Luke Niles – The LCR

The Trump Doctrine: What Ukraine Says About Trump’s Foreign Policy

One of the biggest stories of 2019…

In the latest episode of The D.C. Apprentice reality show, we unpeeled another layer of the onion that is the Trump Doctrine. Whether it’s Brexit, Afghanistan, Jamal Khashoggi, summits with North Korea, tariffs and trade deals, Putin, and now, Ukraine, we bear witness to a convoluted set of policies without specific details and a heavy emphasis on maximizing publicity and attention. Trump’s foreign policy is based on minimizing or eliminating long-term military engagements, renegotiating agreements that play into his deal-making reputation, and provoking diplomatic altercations that further establish Trump as the Commander-in-Chief of Red State America.

Trump vocally embraces the paleoconservative philosophy championed by Patrick Buchanan, Steve Bannon, Lou Dobbs, and numerous contributors to Fox News and Breitbart News. It embraces traditional social positions and nationalism while strongly opposing trade agreements, immigration, and international organizations. It also has a strong isolationist influence that opposes military interventions. Between the trade wars, ICE raids, border wall funding, immigration and asylum reductions, NATO criticisms, and troop withdrawals in Afghanistan, Trump is reliably committed to Paleoconservative orthodoxies.

Trump’s reputation as a deal-making businessman from his real estate business in New York to his TV show to his book, ‘The Art of the Deal,’ is built on maximizing publicity by making grandiose, must-see-tv gestures that consumes all oxygen from other competitors. Whether it’s the summits with the North Korean dictator, renegotiating NAFTA, and imposing tariffs on trading partners like China, Trump uses each opportunity and/or manufactured diplomatic crisis to further burnish his perceived deal-making reputation.

Perhaps most importantly, Trump’s foreign policy is dependent on cementing his status as the Commander-in-Chief of red-state America. The President has gone all-in on being the war-time commander in the new cold war between red and blue America. Withdrawing from the Paris climate treaty is the perfect example. The trade wars with Mexico and China appeals to the rural working-class voters in Midwest and Southern states who see their manufacturing tradition threatened by globalization. Trump’s coalition swapped out college-educated middle-class voters in suburban counties for working-class voters in rural areas. He relishes any attack from blue-state America because it further establishes his war-time credentials with red-state America. Therefore, the Ukraine news only solidifies his support from his fans. In the mind of his supporters, they are at war, and all is fair in love and war. That might seem drastic, but his supporters love that there is no line he won’t cross to defend them against their enemy. Trump has nearly 3 years of history proving himself to his supporters that he will fight every fight that they believe his predecessors were too weak to engage, and this is no different.

This article was originally published on 27 September 2019.

The Conservative Argument AGAINST Trump’s Border Wall

One of the biggest stories of 2019…

There is no political topic that captures the imagination of today’s voter like Trump’s proposed border wall. This issue encapsulates national security, humanitarian, economic concerns, and it exploits the hyperpolarization of the rank and file members of both political parties. This issue is THE reason for the longest government shutdown in US history, and at the time of this writing, there is no compromise in sight. In this political stalemate, the only way to move the needle is to look deeper into the issue to see what the actual issue is, and if the taken positions are consistent with the fundamental principles of their ideology and party affiliation. As a lifelong Republican with an engineering background, after crunching the numbers and taking into perspective the number of diversions from bedrock conservative ideals, this border wall and the process it includes is the antithesis of sound conservative policy. The proposed wall is not fiscally responsible, infringes on private property rights through eminent domain, and does not significantly improve national security.

Using my professional background, and my background in engineering costs, I identified these significant expenses: 1. Property value of acquired land… 2. Legal fees for obtaining land through eminent domain… 3. Material costs for a 25 ft steel wall… 4. 2 ft foundation… 5. Labor costs… 6. Permitting fees… 7… Installation of service road for construction, maintenance, and transportation of border patrol vehicles and equipment… 8. Engineering fees, and… 9. Miscellaneous fees and expenses. While there are other expenses like water rights for farmers along the Rio Grande River, and potential litigation issues from a treaty with Mexico regarding these water rights, I am keeping my focus on these items because the process time and costs are significant.

