- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
Monday, August 31, 2020
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.
Saturday, August 29, 2020
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.
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.
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.
Friday, August 28, 2020
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.
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.
Saturday, August 22, 2020
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.
Wednesday, August 19, 2020
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'.
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.
Tuesday, August 18, 2020
"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.
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
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.
Thursday, August 13, 2020
Hurrible
Trump has described Harris' interrogation of Kavanaugh as "hurrible" and Harris as "nasty"
So what does the OED say about "nasty"?
"Of a person (also occasionally, a piece of writing): ill-tempered, spiteful, unkind (to someone), an unpleasant, contemptible, or cruel person.
"Morally corrupt; indecent, obscene, lewd".
What's interesting about Trump's word choice here is how well it fits him.
He is by all accounts (and there have been many) ill-tempered. His public conduct is frequently spiteful. He treats people who he perceives as not loyal or no longer loyal to him unkindly. And his rhetoric is manifestly cruel. Trying to have taxpayer money spent on his properties for his personal enrichment, bargaining military aid for political favors speak to his instinctively corrupt approach to everything he touches. His "relationship" with women, "grabbing them by the pussy", having sex a porn star (he's married by the way - three times already), all fit 'indecent, obscene, lewd'.
It's been noted before in this blog that this looks like projection.
As for Harris' comportment, she has been firm but calm, never indulging in name-calling but staying laser focused on the facts and the case at hand. That's not nasty; that's competence.
So what does the OED say about "nasty"?
"Of a person (also occasionally, a piece of writing): ill-tempered, spiteful, unkind (to someone), an unpleasant, contemptible, or cruel person.
"Morally corrupt; indecent, obscene, lewd".
What's interesting about Trump's word choice here is how well it fits him.
He is by all accounts (and there have been many) ill-tempered. His public conduct is frequently spiteful. He treats people who he perceives as not loyal or no longer loyal to him unkindly. And his rhetoric is manifestly cruel. Trying to have taxpayer money spent on his properties for his personal enrichment, bargaining military aid for political favors speak to his instinctively corrupt approach to everything he touches. His "relationship" with women, "grabbing them by the pussy", having sex a porn star (he's married by the way - three times already), all fit 'indecent, obscene, lewd'.
It's been noted before in this blog that this looks like projection.
As for Harris' comportment, she has been firm but calm, never indulging in name-calling but staying laser focused on the facts and the case at hand. That's not nasty; that's competence.
Wednesday, August 12, 2020
A Sigh of Relief
It was beautifully crafted, truly I think, a speech for the ages. Linking her working relationship to Beau Biden back to his father was elegantly done and created a vicarious link between herself and the former Veep. It also creates a neat way for her to talk about Joe Biden, the tragedy of his loss, his fortitude and his commitment to his children; in short his character.
The next artful segue was the transition from Joe, to Jill Biden, to her family and her favorite title "Mamala". That put here squarely into the suburban mum's demographic. And then a smooth transition from herself as a parent to her parents, touching on her parents status as immigrants, her Black and Asian heritage, and her upbringing amidst the protest movement of the 1960s.
Then a stunning turn of phrase, when she recounted her first court appearance for the prosecution: "Kamala Harris, for the people". She turned an almost throw-away phrase that as a Law and Order (the TV series) fan one hears almost every episode, into something deeply meaningful that also insulates her from the criticism she will likely get from the left about her role as San Francisco's DA and then California's AG.
Next, she brought the flow neatly back to Trump and Pence with "let me tell you. as somebody who has presented my fair share of arguments in court, the case against Donald Trump and Mike Pence is open and shut". Then she then laid out the argument, in withering clarity, beginning with the facts, the number of deaths, tempered with a human angle to the tragedy of so many people dying in isolation from their families. Drawing a parallel to Ebola, she painted a clear contrast between Trump and Pence and Obama and Biden, providing evidence for her assertion that "it didn't have to be this way", which otherwise might have been seen as an untestable hypothesis. She laid out how poorly the US had handled the crisis compared to other countries, highlighting Trump's failure to lead and connecting the consequences of his lack of action to the difficulties of many Americans.
Without a pause she was able to make the case on the economy too; noting that Obama and Biden has presided over a sustained period of job growth and economic resurgence after the financial crisis, she noted that "like everything else he inherited, he ran it straight into the ground". In one line she painted Trump as a spoiled rich kid who squandered the life his father had bequeathed him. While perhaps a tad hyperbolic, it was beautifully done. And invoking John Lewis and voting rights, just before the election, was also smart given the GOP's efforts to disenfranchise Democratic voters, to make voting more difficult for the less well off.
