting back the money he owed, he sued the bank. The notion that he couldn't take money from donors because that would make him a beholden "swamp creature" is nonsense. 

The other problem is that now his campaign is lagging behind Biden's in fund raising he has the opportunity to put his own money where his big mouth is and, surprise surprise, he won't part with a cent.  He has a history of risking other people's money but never his own and his reelection campaign is no different. And let's not forget that he's deeply in debt to the tune of over $400 million, so his net worth may be so low that he simply can't afford to spend on his own campaign. 

He may also realize that his reelection chances are so slim that it would be throwing (his) good money after (other people's) bad; given his incompetence in office, the lack of political access and influence he will have after leaving, and the damage his failures of leadership have had on his brand, it will be hard for him to monetize his term in the Oval Office. So to spend money on getting another term would be a poor investment (not that he hasn't made lots of poor investment choices in the past, but this one clearly looks like a loosing proposition).        

Not that one needed to add anything to the long list of monumental whoppers he's told in the last five years, but it's one more for the record.    

Transatlantic divisions

I have a friend who is, among other things, a young black woman. We met about a year ago in a professional setting on Zoom (before Zoom was covid-fashionable). We remained friends after our four month project came to and end. 

When we met, she was in the UK and I was asking her to join the project team (fortunately she agreed). What stuck me then was her composure and professionalism: but not her color. It really wasn't until we met in person about two months later that I registered that she was black. 

If there was any categorizing on my part (and I'm sure there was) it was her background in terms of class. As I later found out her parents are both educated professionals, which in the UK makes her firmly middle class. And that, for many Brits, although perhaps mainly the middle class itself, is a more salient categorizing heuristic than race. 

Not that it's better, but Brits have a tendency to divide people into the aristocracy (stereotypically rich, landed, lazy, and entitled - think of Downtown Abbey), the working class (stereotypically uneducated, unworldly and ignorant - those "downstairs" people) and the middle class (everyone else). In America by contrast, which is, supposedly, a classless society (although social mobility is in fact higher in Britain than in the US), race is the first framing many people rely on.  

Neither is particularly good; but I would argue that prejudice based on class is more easily overcome than prejudice based on race. So if you have to choose, I'd settle for the lesser of the two evils.

The politics of pandering (with money)

Trump's lame last ditch effort to close the gap to Biden was laughable. It comprised promises that he certainly will not be able to keep. Whether it's drug rebate cards for seniors or another promise of a beautiful health care plan (it's not actually plan but a vague wish un-tethered to reality) none of Trump's vacuous promises will (or should, if you've been paying attention) make any difference.

But the another round of stimulus spending might. That's why there is such a struggle over it in Congress. Pelosi tried to get the ball rolling in the summer, passing the HEROS act but McConnell has refused to take it up i the Senate. Why?  

Early on it was probably that he was concerned about the deficit hawks in the GOP who disapproved of the size of the package. But now he probably wants to use it as a lever to persuade undecided voters to reelect him and the GOP to the Senate with the promise that he will pass it if reelected. He looses that leverage were he to get it passed before the election.  

Ironically Pelosi may be making the same cynical calculation; and on top of that she may be reluctant to do anything that Trump might claim as a win (and testament to his supernatural negotiating skills) before the election. In the end it's those American who need assistance who are the looses in this high stakes game of political brinkmanship.

Lewis Hamilton equals Michael Schumacher's record of Grand Prix Wins

Lewis Hamilton equaled Michael Schumacher's record of 91 Formula 1 Grand Prix wins with a well-earned victory at the Nurburgring today. Hamilton would equal that record starting from the front row but not on pole. It was fitting that he did so at a track in Germany not that far from Schumacher's home.

In a generous and touching tribute,  Schumacher's son, Mick, presented Hamilton with one of his father's racing helmets; the passing of the torch.

Mercedes have dominated F1 for three years now and neither Red Bull, so successful with Sebastian Vettel, nor Ferrari, where Vettel has not fared so well in a car that seems  to be struggling for power (but neither has Le Clerc, his team mate), can catch Hamilton or Bottas. 

But while the Mercedes is clearly superior to its competitor teams, Hamilton's relentless pursuit of perfection puts him in a league of his own. It is all but certain that he will surpass Schumacher's F1 wins this season and he is well on the way to winning his seventh F1 championship title, again matching Schumacher's record. And at 35, he has at least another season or two in which to earn an eighth. That will be one for the record books that will stand for a long, long time. 

Doomsday scenario

Suppose, as is likely, Trump is ahead in the vote counting as the polls close, but then Biden gradually closes the gap. Trump's army of lawyers (and his poodle at the DoJ) are unable to stop the counting which makes it increasingly like he'll loose. What does he do? 