Property Values: Most land along the border is private property. I will assume 75% of the land is private property, a cost of $3,000 per acre (value is likely higher, but once land is condemned for seizure, the value drops significantly), and a 150 ft-wide right-of-way to hold the wall, service road, and any other facilities. Roadway right-of-way varies on size of the road. Typically, it is in the 60-80’ range (300+ for interstates and major highways), but since there will be utility and drainage installations in this right-of-way in lieu of additional easements, I am combining it into one. Total Cost = $75 billion. Total Time to Acquire = 12-18 months to notify property owner & 3-10 years to resolve through federal courts.
Legal fees: This is roughly a third of the total property value based on other federal eminent domain cases. Total Cost = $25 billion. Time to Resolve = 3-10 years.
Material Costs for 25 ft steel wall: Trump has signaled he is willing to compromise from concrete to steel. Assuming the wall height is 25 feet and a unit cost of $7/SF, the Total Cost = $2 billion. Time to Build = 125 miles/year or 14 years.
Foundation Costs for a 2 ft foundation: Assuming a foundation height of 2 ft (typical for a structure of this height) and a unit cost of $10/SF, the Total Cost = $170 million.
Labor Costs: Labor costs tend to be 40-60% of total expense when combined with materials. Total Cost = $2 billion.
Permitting Fees: Permitting expenses tend to be 2-3% of total construction costs, depending on location. Permit fees within city limits could be significantly higher because fees are likely based on the total value of the property’s or structure’s value, but for this exercise, we will keep it to materials and labor costs. Total Cost = $100 million.
Service Road Installation: Service roadways will need to be installed to transport contractors and materials to install the wall. These roadways will be used by maintenance crews as well as transportation means for border patrol agents on duty. Typical costs for 2 lane roads is $3 million per mile. Total cost = $5 billion.
Engineering Fees: typical 2.5-3% of total costs, including property acquisitions. Total cost = $3 billion.
Miscellaneous fees: On most engineering cost estimates, there is a 10% contingency item that covers additional engineering fees, change order requests, and any other expenses that are anticipated, but the final cost is not known. Total Cost = $10 billion.

When you include a 10% contingency fee to account for miscellaneous or unforeseen expenses, which is custom in most engineering cost estimates, the total cost for this wall, assuming a best-case scenario, is in the $120-125 billion range with a likely completion date in 2029. Trump’s request for $5.7 billion is a small down payment on a costly construction project.

The most expensive part of this endeavor will be the seizure of privately-owned lands through eminent domain. Will Hurd, a former CIA security officer and Congressman of the district with the longest stretch of border in the country, stated there are approximately 1,000 private property owners with land along the border in Texas alone. These properties have been owned by families for multiple generations that will be forcibly taken from them by the federal government at a rate the government arbitrarily sets against their wishes. Historically, eminent domain, particularly the excessive use of it, has been a galvanizing issue for Conservatives. Taking one’s property against their will, particularly after the 2005 Kelo vs City of New London Supreme Court Case, prompted state legislatures in red states to pass legislation to reign in or outright prohibit the use of eminent domain in all or rare cases. The number of potential court cases that will occur could effectively shut down federal courts in District 5 (Texas), 9 (Arizona and California) and 10 (New Mexico).

The central argument made for the wall is the impact it will have on national security. This structure is supposed to make significant reductions in the number of illegal immigrants in our country. This week, the Center for Migration Studies released a study analyzing the numbers reported by the federal government and found that 62% of illegal immigrants are people who came here legally and overstayed their temporary or student visas. This has been the trend for the past seven years. Most illegal crossings occur at busy checkpoints or ports, not in isolated locations because there are not means of transportation available. Cartels have perfected the art of smuggling through these checkpoints and have made them a focus of their operations. They have also built numerous tunnels under the border that a wall would not impede. This means the people our national security departments are most concerned about will not be impacted by this wall. Creating the illusion of security is not the same as actual security.

This wall requires supporters to embrace a fiscally irresponsible purchase and revoke their bedrock defense of private property rights for a physical structure that has negligible benefit for national security. Wall supporters might have other, some might say sinister, reasons for supporting this issue, but it is not a conservative one.

This article was originally published on 22 January 2019.

Similar Read: The Delicate Art of Compromise

What the 2019 Election Results Say about 2020

Tuesday night’s election results have been spun by every pundit to project onto the 2020 presidential race. When put in context, some of the highlights are relatively meaningless. Matt Bevin’s loss in the KY governor’s race is not an accurate representation of the political dynamics in Kentucky. Bevin has repeatedly appeared on the list of the most unpopular governors in the country. It says something about the strength of the KY GOP to nearly carry an incumbent with a 2:1 unfavorable rating to a near tie with the setting Attorney General who is the son of a popular former governor. It also says something that the GOP swept the rest of the statewide races by landslide margins, including the election of the states first Republican (and African-American) Attorney General. In Mississippi, the Lt Governor defeated a popular 4-term Attorney General. People can quibble about the margins in these races, but the real story is not what happened in Mississippi or Kentucky. The election results that matter occurred in Virginia.