She came across as passionate, and a somewhat awed by the responsibility that had been handed to her. It was a wonderfully crafted speech.
For me, this is what intelligent leadership looks like, and I couldn't be happier. After almost four years of daily "surely it can't get any worse?" and then it does, I begin to recognize the country I so admired when Barack Obama was elected. Kamala's America, Barack Obama's America, that's the country I wanted to live in.
Business acumen and the art of a deal
So much for Trump's self-proclaimed business acumen; just more puffery.
He hasn't been able to get a good deal with China, or any deal with North Korea or Iran.
He has been wasting tax dollars on covid-19 testing whenever they come back too late to be of any value in tracing and containing the infection. He could easily have specified a target turnaround time after which the private labs wouldn't get paid, but apparently a deal of that kind - one with contingency - that was too complicated.
And he has been unable to get any deal with Democrats over the latest round of economic safety net and for covid-19.
He hasn't been able to get a good deal with China, or any deal with North Korea or Iran.
He has been wasting tax dollars on covid-19 testing whenever they come back too late to be of any value in tracing and containing the infection. He could easily have specified a target turnaround time after which the private labs wouldn't get paid, but apparently a deal of that kind - one with contingency - that was too complicated.
And he has been unable to get any deal with Democrats over the latest round of economic safety net and for covid-19.
Tuesday, August 11, 2020
The 2024 Ticket
While it may be slightly premature, I have been wondering who Harris might pick as her running mate in 2024. (The assumption is that she and Bide oust Trump in November).
Assuming Rice accepts State, which isn't a done deal, she could be in the running. But Harris might pick someone on the left; Stacey Abrams certainly brings the fire that would allow Harris to remain a little above the fray, more "presidential". If she needed a left learning policy wonk, then would Elizabeth Warren be a good choice. A two woman ticket would be something.
Another possibility is Pete Buttigieg; Mayor Pete will be 42 which while young is no longer too young. Perhaps it's about time we had a gay candidate.
There are many unknowns; there are people who haven't hit the headlines that might be in the running. Many thought Gavin Newsom had presidential ambitions, but his route to that job looks difficult at the moment.
Assuming Rice accepts State, which isn't a done deal, she could be in the running. But Harris might pick someone on the left; Stacey Abrams certainly brings the fire that would allow Harris to remain a little above the fray, more "presidential". If she needed a left learning policy wonk, then would Elizabeth Warren be a good choice. A two woman ticket would be something.
Another possibility is Pete Buttigieg; Mayor Pete will be 42 which while young is no longer too young. Perhaps it's about time we had a gay candidate.
There are many unknowns; there are people who haven't hit the headlines that might be in the running. Many thought Gavin Newsom had presidential ambitions, but his route to that job looks difficult at the moment.
Monday, August 10, 2020
Projection
The Trump campaign is trying to make the case that Biden is an empty vessel that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party will use to get their agenda implemented. That's ironic coming from a Republican Party campaign that thought it could use Trump the as an empty vessel to promote its own agenda. And in a still more ironic twist, Trump ended up turning the tables on the GOP, using it to further his own selfish interests. Using one’s own failings as the framing of other's action is what psychologists term "projection".
Rice or Harris?
Both are highly intelligent, capable and accomplished. From a political perspective both are demographically good picks. But my choice would be Harris.
She is has a slightly sharper tongue when needed. Rice is more careful and guarded in her speech. Biden needs someone who will give Trump no quarter, but do so pithily so that it registers with his marginal voters. Rice's greater circumspection, while laudable, wouldn't hit home with the non-college educated crowd.
Harris has run successfully for elected office and since she is likely to be the Democratic nominee in 2024, that gives her an advantage over Rice.
Rice's unfortunate entanglement with the alt-right / Tea Party Benghazi obsession is a problem this cycle and next. Although she now seems to understand that Hilary may have set her up to take the fall, that bell can't be un-rung.
On the same theme, while for Obama supporters her position in his administration is a positive, those aren't the voters the Dems need to get on board; those they do need to persuade may not view her time in Obama's administration as a positive.
Rice would indeed make a fine president very much in Obama's mold; calm, deliberative, cautious, intelligent. But those qualities may not be what the county needs to purge the vile, ugly stain Trump has left on the White House.