Most likely he will claim it's voter fraud and that the election is being stolen from him. My fear is he will call on his army of right wing militias to come to defend what he thinks is his rightful victory. And as we saw in Michigan, there were be those prepared to heed the call; and they will descend, armed and angry on Washington D.C. to defend Trump in the White House. 

The counting ends and Biden is victorious; but Trump, defended by his private army, hunkers down and refuses to leave.  What then?  Will the police or the ATF or SWAT be prepared to take them on?  What will the Secret Service do in that situation? Will we have another Waco, Texas, but this time in the nation's capital, as the forces of law and order try to evict Trump and engage with the heavily armed militia defending him?  

The only way out is to have him extracted, locked up and deprived of his phone to prevent him raising or commanding his army of Proud Boy White supremacists. Does this look a lot like the thwarting of a failed coup attempt we are more accustomed to seeing in third world countries? Are we on the verge of a second civil war? 

It seems unthinkable, but the closer we get, and the more desperate Trump becomes, the less improbable it appears. 

Post-Trumpocalypse healing

Four years of norm-shattering, irresponsible, shameless, self-serving dishonest behavior may finally be coming to an end; the Trumpocalypse may appear outwardly to be running its course.  But such complacency would be misplaced. The societal forces that brought Trumpism to life are not only still there, they are stronger than before (in part thanks to Trump's fanning the flames). Indications that they were long standing problems include Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party, the rise of militias, mainly in the rural red states (and today the attempted kidnapping of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmore) and of course Trump's election four years ago.

Those who thought our problems were solved with Barack Obama's election in 2008 missed that the feelings of division, resentment and betrayal felt by many white voters were both building but also disappearing from sight. And at the same time under-represented minorities were seeing victories as empowering, heightening those divisions. Even if Biden wins next month, the country is in far worse shape socially and politically than it was when George W. Bush left office. 

So what does healing look like? How might Biden and Harris begin the Herculean task of bringing the country back together?  Although way above my pay-grade, here are some general thoughts.  

First, step out of the Washington bubble. Stop listening to the lobbyists, establishment experts and interest groups; they will only generate more of the same that got us here. Change is needed and it may have to quite radical; but not necessarily the way either party has thought about radical solutions. Huge tax cuts and deregulation from the right or massive government spending and intervention as in the Green New Deal aren't on their own an answer. There may be elements in each that could be used but both packages are too toxic to be useful in our current predicament. Labels matter and both sides are tainted with the policy failures that contributed to this juncture.  

Candidates generally spend their time leading up to an election touring their districts / states / the country talking to voters and listening to their concerns. But that's generally the last time voters see them until the next election rolls around. That contributes to a disconnect between promises made and real policy changes that matter in voters' lives. So perhaps once elected, politicians might consider continuing to spend some time mixing with voters and explaining what they are doing and continuing to listen. 

That's going to be particularly important post-Trump. We need a national dialog about what ails us; and going back to business as usual will only prolong the social fracturing that will, as with empires of old, ultimately bring the country low.

2024

Harris-Buttigieg (or Harris-Warren)

If I were Trump...

(Which thank the Lord I'm not), I think I could legitimately argue that Susan Page wasn't an unbiased moderator. For example, Page prefaced he question about climate change saying that it was basically settled science (which it is) but it sounded like an MSNBC question. There were others too; in generally her questions seemed like soft-ball questions for the Biden-Harris team set up for Harris to knock out of the park, and by the same token implicit critiques of Trump-Pence. 

I hope that's not an indication of my becoming desensitized to Trump and his ilk's BS...     

So who won?

Clearly I'm biased; but I have to say Harris on point (no knockouts). 

One striking aspect of the debate was the optic of an old white man interrupting and talking over two women, (one a women of color). 

I suspect Harris saw that coming and indeed welcomed Pence's interruptions as it created that optic, one that solidifies the Biden-Harris lead among suburban women voters. It probably took a great deal of self restraint, but I think was worth it.

Harris, when being interrupted by Pence, said "I'm speaking"; but she might also have added, "please don't interrupt; it's extremely rude". But hey, she did enough to make her point. 

That's what puts her in a different league from Pence and Trump; so much more strategic. And it's why we need her not only as VP but at the top of the ticket in 2024.

Respect for the rules

Mike Pence, allegedly a member of the party that stands for law and order, much as his boss did last week, is flagrantly flouting the rules for the debate that were agreed to by both sides. The only difference between Pence and Trump is that is he doing it slightly more decorously, but regrettably, no less flagrantly.

The party of Trump, it seems, believes in law and order when it suits them and not when it doesn't; it is for law an order when people they don't like are being vocal. 

But as we saw last week in the Rose Garden (and arguably a feature of Trump's attitude in general), the rules - like taxes - are only for the "little people" and not for them.   