For the first time in nearly 3 decades, Democrats control every statewide office and the state legislature. The political trend in Virginia has benefitted Democrats, but it is a similar trend in other states. George W Bush carried this state by 8 points in both of his elections. Before the 2006 election, the GOP had large majorities in the state legislature, both senate seats, and 2 of the 3 state constitutional offices. The growth of the DC metropolitan area in northern Virginia has fueled the blue resurgence, but the tide in suburban areas is a growing threat to Republican electoral prospects.

In the initial post-mortems of the 2016 elections, the media focused on the rural midwestern counties and communities that flipped from Obama to Trump, but they overlooked the counties and communities that flipped from Romney to Clinton. For all of the blue-collar working-class White voters that broke the Blue Wall of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, there were just as many college-educated middle-class Whites and Latino voters in suburban districts that stayed just beneath the media radar because it did not flip a Romney state to Clinton. While Trump’s margins in working-class states across the Deep South and Midwest were incremental improvements over Romney, he did significantly worse in Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada.

We are witnessing a seismic political reorganization around new issues that shatter the red/blue narrative that has lingered since the 2000 election. Some issues like abortion and guns will not be affected by this shift, but others like immigration, trade, and global relationships/competition will become the new litmus tests. States with a heavy reliance on international commerce and immigrant labor like Texas and Arizona will continue their transition into purple states, while rustbelt states with a skepticism of global influences like Kentucky, Iowa, and West Virginia will continue become more red.

John Edwards spoke of ‘Two Americas,’ and while he was technically right, his analysis for why this exists is not. The ‘Two Americas’ are not necessarily the right vs poor, it is urban/suburban vs rural and old vs young. States with growing senior populations and states that have fallen behind in the technology revolution of the last decade are the real base for Trump’s political party. As the percentage of college grads increases, Trump’s grip on the state decreases. This trend started under Obama, but Trump has accelerated it. It also means Trump’s coalition cannot win a national election, but like 2016, it is possible for his opponent to lose it.

A Center-Right Response to Climate Change

“And I’m like, ‘You try! You do it’,” Ocasio-Cortez exclaimed. “‘Cause you’re not. ‘Cause you’re not. So, until you do it, I’m the boss. How ’bout that?” – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

The Freshman Congresswoman laid down the gauntlet to her critics after vocal bipartisan criticism surfaced. The official details of the proposal have been taken down, so it is possible, if not likely, that the key bullet points have changed. Ignoring the more dubious items like cow flatulence and ending airplane traffic that spawned a litany of viral memes, there are opportunities to make meaningful changes to combat climate change that a broad coalition of voters can get behind. To responsibly address climate change, we must address the economic costs and opportunities for working and middle-class citizens to transition and embrace green alternatives via taxes, free market principles and access, and cost-efficient technologies.

In 2010, President Obama attempted to push a carbon tax bill through Congress. At the time, it faced broad opposition due to new taxes and energy costs consumers/taxpayers would be forced to absorb. The idea, in that form, would be traded and sold as a Wall Street commodity, and not something average Americans would benefit from. Taxing carbon emissions disproportionately affects lower-income constituents because, for the most part, they cannot afford most new technologies. Energy-efficient refrigerators and fuel-efficient hybrids are not realistic purchases for people living paycheck-to-paycheck. To make carbon taxes remotely plausible, there needs to be a revenue-neutral offset for sales and income tax rates so that taxpayers are not out additional income. If the tax burden is not revenue neutral, the burden will be indirectly shouldered by the lowest income bracket. But, if income and other tax rates are offset, and taxpayers can potentially come out ahead by taking the initiative, you create the opportunity for meaningful change of habits that benefit our environment. Using the LEED Certifications from the US Green Building Council, we can propose several tax incentives that most taxpayers can readily qualify for that are both green and fiscally responsible.