She is has a slightly sharper tongue when needed. Rice is more careful and guarded in her speech. Biden needs someone who will give Trump no quarter, but do so pithily so that it registers with his marginal voters. Rice's greater circumspection, while laudable, wouldn't hit home with the non-college educated crowd.
Harris has run successfully for elected office and since she is likely to be the Democratic nominee in 2024, that gives her an advantage over Rice.
Rice's unfortunate entanglement with the alt-right / Tea Party Benghazi obsession is a problem this cycle and next. Although she now seems to understand that Hilary may have set her up to take the fall, that bell can't be un-rung.
On the same theme, while for Obama supporters her position in his administration is a positive, those aren't the voters the Dems need to get on board; those they do need to persuade may not view her time in Obama's administration as a positive.
Rice would indeed make a fine president very much in Obama's mold; calm, deliberative, cautious, intelligent. But those qualities may not be what the county needs to purge the vile, ugly stain Trump has left on the White House.
A businessman in the White House
One of the arguments many on the right used to support Trump's campaign was that he was a successful businessman and that his business skills would mean he would finally be able to get something done in Washington.
To begin, let's review what has been done.
So what does this suggest? It means either that business skills are not well suited to getting things done in the Washington. Or it means that Trump had no business skills in the first place. (Or it could mean both). There seems to be ample evidence that the second is the bigger factor. Here are some things successful managers don't do.
Hiring people based on loyalty rather then ability.
To begin, let's review what has been done.
- Tax breaks have benefited the shareholding class and inflated the national debt by $1t
- No deal with China on IP and only a face saving one on ag products
- NAFTA II was already in the works under Obama so no real contribution there
- Nothing on health care
- No Middle East peace (and moving the embassy has made it less likely)
- No deal with North Korea on its nuclear program
- No progress on Iraq, other than withdrawing from the JCPOA and Iraq restarting enrichment
- Weakening relationships with Europe
- One of the worst records on covid-19 of any industrialized country
- No serious effort to prevent election interference
- Conservative justices
So what does this suggest? It means either that business skills are not well suited to getting things done in the Washington. Or it means that Trump had no business skills in the first place. (Or it could mean both). There seems to be ample evidence that the second is the bigger factor. Here are some things successful managers don't do.
Hiring people based on loyalty rather then ability.
- Family (Ivanka, Kushner...)
- Donors and sycophants with inappropriate skill sets (e.g., DeJoy, Sondeland, Gorka... )
- Fucci, CDC, etc
- Mask wearing ("not a good look")
- The China deal
- Meetings with Kim Jong Un, Putin
- Resumption of covid-19 task force briefings "because it had good ratings"
Friday, August 7, 2020
"It will go away"
Imagine this for a moment.
After 911, George W. Bush organizes campaign rallies, goes off to play golf, and of the threat from Al Qaeda says repeatedly "It will go away" (and then blames the governors for not handling the problem).
Or after Pearl Harbor, FDR had said "It will go away, you know it is going away, and it will go away, and we're going to have a great victory".
Or after the 2008 Financial Crisis, Obama had said "It will go away, hopefully at the end of the month, and if not, hopefully, it will be soon after that".
Would we consider that leadership in a time of national crisis? I think not.
After 911, George W. Bush organizes campaign rallies, goes off to play golf, and of the threat from Al Qaeda says repeatedly "It will go away" (and then blames the governors for not handling the problem).
Or after Pearl Harbor, FDR had said "It will go away, you know it is going away, and it will go away, and we're going to have a great victory".
Or after the 2008 Financial Crisis, Obama had said "It will go away, hopefully at the end of the month, and if not, hopefully, it will be soon after that".
Would we consider that leadership in a time of national crisis? I think not.
Panic stations
"He's following the radical left agenda.
Take away your guns, destroy your Second Amendment.
No religion, no anything, hurt the Bible, hurt God.
He's against God, he's against guns, he's against energy, our kind of energy".
That was an unusually deranged rant, even by Trump's standards.
Full blown panic may be setting in.
One can only hope that the more extreme he gets–as I have little doubt he will–the fewer voters he will keep in the middle.
Thursday, August 6, 2020
"It will go away"
That's what Donald Trump has been saying since covid-19 first appeared on our shores. Here are some clips CNN found (the list is unlikely to be complete).
He's right in the sense that eventually, when everyone has either gotten sick or vaccinated, it may go away.
But since the vaccine is unlikely to be here in less than five to six months, and (thankfully) we're not going to get to herd immunity before then, the relevant question is not if it will go away but how long it will take and, more importantly, how many more people will die before the vaccine is widely deployed.