Unfortunately, Susan Page, despite the clear signals that Trump and his sycophantic VP were desperate to close the gap Biden has opened up by any means necessary and despite starting at the opening of the debate that her job was to ensure the rules were follow, Page has not been up to the job.  She has repeatedly let Pence talk well past his allotted time.  

Dexamethasone

Trump, still suffering from covid-19, returned to the White House yesterday in a publicly staged conqueror's return. The BBC deflated the news by noting how out of breath he was after climbing the stairs to the first floor of White House to make an appearance on the balcony. 

Apparently still in the early stages of the infection, Trump is being given Dexamethasone, a cortical steroid. Among Dexamethasone's side effects are mania, a lack of judgement and a reduction in impulse control, none of which could be said to be Trump's strong suits and the best of times. Just when you though things couldn't get any worse...     

Big news day

Big news day today. Spirit (or more accurately Michael Skidmore, the journalist and co-trustee of Spirit guitarist Randy Wolfe's estate who filed the suit) lost its appeal to the Supreme Court allowing the 11 judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court which had ruled in Led Zeppelin's favor to stand. Stairway to Heaven is now legally a Led Zeppelin original composition.  

Although I am a Led Zeppelin fan, the similarity between Sprit's Taurus and the introduction to Stairway to Heaven are striking. However, the two songs then evolve quite differently and it is not uncommon for short themes to be used as the starting points for quite different pieces of music. Hayden's London quartet uses a well known Hungarian folk song for the "King's melody" (which then became the German national anthem). 

The second big story of the day was the award of this year's Nobel price for physics to British mathematician Sir Roger Penrose for his work on the mathematics of black holes. 

All in all a good day for Brits.  

Untouchable

Trump and those in his orbit consider themselves untouchable, not as in 'Dalits' though perhaps that's what we ought to consider them as, but rather not being subject to the rules normal by which people must abide.  

A poignant example on full display this week has been the White House entourage and hangers-on flouting social distancing and mask-wearing recommendations (in the White House and in the Rose Garden for Amy Barrett's nomination), and rules (with the Trump family members not putting on masks in an enclosed space when asked to do so by a doctor to comply with the regulations established by the Cleveland Clinic where the debate took place).

It's not just that this kind of attitude leads to grossly irresponsible behavior of the kind we witnessed last week, but in light of the consequences - numerous people contracting covid-19 - it shows with stark clarity the consequences of letting optics trump science and common sense. 

That's been the guiding principle of Trump's administration and is precisely what makes him unfit to lead the country. 

Zaphod or...

A little over a year ago, I noted an interesting observation by Douglas Adams about the role a leader. Perhaps he was right but it does seem that finally a majority of Americans have grown tired of the clown show. Polling suggests that they prefer a leader who has only one head but uses it to govern responsibly, rather than two that create constant distraction. In a month we shall see if that's the case. 

Contrite

 

Trump just released a recorded video message to reassure the American people that he was doing well and was hoping to return to work and the campaign trail relatively soon.

The message was striking in tone and for some of the words he chose. He used the word corona virus rather than the Chinese virus or the Chinese flu. That was a notable departure from his prior "blame the Chinese" rhetoric. He expressed his gratitude to the hospital staff (government run heath care, please note) in the most effusive way, as was his appreciation for the expressions of sympathy he'd received. 

He came across as a much humbled man. It's possible that he was truly frightened by the prospect that he could have been very ill indeed, or even died. 

Whether this newfound humility will last more than a few days remains to be seen; but for the first time since he descended the golden escalator we saw a human being for whom one might feel some sympathy, rather than the hateful TV personality caricature he normally plays. He has stared into the abyss; will he remember what he saw next week? 

Karma - or is it?

 We learned yesterday night that Trump has covid-19. 

Is this karma? After eight months of "hoping it will just magically go away", "it's no worse that a mild flu" and a lot of posturing during which over two hundred thousand people died from the disease, are his chickens coming home to roost?

In the flurry of commentaries since the announcement and given has has been trailing Biden the polls for weeks, it has been suggested that this makes his reelection even more unlikely. But there's another possible ending to this story. 

Unlike Boris Johnson, he may suffer only very mild symptoms. If that proves to be the case, he will trumpet loudly that he was right all along, that it was nothing to worry about, that those who died did so not from covid but because of their other health issues; he is living breathing testimony to that. 

To many, that will make him no only a hero who personally vanquished the disease, but make it seem as if he'd be right about how mild it was all along. That could easily put him back in the White House for another term.  

The debate

One of the most striking aspects of what was, in Dana Bash's (CNN) rather surprising words, a "shit-show", was how hollow Trump appeared. It's slightly surprising that he can still make grand promises, whether it's on economic recovery, a vaccine, cheaper drug prices, protection for pre-existing conditions, when he's made the same promises so many times before and never delivered, and when his actions tell a completely different story.  