First, we should provide meaningful tax breaks for property owners based on the energy efficiency of their buildings. When construction jobs are applying for LEED certification, one of the main focal points is the level of energy efficiency. Creating the incentive for homeowners or landlords to improve the energy efficiency of their property through insulation and other materials lowers energy costs and carbon output. These incentives can also apply to renters living in energy efficient complexes.

Second, we should provide tax breaks on the use of local raw materials and hydrologically efficient vegetation. This cuts down on the transportation costs for shipping materials, and it lowers water bills. The reality is most people want to be environmentally-friendly, but the dedication to this cause is directly related to the additional costs associated with this.

The dirty little secret about most environmental policies is the companies and industries that most environmental activists target are strong supporters of most climate change policies. Corporations like Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical, General Electric, and hundreds more were all sponsors and supporters of the Paris Climate Accord. The biggest misnomer of the entire debate is these corporations are actively opposing these agreements. In most cases, these corporations are equipped for these policy changes, and are more interested in protecting their market share of their industry. This presents an opportunity to remove industrial barriers that prevent startup companies from entering the market place. Our capitalistic system is built on the competition. Removing the barriers of entry into the industries where customers have choices will spur new innovations. There is a market demand for cleaner technologies, and the only way to feed this demand is to remove the bureaucratic red tape that keeps these products from reaching the marketplace.

We live in an era of constant technological breakthroughs: smartphones, drones, video game consoles that function as entertainment hubs. Through universal Wi-fi access and 4G technologies, you can use an app to access, communicate, or purchase anything you want with a simple click of the button. The app’s viability is completely dependent on the convenience and affordability it provides. Leveraging this mentality is the key to making incremental, sustainable progress for combating climate change. Most people, regardless of party affiliation, will choose the greenest alternative if it is cost-competitive. In the last 15 years, we witnessed an explosion of green cost-competitive products, which lead to the average American having a smaller carbon footprint each year. To continue this trend, it is important to free up our markets so that new ideas and new businesses can enter and compete to make the fundamental changes that we need.

This article was originally published on 1 March 2019.

The Language of the Soul: The Power of Sports

As I watched the kickoff to another college football season, and the ESPN special commemorating 150 years of college football, it occurred to me just how unique and special sports is to our culture and to people in general. While I admit I am diehard football fan who will start my Saturdays at 8 am (CT) with College GameDay and conclude it with the ‘Pac 12 After Dark’ game that ends around 1 am, my experience is not unique in communities and states where college football is king. In places like Alabama and Arkansas, college football is king. For places like New York, St Louis, Chicago, and states in the Northeast, that would be baseball. Regardless of what sports is king in your community, that sport possesses a power that nothing else (or no else) will ever have: the power to transcend and unite their community of fans.

In an era of extreme polarization, never-ending political boycotts, and practices of cultural & demographic contempt, it is exceeding rare to find instances where two people from opposite sides of every hot-button issue dividing their community and the country. Movies, TV sitcoms, political talk shows, and music have become increasingly tangled with tribalistic practices of the day. As media producers and content creators focus their marketing efforts on segments of the population or niche audiences and not the general population, the chance of a pop culture phenomenon that people from different warring tribes will agree to a rhetorical cease-fire has become non-existent. The one remaining opportunity that remains is something that has been part of the cultural antidote to our social ills for over a century: sports.

During the Great Depression, a baseball player sold to the New York Yankees, Babe Ruth, became a household name and inspiration to millions of people in desperate economic and emotional situations. His ballgames served as a momentary distraction for his fans in a way that nothing else was able to. Fast forward 70 years and you will hear two people: Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann, who loathe each other and aggressively disagree on every issue of the day, tell the same story during the last World Series the Yankees were in, giving each other giant bearhugs in celebration after their Yankees won the World Series. Two men who despise each other and would be glad to use every profanity under the sun had a moment where none of those differences mattered.

There are moments in sports that its significance exceeds the normal relevancy of the event. Whether it’s Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in 1947, to Texas Western University winning the NCAA basketball championship in 1966 against in all-white Kentucky team, to Tiger Woods winning the 1997 Masters. These events had a foundational impact on Civil Rights and race relations in general, and they all occurred through the prism of sports. Everyone who was alive when one of these moments occurred knows where they were, and what they were doing when it took place.

These moments go to something much deeper. Sports has the unique ability to speak our community’s soul in a way that transcends our differences. When your team kicks the game-winning field goal, makes the game-winning three, or hit the game-winning home run with you sitting in the stands, do you care what color, gender, sexual orientation, or partisan affiliation of the fan behind you? You’re high-fiving everyone around you while experiencing a level of bonding euphoria that you will remember for the rest of your life.