It is both astounding and pitiful to see a grown man in such complete denial, and so publicly. Of course he might understand the gravity of the situation and simply not care, but I choose a slightly more charitable interpretation.
His failure to deal with the pandemic effectively has finally and very publicly exposed his lack of managerial acumen, that he is in fact just a charlatan playing a role for which he is unqualified.
But given his self-perception as the "stable genius", having to admit to himself he had been completely wrong and that he really isn't up to the job, would create a cognitive dissonance so profound, so psychologically debilitating, that his mind simply cannot permit that to penetrate his consciousness.
In a way that's good news for the country since it also suggests he will not change course in his bid for re-election. On his current trajectory current polling suggests he is unlikely to stay in the White House for a second term and sticking to his guns will mean staying on that course.
It will also be interesting, if he is defeated in November, to see how he fares afterwards. A public rebuke of such magnitude should be psychologically crushing; but I doubt it will. He will simply cling to the narrative that he was unfairly treated, that he actually won, and that voter fraud was the only reason he lost. So perhaps all his talk of voter fraud that has so many of us worried that he will not go quietly into the night, is not simply about challenging a possible loss in November, but creating the basis for a narrative that he can live with psychologically if he does lose.
* updated, August 7
| February 28 | "It's going to disappear, one day, it's like a miracle, it will disappear". |
| March 10 | "It will go away, just stay calm, it will go away". |
| March 30 | "It will go away, you know it is going away, and it will go away, and we're going to have a great victory". |
| March 31 | "It will go away, hopefully at the end of the month, and if not, hopefully, it will be soon after that". |
| April 28 | "I think what happens is, it's going to go away; this is going to go away". |
| May 8 | "I feel about vaccines they way I feel about tests; this is going to go without a vaccine". |
| June 16 | "I always say, even without it [a vaccine], it goes away". |
| July 1 | "I think that at some point that's going to just disappear, I hope". |
| July 19 | "You know I said, it's going to disappear, I'll say it again, it's going to disappear". |
| July 21 | "The virus will disappear, you know, it will disappear". |
| July 22 | "You know I say, it's going to disappear, and they say 'oh that's terrible', well it's true, I mean it's going to disappear". |
| August 5 | "It's going away, no, it will go away, things go away, absolutely, no question in my mind, it will go away. Hopefully sooner rather than later". |
| * August 6 | "My view is the schools should open. This thing's going away, it will go away, like things go away. And my view is that schools should be open." |
He's right in the sense that eventually, when everyone has either gotten sick or vaccinated, it may go away.
But since the vaccine is unlikely to be here in less than five to six months, and (thankfully) we're not going to get to herd immunity before then, the relevant question is not if it will go away but how long it will take and, more importantly, how many more people will die before the vaccine is widely deployed.
It is both astounding and pitiful to see a grown man in such complete denial, and so publicly. Of course he might understand the gravity of the situation and simply not care, but I choose a slightly more charitable interpretation.
His failure to deal with the pandemic effectively has finally and very publicly exposed his lack of managerial acumen, that he is in fact just a charlatan playing a role for which he is unqualified.
But given his self-perception as the "stable genius", having to admit to himself he had been completely wrong and that he really isn't up to the job, would create a cognitive dissonance so profound, so psychologically debilitating, that his mind simply cannot permit that to penetrate his consciousness.
In a way that's good news for the country since it also suggests he will not change course in his bid for re-election. On his current trajectory current polling suggests he is unlikely to stay in the White House for a second term and sticking to his guns will mean staying on that course.
It will also be interesting, if he is defeated in November, to see how he fares afterwards. A public rebuke of such magnitude should be psychologically crushing; but I doubt it will. He will simply cling to the narrative that he was unfairly treated, that he actually won, and that voter fraud was the only reason he lost. So perhaps all his talk of voter fraud that has so many of us worried that he will not go quietly into the night, is not simply about challenging a possible loss in November, but creating the basis for a narrative that he can live with psychologically if he does lose.
* updated, August 7
The thick blue cloud
Over 20 percent of Minneapolis police officers applying for permanent disability mostly related to PTSD Fox reported this morning. Early retirement requests have also spiked, and not only in Minneapolis.
According to Fox, many of these filing, who were also veterans, claimed that dealing with the protests has been more traumatic than fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Normally one might expect Fox to go ape-shit over any claim that a job was more difficult or heroic that serving in the military in a forward position, but that's Fox' situational ethics for you). While the applications have not yet been processed, it looks suspiciously like another more permanent kind of "blue flu".