Take health care; he has said every time he was questioned about his efforts to dismantle Obamacare, that he would put something better in its place. Yet after almost an entire term in office with full control of both houses for the first two years, he has done nothing. 

His apparent belief that he can make the same promise over and over without people realizing that it's all just show is an insult to the intelligence of the public.  You can fool some of the people all of the time (that's his hard-core base) and all of the people some of the time (including Barack Obama, Hilary and Susan Collins, for example, who though he deserved a chance). But you can't fool all of the people all of the time, and that's what Trump seems not to understand.

Two suggestions for the next debate

1) Have each candidate and the moderators in separates room with the moderator able to turn on the mics and camera for the time allotted for one or other to answer. 

2) Have each candidate under oath; at the beginning of the context, each would swear on the bible (both claim to be God-fearing Christians, though I suspect only one is being truthful) that the statements they will make during the debate are the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.   

(One can but dream) 

Trump-Biden #2

CNN and PBS both went totally overboard in their incredulity regarding Trump's behavior at this evening's first debate. For heaven's sake, after four years what on earth did they expect? Every time Trump gets in front of a microphone he behaves with in exactly the same way; rude, disparaging, ignoring rules, norms and agreements he's made. This was completely predictable, and CNN's outrage just makes them look like they've been in a cave for the last four years. 

Media people; get it together. Stop pretending the world hasn't changed since Trump; it has. And in all that time, you have't come up with an adequate answer to presenting the news and more importantly the facts. You have a month; it's not to late to do your effing jobs.  

Trump-Biden #1

Biden is getting hosed. It's sad. After 4 years of listening to Trump's BS, Biden still hasn't got a clue how to deal with him. Let's hope his lackluster performance doesn't tank his lead; but I predict it will cost him about 3 points in the polls.Should have been Harris on the top of the ticket. She'd have taken Trump to the cleaners. Sad.

The art of good tragedy

McConnell won't fill RBG's seat on SCOTU before the election but after it. 

If he puts Trump's conservative pick in before the election it will motivate the Dems and increase voter turnout on the left which could deliver them the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate. That opens the possibility that they could pack the court once in power.   

If he waits till after the election, even if Trump looses, even if the GOP looses its majority in the Senate, he can still get Trump's nominee confirmed before the new Senate is seated. As odious as that would be it's his safest play. It minimizes the chances that he will loose the Senate and so prevents the Dems packing the court were they to win control of both chambers and 1600 Pennsylvania Av.

After RBG

Ruth Bader Ginsberg's passing, while not completely unexpected, sets up yet another bitter partisan struggle.  McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings for Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, 10 months before the election, saying: "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president". 

Ironically, he explained this as simply adhering to the "Biden Rule", a reference to a speech Joe Bide made on the Senate floor in 1992, in which hs argued that Supreme Court confirmations should not take place in the midst of a political campaign season. Now, with just five weeks before the election, McConnell has had an epiphany and sees things quite differently. Hallelujah, and praise the Lord. 

Unfortunately, that creates a real dilemma for the Dems. Consider these scenarios.

1. If Trump were to win the election, the Senate would likely remain Republican, and the timing of the hearings would be moot.  
2. If the GOP retains the Senate, but Trump looses, arguably the most likely scenario, they will certainly try to have his nomination confirmed before Trump leaves office. 
3. And if they loose the Senate (and if that's the case, Trump would almost certainly have lost his reelection bid) there is a good chance the Senate will try to confirm Trump's pick before the new Senate is seated.

All these roads lead, albeit with decreasing certainty, to a 6-3 conservative majority on the Court.   

The dilemma is this: the harder the Dems push to forestall the confirmation until after the inauguration, the more Trump's base will be motivated to get out the vote for the GOP, which makes the lower number scenarios more likely; that is it will reduce the chances of retaking the Senate, and increase the chances  of loosing the White House.  But if they do nothing, McConnell will with 100% certainty confirm Trump's pick. So, dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.   

Political gamble

I'm a fairly cautious person. Most of my life I have avoided risk. I invest conservatively. I have never gambled. I prefer to see a small but relatively sure return on investment than a huge uncertain one.  

That's one of the reasons I find American politics so repugnant. Politicians are asking you to gamble on their tickets. 

Not only only has the frequency of emails asking me to bet on them increased substantially recently, so has the size of the bet. Early on it was $3, $5 then $15. Last week the smallest amount requested rose to $80.  The language also makes it clear that this is a game of chance; Kamala Harris' ask this morning noted that "...the stakes couldn’t be higher."    