Sports can serve as inspiration during times of local or national hardship or tragedy. Whether it’s 2001 World Series weeks after 9/11, the resurgence of the Saints post-Hurricane Katrina, or the US Olympic hockey team at the 1980 Winter Olympics. These memories touched their fan’s souls at a time they need it. For me, that moment was at the A&M-Texas football game in 1999. Known as ‘the Bonfire Game’ for the 12 A&M students who died during the collapse of the bonfire stack during construction, it devastated the university. In a game where that structure was supposed to be set ablaze as a symbol of the burning desire to beat Texas, The Longhorn band played Amazing Grace as a tribute to the fallen students. For eighty-six thousand people in attendance, there was not a single dry eye in the stadium. For that day, and the remainder of the season, a team I had loathed and despised my whole life was no longer my mortal enemy, but my grieving brother. Speeches are nice, fundraisers can help meet the immediate needs of the people in need, but those transcending moments happen in ballgames.

As we look forward to another football season and the pennant races in baseball, we should remember and cherish the opportunities in front of us. At a time when it seems everything is viewed through the prism of being supportive or hostile to President Trump and/or his supporters/critics, we need to embrace the moments where our differences do not matter. These moments, no matter how fleeting, are where bridges can be built, and conversations can begin. I am not saying that it will solve the issues confronting us, but you can’t have a dialogue with anyone if you don’t have a line of communication, and there is no line of communication with better signal than sports.

My Fellow Republicans, We Need to (Finally) Have This Talk

Dear Fellow Republicans,

This is not something I want to do. I’ve hinted about this for years, but my pleas have fallen on deaf ears. This is not something pleasant to discuss, but it is long overdue. I am not doing this because I feel pressure to please ‘the other side’, it is because my faith has convicted me to speak out, and when you feel the Holy Spirit leading you, this message will reach the people it needs to reach.

For too long, we have allowed a darkness to linger in our party. During the early Bush (43) years, we ignored it. In fact, most of our party leaders tacitly confronted it. Fueled by a growing evangelical movement that was less partisan and more racially diverse, there was a movement in the Republican Party to build upon the gains made in previous elections with minority communities, especially the Latino community. George W Bush rode this momentum to two terms by capturing Hispanic-heavy states like Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Florida, and Nevada. Then something changed, and it opened the door to something that spread like wildfire and has a chokehold on us at this hour.

It started with several protests that lead to the defeat of Bush’s comprehensive immigration reform. Anxiety about border security was stoked daily by national talk radio hosts and personalities like Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. A so-called conservative uprising, fueled by resentment to millions of people who were here illegally, seized control of the party and set the table for something far, far worse. Opportunistic political candidates leaped at the chance to further stoke this anger for electoral success.

Dan Patrick was a provocative state Senator from the Houston area. He owned a talk radio station, and he had a talk show on the channel. Perhaps the most infamous event his show is remembered for is getting a vasectomy on his live show. In 2014, he challenged the sitting Lieutenant Governor, David Dewhurst, and two other statewide elected officials in the GOP primary. His candidacy, fueled by Tea Party-affiliated groups like Empower Texas, was built upon one slogan, “Stop the Invasion!” He ran ads of people with darker skin climbing over a fence to further stoke the smoldering embers, and by the time the TXGOP convention came around, he was received like a rock star, completely overshadowing every other speaker.

One year later, another media personality with his own show used the same template and rode it to the GOP nomination and the White House. He took the foundation that Dan Patrick and others had laid and built a national campaign that convinced rural people in midwestern states that illegal immigrants were crossing the border to rape and destroy our country. Now, most Americans believe we need competent border security. In the post-9/11 world, our national security is not negotiable. This does not mean we need to scapegoat groups of people.

Originally, the consensus argument was, “We support legal immigration, not illegal immigration.” Never mind the intermixing of the terms ‘illegal immigration’ with ‘immigration’, this was the party line used to deflect claims of xenophobia or racism. Then over time, there was a backlash against legal immigration as well. When deciding on what kinds of immigrants we should prioritize (skilled, unskilled, college-educated, etc.), the same people oppose any changes or increases because immigrants would drive down wages. Basically, we are ok with people coming here legally, but we are going to put up every roadblock to prevent you from coming here. Last October, the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) released a survey that measured American attitudes towards immigration. Some of their findings are startling, though not surprising. They found that “74 percent of Republicans think immigrants are a burden, while only 35 percent of Democrats do.” The generational divide on this point is also significant, with 62 percent of seniors believing immigrants are a burden, but only 32 percent of young Americans. As the Republican party sheds young professionals and college-educated voters to market to older White working-class voters, these attitudes are solidified in the party’s structure.