While that only highlights the disconnect between law enforcement and the rest of society and that the police seem to consider themselves the oppressed rather than the oppressors, it raises a troubling practical question when thinking about police restructuring.
If police forces are down-sized or the "rotten apples" let go to be replaced with more community-minded people or other services created to take over the more touchy-feely parts of the job, there will be unintended consequences. Of particular concern is what those who leave full time employment in the police then do, not in terms of employment but their activities more broadly.
These will likely be individuals whose views align with the alt-right. They will have weapons training, many of them apparently also ex-military. They will be angry and motivated and ripe for recruitment into right wing paramilitary organizations or domestic terrorist groups. That has the potential to turn ugly in very short order. Groups of well armed thugs, with intimate knowledge of police tactics and procedures pose a significant threat to law and order and to society. Not that reform shouldn't be undertaken, but something to take into consideration.
According to Fox, many of these filing, who were also veterans, claimed that dealing with the protests has been more traumatic than fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Normally one might expect Fox to go ape-shit over any claim that a job was more difficult or heroic that serving in the military in a forward position, but that's Fox' situational ethics for you). While the applications have not yet been processed, it looks suspiciously like another more permanent kind of "blue flu".
While that only highlights the disconnect between law enforcement and the rest of society and that the police seem to consider themselves the oppressed rather than the oppressors, it raises a troubling practical question when thinking about police restructuring.
If police forces are down-sized or the "rotten apples" let go to be replaced with more community-minded people or other services created to take over the more touchy-feely parts of the job, there will be unintended consequences. Of particular concern is what those who leave full time employment in the police then do, not in terms of employment but their activities more broadly.
These will likely be individuals whose views align with the alt-right. They will have weapons training, many of them apparently also ex-military. They will be angry and motivated and ripe for recruitment into right wing paramilitary organizations or domestic terrorist groups. That has the potential to turn ugly in very short order. Groups of well armed thugs, with intimate knowledge of police tactics and procedures pose a significant threat to law and order and to society. Not that reform shouldn't be undertaken, but something to take into consideration.
Tuesday, August 4, 2020
Another about-face
For weeks, Donald Trump has been spreading a conspiracy theory that mail-in ballots are insecure and subject to massive voter fraud. He's even sued Nevada for offering mail-in ballots to all its voters. Despite the fact the commission he established after his election to look into voting irregularities found none and that no one (aside from conspiracy theorists like Kris Kobach who headed the effort) thinks there is any significant problem with voting by mail, he has continued relentlessly to hammer this false narrative. He's also been hard at work to cripple the USPS so that his fear-mongering might actually in the end appear to have been right with long delays in vote counting arising from his defending of the postal service.
His motives, however, seemed clear; he wanted to suppress voting in predominantly Democratic neighborhoods where voting in person was likely to be especially hard, and to be able to challenge the election results if he loses in November by claiming that Biden only won because of fraudulent voting.
And then without batting an eyelid, today he tweets his support for vote-by-mail. If this head-spinning change of course seems astonishing (as it should), I suggest it comes down simply to this. Recent polling may have suggested that his message that voting by mail was a problem may have created a larger voter suppression effect for the GOP and his voters. In particular, Florida has an elderly population and is critical to his reelection. So without his Florida voters turning out, which they might fear to do, given the covid situation, his opposition to mail-in ballots was hurting him. So, about-face, quick march in the other direction.
What's really astonishing about this story is that he doesn't think people will remember that only 24 hours ago he was saying (as he had been for weeks) exactly the opposite.
His motives, however, seemed clear; he wanted to suppress voting in predominantly Democratic neighborhoods where voting in person was likely to be especially hard, and to be able to challenge the election results if he loses in November by claiming that Biden only won because of fraudulent voting.
And then without batting an eyelid, today he tweets his support for vote-by-mail. If this head-spinning change of course seems astonishing (as it should), I suggest it comes down simply to this. Recent polling may have suggested that his message that voting by mail was a problem may have created a larger voter suppression effect for the GOP and his voters. In particular, Florida has an elderly population and is critical to his reelection. So without his Florida voters turning out, which they might fear to do, given the covid situation, his opposition to mail-in ballots was hurting him. So, about-face, quick march in the other direction.
What's really astonishing about this story is that he doesn't think people will remember that only 24 hours ago he was saying (as he had been for weeks) exactly the opposite.