The odds look reasonable; Biden-Harris are 7 to 2 odds on. But the prize may be relatively small; if the Dems don't take the Senate, all I get is peace of mind from not having to worry about the orange buffoon on a daily basis, but no real change (and in all likelihood a 6:3 conservative Supreme Court). That's something I suppose.  

To see things actually getting done, the Dems would need to take the Senate too. The odds of that (taking both the White House and the Senate) fall to 5 to 4 odds against (44%). Higher return, but longer odds. 

What a system! 

Doing the job, Trump style

Trump told Bob Woodward the he'd watched Dobbs, Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham, Pirro and Fox and Friends.  Each show is an hour except for the last one which is three, and into which he frequently calls to deliver long rambling monologues often lasting 45 minutes or more.

Now, I had always imagined that CEO's were very busy people, taking meetings with advisors and reports, powerful allies and even adversaries, getting briefed so that they are up to speed, and occasionally thinking about strategy. Not generally high on their list of activities is watching TV.

Trump claimed (and his supporters apparently believed) that he would bring that CEO skill-set / approach / mentality to the White House. But either he checked those attributes at the door, or (more likely) he never had them.  Doing the job, in Trump's White House, appears to involve copious amounts of TV watching (the shows Woodward lists come to between 6 and 9 hours). And worryingly he gets more information from them than he does from his civil service.  No wonder we're so royally screwed.     

Pure speculation

I often wonder, as I'm sure many of us do, how Trump thinks, or perhaps more accurately, how he chooses what to say or do.

Take Bob Woodward's revelations today that Trump knew and understood in February that covid-19 was many times more deadly than the flu and was more easily transmitted.  Yet he repeatedly told the public that is was no more of a problem than the regular flu.

What was the calculation behind his lies - we know they are lies because he made public statements that from his on the record interview with Woodward, we now know he knew were not true?

His explanation is that he didn't want to cause a panic; yet in "not causing a panic" he advocated attitudes and actions that have significantly prolonged and exacerbated the seriousness of the pandemic in the US. Could it be that he was unable to foresee how his statements would alter the public's response (not wearing masks, not social distancing, gathering in large indoor settings) in ways that increased the spread?

Or as Aaron Blake posits, it was that his only goal each day was (is) to manage the next 24 hours in the news cycle? That has a ring of plausibility; his only preoccupation is his ratings and the coverage he gets in the media. That he manages day to day to the exclusion of pretty much everything else, matters that require engagement, concentration and study, things to which he appears complete allergic.

It has been suggested that he is completely incompetent; perhaps another spin is that he's good at one thing only - image management (his own); but unfortunately being president is about more than just that. 

After the fire

The 2020 election will be by all accounts "a big one". Commentators on both sides, not to mention an ex-president and an ex-vice-president and have said so. It's not just voter turnout that makes it big; it is perhaps a turning point for the struggle for what it means to be America, what the country strands for, its fundamental values.

On one side you have the idea of a land of equality of opportunity, a meritocracy, where good ideas and hard work flourish in a capitalist free-market system.  On the other you have fear, division, defending of old money status and privilege, grievance, racism and resentment that the American dream has turned into a nightmare.
  
If Trump wins, a good portion of the country (though quite possibly not a majority) will have chosen door number 2, That path leads to increasing unrest, backsliding to a racially divided past that many will see as intolerable, and where that ends up is anybody's guess, but it won't be pretty.

If America chooses door number 1 and Trump looses, he will likely have to be dragged out of the White House kicking and screaming (recall Julian Assange being removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London). But while some will see his defeat as a victory for racial justice, a less Utopian future lies ahead. The most optimistic but realistic scenario is that we return to the pre-Trump status quo, which while not great, was nothing like a terrible as Trumpism.   

But even that's unlikely; not all social processes are reversible. The damage done over the last four years will not be washed away. Trust in government and the media have declined and won't easily be restored. The black-blue divide will have deepened and policing will in general be an increasingly difficult problem. The catastrophic damage Trump's four years have wrought will take years, and probably a generation or more to undo. Much like Rome's most decadent Emperors, Trump may be both a symptom of the end of what was a relatively short-lived American 'empire' and the cause of its decline. 

Back to school

The California State University (or rather its Chancellor, Timothy White, and his team) took the decision in May to go completely online for the Fall 2020 with a high likelihood that the System's twenty three campuses will also be online in the spring.

That was simultaneously a bold decision (the CSU was the first major university in the country to make that decision) and at the same time something of a no-brainer. If the virus was under control by the end of the summer, that is, if cases were so few that testing and tracing was logistically feasible, in-person classes might have been possible; but if there was going to a significant chance that the virus was still circulating undetected, then bringing student to campus was always going to be a terrible idea.