In the last 15 years, I’ve had a front-row seat watching the progression (or regression) of the party from a suburban, middle-class party with an interest in Hispanic voters to an older rural, working-class party who openly questions if the person speaking Spanish at the booth in the coffee shop in town is here legally. The reality is the racial and xenophobic anxieties were always there. Party leaders like the Bush family, John McCain, and many others did a good job at diffusing these impulses, or at worse, muzzling them. With the rising influence of social media, these anxieties have been fed by talk show hosts like Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and Lou Dobbs. When you combine it with daily Twitter diatribes from the President, you have a nearly unbreakable support system.

Now I realize that many of you have stopped reading out of anger, and some have created new profanities, and most believe I am a gutless RINO sellout. I also owe you an apology. When I saw these cancerous symptoms a decade ago, I did not actively confront it. I would mention it bothered me on a Facebook post, but at political events, I normally walked away instead of pushing back. I let my political ambitions trump what I knew was wrong. I would defend the party against outsider attacks because while my team has its faults, it is still MY TEAM. I knew one day this intervention would have to happen, and the tragedy that took place at the Walmart in El Paso was the final straw.

The terrorist responsible is a 21-year-old man from a middle-class Dallas-Fort Worth suburb that is best known for having the most expensive high school football stadium in the country, and it is the home of Kyler Murray, the 1st pick in the NFL Draft this year. This person drove 600 miles to a majority-Hispanic city because he wanted to ‘Stop the Invasion’. From what has been discovered from his social media activity, he was inspired by the terrorist that executed 9 people at the church in South Carolina, and he was a passionate believer in the anti-immigration rhetoric used by our president. No, I do not believe the President is liable for the shooting, but it needs to be a wakeup call. A mentally disturbed racist using identical language of one of the most powerful political figures in the state, killed fellow Americans because he was blinded by hateful rhetoric that is used interchangeably by many political activists and elected officials.

In the youth group room at my childhood church, there are walls painted by students as an expression of what it means to be a Christian. On the wall behind where my youth pastor would preach is a school of fish pointing one direction, with one fish facing the other way. Sometimes, you must buck peer pressure because your peers want you to go along with something you know is wrong. Right now, this could be that moment, and I accept that.

I will leave you with this. Ask yourself this one question. Is an illegal immigrant a human being? I am not asking what you think needs to be done to solve this complex issue. This is a simple yes or no question. If you asked this question on your social media account, will your friends and allies be able to answer this simple, basic question? If your answer is ‘yes, but…’ or anything other than a simple ‘yes’, you have successfully dehumanized a group of people. If you call yourself a person of faith and fail this simple test, you need to ask yourself what idol you are actually worshipping. The world and this country needs a vibrant, healthy Republican Party. We cannot treat or ignore the symptoms any longer. We must treat the disease instead. I am under no illusion that the treatment will be tough, and the immediate side effects will not be pleasant, but we can choose to take our medicine and start the recovery or let the disease kill us. The choice is yours.

Your loyal friend,

Luke

Luke’s Consciousness from Night 2 of the Debates

My thoughts…

Biden vs Harris is good TV. Kamala Harris is trying to get Warren supporters with her single-payer plan, but now allowing private plans after taking some heat. The one person who is clear on this issue is Bernie Sanders, and he embraces every criticism for single-payer, including raising taxes. Warren and Harris are not comfortable getting into the criticisms.

The similarities between Harris and Ted Cruz’s campaign from 4 years ago can’t be understated. She is very sharp and very tight to the base, which will turn out in caucuses. Harris has one mission tonight, and she telegraphed it loud and clear – tear down Biden.

Gillibrand’s answer on healthcare feels forced. Taking the same position as Bernie or Warren is a lost cause because people who care about this will choose Bernie or Warren instead.

Mayor De Blasio enjoys listening to himself talk. He just teed it up for Biden on healthcare when Harris had landed a number of haymakers.

Just like the previous night, the divide between red or purple state candidates versus blue state candidates when it comes to decriminalizing illegal border crossings made it clear that some of them do not know the difference between illegal crossings and seeking asylum.