Monday, August 3, 2020
Hopeless
Let unpack that a little, as it seems a fairly bold claim. Since there is no vaccine, to achieve herd immunity, depending how contagious an infection is, 70% to 90% of a population needs to have contracted the disease[1]. Since this is a highly contagious virus, we should probably use the higher number, but for the moment let's use the middle figure, 80%.
Sweden's population in 2019 was about 10 million, so 8 million people would have had to have contracted the disease for Sweden to have herd immunity as the congressman suggested. The congressman also maintained that the number of reported cases was not a good metric and that he relied on mortality as a reliable indicator. So let's do that.
The covid-19 mortality rate is widely believed to be about 0.6%, although Johns Hopkins data[2] suggests the rate may be much higher, around 2%. Worldwide the death rate of confirmed covid-19 cases is 3.8% (if we exclude the UK which clearly has't got it's act together either, the morality among confirmed cases is still 3.6%).
Let's start with this figure; 3.6% of 8 million is about 290 thousand deaths. But Sweden has reported only 5,743 deaths, significantly lower.
If we use the 3.6% mortality rate to impute the number of cases, that gives 160 thousand or 1.5% of the population - nowhere near the 80% needed for herd immunity. If we use the lower mortality rate of 2%, that would imply an infection density of about 2.8%. And if we use the 0.6% figure, we get just 9.3%.
Only if we assume that covid-19 is about 30% less lethal than the flu do we get to a number that approaches the 80% herd immunity number. By the way, Sweden also reports only 80 thousand cases, not 8 million.
So Congressman Tom McClintock's claim that Sweden has achieved herd immunity seems fanciful at best and illustrates why one should listen to well informed experts rather than ill-informed (or less charitably, malevolent) politicians.
[1] https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/achieving-herd-immunity-with-covid19.html
[2] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
TikTok, Donald
Here's a much simpler explanation; revenge.
TikTok users were instrumental in over-booking Trump's last campaign rally (and the only one he's likely be able to hold, absent some particularly reckless decisions on his part) before the election. So instead of a packed stadium we had images of rows and rows of empty seats.
He was made to look foolish; which in his world is the most egregious sin imaginable. So he's out for his pound of flesh. I think that's a far more Occam's razor-ish explanation than Wired's.
Sunday, August 2, 2020
A new world order
The first two decades of the 21st century has seen a marked shift in the old century's world order. Russian belligerence has risen, authoritarianism has resurfaced in Eastern Europe, putting stress on the EU, compounded by Britain's departure. And then there is China's rise. As its economic power grew so did its influence, and outward expression of self-confidence.
Almost 200 years after James Monroe articulate what has become the Monroe Doctrine, China is embarking on a similar policy, driving out U.S. influence (what it see as interference) in its back yard. It is shaping a new world order.
Two things are accelerating that process. The first is Donald Trump, directly. He has helped China in two ways; first his abandoning of allies has weakened any collective response to China's newfound assertiveness. Second, by underestimating Xi's political and negotiating skills, not to mention his ability to outlast Trump, and by overestimating his own, he has provided China with a strategic opportunity which has used that to extend its influence globally. Already playing a long game, China has exploited the vacuum created by Trump's unwillingness and inability to play a role on the world stage.
The second is covid-19; America's botched handling of the crisis has further damaged the U.S.' reputation, and in particular highlighted many of the weaknesses of its model of democratic government, not to mention is values. And much of that again can be laid squarely on Trump's ignorance, incompetence, and lack of seriousness in his approach to his job.
The 21st century will be a have different world order; and Trump's tenure will have a lot to do with how much diminished America's role in that order will be.
Almost 200 years after James Monroe articulate what has become the Monroe Doctrine, China is embarking on a similar policy, driving out U.S. influence (what it see as interference) in its back yard. It is shaping a new world order.
Two things are accelerating that process. The first is Donald Trump, directly. He has helped China in two ways; first his abandoning of allies has weakened any collective response to China's newfound assertiveness. Second, by underestimating Xi's political and negotiating skills, not to mention his ability to outlast Trump, and by overestimating his own, he has provided China with a strategic opportunity which has used that to extend its influence globally. Already playing a long game, China has exploited the vacuum created by Trump's unwillingness and inability to play a role on the world stage.
The second is covid-19; America's botched handling of the crisis has further damaged the U.S.' reputation, and in particular highlighted many of the weaknesses of its model of democratic government, not to mention is values. And much of that again can be laid squarely on Trump's ignorance, incompetence, and lack of seriousness in his approach to his job.
The 21st century will be a have different world order; and Trump's tenure will have a lot to do with how much diminished America's role in that order will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)