Anyone who has to interact with the age demographic that the typical student body comprises could have told you that mask-wearing, no socializing and social distancing were non-starters. While this isn't a critique of all twenty-somethings, it applies to a large enough proportional that a covid hot-spot was all but inevitable: as, indeed, recent events have shown.

The other interesting aspect to this is the apparent greater willingness of elite private institutions to offer in-person classes. While this is not s statistically validated correlation, anecdotal evidence seems to support that notion that well known private schools were more likely to re-open with in-person classes than lesser known public ones. If this is so, what might explain this?

Two things. First is the power of the purse. Well heeled parents can exert considerable pressure on schools and may have used that leverage to sway schools' decision-making. If wealthy two-career families would rather not have their kids at home, just make sure that their university takes them off their hands.

The second may be hubris. Institutions comprised of people who see themselves at the top of their profession may overestimate their ability to deal with a situation that realistically isn't in their wheel-house. But that's not uncommon in top management teams; it's a feature of M&A 'disappointments', so why should the same dynamic not apply here?

Admittedly 20/20 hindsight and confirmation bias may be wt work in my interpretation, but one thing is clear; trusting people to "do the right thing" isn't a always such a great strategy. Perhaps it's time for time senior academic administrators to go back to school?

"You Lie!"

Remember that? How shocked we all were that someone would accuse the president of these United States of lying?

Or the hand ringing that went on for months as to whether or not to use the L-word when describing the "inaccurate" statements made "without evidence" by the current occupant of the White House?

And how concerned we once were that we should not accept the torrent of "untruths" as normal?

Ah, good times! 

The 5-Minute Fix is indeed a trip

Amber Phillips wrote in the Washington Post's "The 5-Minute Fix" today that the shooting of a Trump supporter in Portland, OR actually plays into Biden's hands. Sadly, that's symptomatic of left-wing wishful thinking.

1. Phillips argues that more have died from covid-19 than from this kind of violence so the lack of a plan from the current administration is the critical issue. Here's why that doesn't fly. First the connection between the left and one very graphic death is a very short straight line, ultimately provable. By contrast, the link between Trump's inaction and the covid-19 deaths is much harder case to make. While many of us believe it to be the case, Trump and his surrogates will argue that the steps they took were important in limiting the number of deaths to "only" 180 thousand and, hypothetically without Trump's actions it would have been much worse. Biden's only counter is an equally un-provable hypothetical that with other actions the death toll might have been much lower. So that's effectively a draw.
2. Next she claims that the violence is happening now and therefore Trump's administration must own it (in part because they have stoked the flames). But Trump will argue that it's not a nation-wide problem and that there is a correlation between Democratic states and cities, left wing activists and polices and the violence. The fact that there is an unobserved variable (poverty and inequality) that drives all three will be lost on most people. 
3. Finally she points out that Biden condemned the violence a long while ago. That will only help Trump make his point; if Biden can't control his radical base, what does that portend for the country if he's elected?   

Unless the Dems wake up, they will drive a comfortable lead into the ditch and we will all pay the price.

Fantasy worlds

"Rttenhouse appears to have been living in a fantasy world where police and car dealerships are more endangered than unarmed Black men in traffic stops, and where he was a warrior and self-defender, rather than a youngster who foolishly enrolled himself in a midwestern version of the Children’s Crusade. I can only imagine his fear when he saw the crowd coming for him—and the crowd’s fear, when it saw that a near-child was wildly firing a rifle better suited to a person with judgment and good training. I do not expect that the jury will be forgiving".

So writes Graeme Wood, staff writer at the Atlantic, in his last paragraph (August 28th).

But it's not clear to me that Wood isn't living in fantasy world too. Recall George Zimmerman and the self defense legal strategy. I fully expect a jury will acquit Rittenhouse, assuming charges are even brought.

Wood himself provides the basis for Rittenhouse's defense - that he was in fear for his life. Certainly by the time he was being chased and fell to the ground he could make that claim quite legitimately; given the circumstances I could imagine those chasing him could easily beaten him without mercy and even killed him. So the last two killings clearly fit the category of self-defense; and, if as has been alleged, he was attacked by a protester leading to his first shooting, then it likely applies there too.

That he came, at least in the eyes of the protesters, spoiling for a fight (as I imagine the prosecution will argue) and therefore put himself intentionally into harm's way does not, in my view, sufficiently weaken the self-defense argument.  In both instances, although he was armed, he does not appear to have been the aggressor; and that is going to be critical.      

Despite all odds

Biden and Harris were comfortably ahead in the polls coming out of the DNC. But the latest CNN poll shows their lead slipping away there is now  distinct possibility they could screw it up and hand another four years to Trump.  Two things have changed.