Castro is extremely opportunistic on illegal immigration and it is also the only issue he feels comfortable on the offensive.

Cory Booker is trying to be the unifier. This is not an electorate that wants unity.

Joe Biden is being framed as hostile to immigrants. I don’t think it will cause lasting damage because his base is more interested in general election dynamics than primary-based issues. Biden’s biggest threat is after the field winnows down to 3 or 4 candidates. If Bullock, Delaney, Hickenlooper, or one of the moderate wing candidates catches fire, he will be in trouble.

Booker vs Biden on criminal justice reform is fascinating. Booker is wisely milking the attention. This is how candidates raise their profile. We will see copycat attempts by the rest of the field to duplicate it.

My wife brought up a great point, every single time a candidate attacks Trump, 1) he gets more TV time to speak to voters, and 2) it reinforces that he is the unquestioned frontrunner.

Biden is campaigning to be Obama’s 3rd term. He is betting Obama could win another primary.

Tulsi Gabbard will not receive a Christmas card from the Harris family this year.

Candidates need to STOP USING ANECDOTAL STORIES EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. I get it, you spoke to a stranger before.

There was a better discussion on climate change on Night 1. Considering it is Inslee’s pet issue, I expected a better dialogue tonight.

If candidates were serious about addressing lead levels in water in places like Flint, the profession that needs to be brought in are civil engineers, not politicians.

I am surprised to not see anyone at least push for additional tariffs in a state like Michigan.

Biden will face questions over TPP if he is a candidate. The base opposes it, and Trump does as well.

Biden faced accusations of racism in the first debate and sexism in the second debate. It raises the question if his critics will fully unite behind him if he is the nominee.

Biden is the only person on stage to be around for the 2002 Iraq vote and voted for it. Will that come back to haunt him if it comes down to him and Bernie?

Calling for impeachment hearings during campaign season is pandering. If impeachment hearings are going on next year, it will be political theatre that Trump feasts upon.

This debate crystalizes the intra-party civil war. Biden is the traditional Democratic Party, running against Warren, Sanders, Booker, and Harris who represents the new Democratic Party. I don’t think Biden wins if the race is reduced to a 1 on 1 race after New Hampshire. He is a near-lock if 3 or 4 of the others stay in the race on Super Tuesday.

Luke’s Consciousness from Night 1 of the Debates

My thoughts…

Instead of 2 nights of 10 candidates, they should move to 4 nights of 5 candidates. Too many candidates on one stage muddles the message and it feels more like a spelling bee or an 80s dating show. People committed to watching two nights will watch four.

Single-payer is the dividing line for the party and candidates. Removing the option for private policies is the sticking point.

Elizabeth Warren does not want to be labeled as raising taxes on the middle-class by supporting Medicare for All, even though the sponsor, Bernie Sanders, says it will require an increase in taxes.

Kudos to Jake Tapper for making each candidate answer about raising middle-class taxes.

Beto is trying the Goldilocks approach, but it appears he is provoking both sides instead of uniting them.

Bernie has the healthcare debate cornered in this debate. He will say what others won’t and it shows he is the most comfortable saying it.

Delaney has the policy that is most likely to get through both Houses of Congress, but he is likely to become the Dems John Kasich – possible crossover support, but will not find a receptive audience in a segmented primary.

The red-state/blue-state Dems divide when it comes to public health care for illegal immigrants. Red-state Dems have had to appeal to Trump-leaning voters, and they view Trump’s landmines very differently.

Steve Bullock is extremely uncomfortable answering questions about gun violence. Red-state Dems do NOT want to answer questions about guns and are hiding behind changing issues.

Based on the answers provided on climate change, immigration, and health care, President Obama is a borderline blue dog Democrat.

These candidates throw out the term ‘trillions’ like Oprah with new cars.

Tim Ryan, Bullock, Hickenlooper, and Delaney are running for the Hillary 2008 voters, who turned to Trump. Bernie, Warren, Buttigieg, and Beto are running for the Obama 2008 voters. It’s Midwest blue-collar working-class union voters versus coastal cosmopolitan upscale liberals.

Buttigieg is what Beto was supposed to be. Beto had the perfect foil in Ted Cruz, he doesn’t have that luxury in a large primary.

Watching an entirely White stage debate reparations was interesting because most of the candidates were not comfortable discussing it.