First, another Black man, Jacob Blake, was shot; seven times; in the back. While it's not year completely clear what were the circumstances leading up to the shooting, it doesn't look good. Shooting someone in the back makes it difficult to argue imminent threat, particularly when the officer doing the shooting was allegedly holding Blake by the shirt when he shot him. What followed, unsurprisingly, were demonstrations; and also, given the number of times Black men have been shot with seemingly little or no justification (Rayshard Books for example), anger turned to violence.

But then things took an even uglier turn; ginned up by Trump's divisive race-baiting rhetoric (and that of his sycophantic entourage in the GOP), a 17-year-old traveled fifteen miles and across state lines with a long gun and shot one of the protesters; he flees the scene, is pursued by some of the protesters, falls to the ground, turns and shoots two more people. Then he walks calmly past the police with his hands raised, still carrying his rifle, hardly the stance of someone who does not believe they have done anything wrong, and the police simply ignore him. Imagine how they would have treated a Black man carrying a gun...

And to top it all, the police are captured on camera offering refreshments to a paramilitary group of armed white men. 

So why does this matter?  First, to many it provides stark evidence of bias in policing; it adds another body to the pile of Black men shot when, with a less confrontational approach, he might not have been. And it is evidence of the toxic effect of Trump's bile-filled race-baiting in inciting and escalating racial tensions.

But as importantly, the escalation to the point of armed confrontation between paramilitary types and the BLM protesters is bringing the country to the brink of what I have called a cold civil war. And that increases the need to get the situation under control as many begin to worry that if left unchecked the country will come apart at the seams.  The question is what action?  Trump's answer is 'unleash the dogs of war'; use the most oppressive and militaristic response to quash the violence, no matter the cost in lives or the fabric of society; and the toll will be great. It will set back race relations at least two generations. And it will cost lives, shot or incarcerated.

If that's not the answer, what is? Well that's where Biden and Harris need to be stepping up.  But as yet they haven't and that may cost them dearly at the ballot box in November. What is desperately needed now is a strong but empathetic intervention. Biden and Harris need to make it clear, and not just with slightly lame public statements, is that while they understand the protesters' anger and are sympathetic to their issues they cannot use violence; because that's exactly what Trump wants then to do. They need to assure the protesters that when elected, they are committed helping change the status quo. And they have to do it in a way that makes every news program for a day to more. Failing to do that will leave the impression that they have no answers, and consequently that they aren't to be trusted with the keys to the White House.

The second thing that puts the Biden Harris campaign at risk is that Trump has upped his game. He's either realized that without changing his behavior he will lose or someone has finally managed to knock that idea into his head. So today he will pretend to play President and visit the victims of the latest climate-crisis-induced weather disaster in Texas (a battle-ground sate of course).

The last time he visited a disaster area was Paradise, California where he talked about raking the leaves and forgot the name of the town he was in. And before that it was Puerto Rico where he merrily tossed out rolls of paper towels as if he was at a ball game. So with six weeks to go he's trying again to give the impression that he has empathy.  But it might work. Most people don't pay much attention until they are confronted with the choice as they will be in a few weeks, and together, the escalating racial violence and Trump's change in tactics could swing the election his way.

So Joe, Kamala; the time for letting Trump dig himself into a deeper hole is over. Now it's time to act decisively, loudly and clearly.

The Troubles, and cold civil war

Some trajectories are predictable; the current state of race relations isn't. We have many police forces; and many of them have cultures that are tacitly racist. When a police office kills a black man, whether or not they are held to account (which in many instances they appear not to be), it stokes anger and distrust in the Black community. Eventually that erupts into violent protest, mainly causing property damage. Then along come some armed white paramilitary types who shoot some of the demonstrators; their actions are publicly endorsed by the police. Trust declines and anger builds in the Black (and Ally) community: and the cycle continues to escalate. There is no end in sight to break this spiral of violence. Certainly nothing from this administration will help; and mostly it will inflame. On this trajectory there is no good outcome.     

If unchecked, this will create nothing short of a "cold civil war"in which both left and right, social justice campaigners and white supremacists increasingly face of in the streets with increasing violence, escalating use of firearms, and a police force that either withdraws or sides with the right and white supremacists. Neither side will don uniforms and organize like the two sides and the Civil War, but will more resemble terrorist cells, loosely linked, self organizing but guided by ideology and hate. As the Troubles showed, it is a state of affairs that could last for years or decades.  And even when peace is officially declared, the anger and resentment will linger for generations. 

The damage to society could be far greater than was suffered in Northern Ireland for the simple reason that for most people, whether they were a Prod or a Mic wasn't immediately obvious. That allowed for some semblance of non-partisan interaction between the two sides. When the side you are on is seemingly signaled by the color of your skin, that avenue for normal exchange is closed off.

Another four years of Trump-ism will set this in motion irrevocably. We are close to the brink and once crossed the cold civil war will be a blight on the nation for generations. That in large measure is what is at stake in the upcoming election.