Delaney embraced TPP! I never expected to see a presidential candidate do that, especially since Trump opposes it too. Delaney has fully embraced the DLC mantle, but that group has not been relevant for more than a decade. He has potential to get Never-Trump former Republicans.

It will be interesting to see how effective Warren, Sanders, and Biden will be able to combat the potential issue of ageism.

Warren and Sanders elevated themselves from the rest of the stage when it comes to seizing the progressive mantle. They need to face Biden in the next debate. Delaney has unabashedly seized the moderate mantle. It will get him new donors, but being the moderate candidate has too low of a ceiling to win. Klobuchar reminds me of another former MN presidential candidate, Tim Pawlenty. Solid resume, but in a giant field, she won’t have the dedicated support to make a dent. Beto won’t make it to the Iowa caucus. Buttigieg is a wildcard. He has potential, but he doesn’t have the stage presence Warren or Sanders command.

Professional Fandom: Donald Trump, Robert Mueller, Sports, and Pop Culture

Last Friday, the most anticipated political moment of the Trump Presidency occurred: The Mueller Report was completed and submitted to the Justice Department. Within minutes of the breaking news, every cable news channel, political blog, and Facebook newsfeed was flooded with a flurry of opinions without any new details. While it is a perfect example of the hyper-polarization of today’s political climate, it is also a microcosm of a much deeper trend that transcends politics. Like our interest levels in sports, music, and entertainment in general, our passion is no longer rational and under control. Due to the global reach of social media with immediate access to anything that strokes our most passionate interests, it is no longer acceptable to be a casual fan. You are required to devote a level of obsession that previously was considered psychotic.

Through social media and advancements in technology, fans of any form of entertainment have access to stoke their curiosity level from casual to knowledgeable to obsessive. There are Facebook groups, hashtags, fan pages, message boards, YouTube channels, smart apps, etc., dedicated to every cinematic or musical genre, sport, team, political candidate, and political or current event. If you are a fan of your college team, there are multiple message boards that provide in-depth analysis, recruiting updates, and behind-the-scenes stories regarding potential coaching challenges that keep you informed before any of it hits the mainstream news. If you are a fan of the WWE, you have an on-demand network that has every match, pay-per-view, or show. If you are a big video gamer, you can play every game online with people across the globe on every gaming console (Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, PC) that matches your skill level and personal tastes. Simply put, if you have more than a surface-level interest in something, you will be exposed to enough material to progress that interest from ‘Intrigued’ to ‘Passionate’.

Like our entertainment options, the same options are available for our political tastes. Whether it’s the cable news channels that unabashedly market to a specific political affiliation, Facebook groups and fan pages devoted to individual candidates or causes, or the pre-determined newsfeed of our Facebook page from the people we associate with, it is nearly impossible for someone with an interest in politics to not make the emotional leap from a responsible voter to outspoken advocate. As one’s interest grows, the pressure from fellow believers is to only communicate and associate with likeminded views while censuring out anything that challenges or competes with that unassailable principle. One’s community is no longer your next-door neighbours or co-workers; it’s the hundreds of people we communicate with daily across the world. In many cases, these ‘friends’ are people we have never met and will never meet in person.

As our created communities become more politically homogeneous, our tolerance for divergent views weakens. If this were a football game, we became ‘That’ fan with our face and chest painted in team colors standing in sub-freezing temperatures heckling every opposing player or fan present. No one questions our fandom, but opposing fans and even some mutual fans, will dodge us to avoid making a scene or listen to a guilt trip for being a ‘Fairweather fan’. As voters transform from the family taking their kids to their first ballgame to ‘That’ fan, the political candidates who best play to ‘That’ fan are the ones that rise to the top. Donald Trump is NOT the cause of this dynamic, he is the byproduct of it.

President Trump is the perfect byproduct of this phenomena. For the most part, no one is a casual fan or critic of him. He uses this dynamic to provoke the (predictable) reactions from his audience. If this was a neutral stadium, he’s provoking the liquored-up super fans from both teams to go at in the stands. In a vacuum, we generally find this behavior disgusting, but the reality is we all had a hand in this. The reality is we are all guilty of being ‘That’ fan (I am guilty when it comes to A&M football, Spurs basketball, and the WWE). For some of us, it’s politics. For others, it’s a sports franchise, musical artist, or gaming community. Having passion for something is a GREAT thing, but if our passion controls our behavior and character it will continue to poison the well for future generations.

Similar Read: A Center-Right Response to Climate Change