Behind the curtains

Miles Taylor, a former Department of Homeland Security official, described to Anderson Cooper some of the more bizarre aspects of what when on at DHS behind the scenes.

For example, Trump would often call DHS and ask them to implement something he'd heard Fox' Lou Dobbs mention on his late night show.

Another was the vote to separate immigrant children, whether they had entered legally or not, from their families as a deterrent. When DHS explained they were not ready (presumably in hind sight both because of the questionable legality and the logistical issues of keeping track of family ties), Trump simply asked his cabinet to "take a vote".

Or when Trump suggested "busing and dumping" immigrants into sanctuary cities, and Taylor had told Chief of Staff John Kelly that this was certainly an illegal use of federal funds, Trump announced that "they were looking into it".

This last example is particularly telling; it exemplifies Trump's disdain for the law, and the fact that he does not think it applies him. He knows from experience that if he persists he would probably find a way to circumvent it.

Flashback

Hearing Obama deliver his speech to the Democratic National Congress today brought back memories of better times; his voice was soothing, reassuring, trustworthy.

A Mitt Romney or a John McCain I could have disagreed with but not been disgusted, repulsed, and horrified by. But Trump has been a nightmare of unimaginable proportions. Yes, most Democrats knew it would be bad, but I doubt any really understood just how bad.

As Obama noted, he hoped that he might " show some interest in taking the job seriously; that he might come to feel the weight of the office and discover some reverence for the democracy that had been placed in his care".

Hilary Clinton, the morning after her defeat, said "We owe Donald Trump an open mind and the chance to lead".

But what covid-19 has revealed beyond a shadow of a doubt is just how much damage an incompetent, lazy, entitled, self-indulgent, selfish and ignorant person in the most powerful job in the world can do.

I am hoping, praying even, that come January 20th, I will find the same reassurance in Jo Biden's voice and in Kamala Harris'.

Incontrovertible

"The evidence before this court is incontrovertible" Roger Waters, 1979

"The case against Donald Trump is open and shut" Kamala Harrris, 2020

"Donald Trump hasn't grown into the job because he can't. And the consequences of that failure are severe. 170,000 Americans dead." Barack Obama, 2020

For over four years, Trump has trampled on the norms of the presidency, and of common decency. The Democrats and the media, and basically anyone who engages in rational, fact based debate, have struggled to find a response.

Barack Obama, like his predecessors in the White House, has refrained from criticizing his successor. As things evolved, he has made statement obliquely critical of Trump but without mentioning him by name.

But tonight he had evidently concluded that Trump's disdain for protocol and tradition needed to be met in kind. So he abandoned the norm that past presidents don't criticize current incumbents; the gloves came off. As he said at the outset "It's not a normal time".

His critique was direct and searing; no more subtle digs. This was a full frontal assault. He called Trump out by name, a stunning break with tradition as shocking in its way as Trumps egregious behavior, yet a violation of norms that he and many Americans feel is necessitated by the gravity of the threat Trump poses to the country's standing in the world, and more fundamentally, the foundations of its democracy.

Here are a couple of extracts from his speech.

"I did hope, for the sake of our country, that Donald Trump might show some interest in taking the job seriously; that he might come to feel the weight of the office and discover some reverence for the democracy that had been placed in his care".

"But he never did. For close to four years now, he has shown no interest in putting in the work; no interest in finding common ground; no interest in using the awesome power of his office to help anyone but himself and his friends; no interest in treating the presidency as anything but one more reality show that he can use to get the attention he craves".

"Donald Trump hasn't grown into the job; because he can't. And the consequences of that failure are severe. 170,000 Americans dead".

The contrast, too, was striking. Trump appears to have two modes: "on teleprompter/Quaaludes" or angry bluster with ludicrous hyperbolae ([shouting] "he wants to hurt religion, hurt God"). Obama delivered his critique with sadness, almost resignation, before his passionate call to action. 
 
He pointed out that many of the civil rights that have been won over the years had come a great personal cost to those who fought for them, and so taking the time to vote would be the least we could all do to preserve what previous generations had accomplished.

As with Harris' speech when Biden announced his VP pick, this was one for the history books.

"Trump has quit on America"

In his remarks to the Democratic National Convention,  Chuck Schumer said "Trump has quit on America".

That's incorrect on its face.

It presupposes he was at some point working for America, to improve America.

But he never was; he was only ever in it for himself; and he still is. 

Out of control

I wrote in July about the possibility of the pandemic getting so pervasive that we would no longer be able to control it.  It seems possible that California might be close to that critical point.

Absent adherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we will not be able to test, trace and isolate a large enough proportion of infected people and the virus will propagate exponentially.