2016 Is About To Happen Again

by with 2 Comments FeaturedPolitics

I heard over and over from highly educated, liberal professionals after the 2016 election that some mistake had happened. “The election was stolen.”  The electoral college had somehow disrupted our normal process (spoiler: it wasn’t any different)…  “The Trump campaign enlisted Russian government support.” And then afterward we all needed to read Hillbilly Elegy to understand how to kindly condescend to the plight of the misinformed blue-collar rust belt that had erred and turned away from Democrats and sided with President Trump. At the time I was moving back and forth between NYC colleagues who’d secured a seat at Hillary’s victory party in Manhattan and neighbors in new England who’d sold their home early to facilitate their quick nomination through the Senate to take their new place in the administration “with her.” They sat down on election night ready to watch the show, and they were shocked at the show they saw. They never saw it coming.  And it’s happening again… and again they don’t see it coming.

I think they saw a glimmer of it before the COVID-19 crisis locked them all in their homes? But since then, the tone has changed. They’re locked in their homes reading their favorite websites and the articles their phone algorithms say they’ll like- and all of those sources tell them that Donald Trump’s performance through COVID-19… all the polls being conducted… point to a president losing ground heading into election season.

Many in this group don’t understand the monster they’ve created in their media bubble. In 1980 (the year CNN was founded) there were 3 news networks. To be viable, network news needed both liberals and conservatives, and the news was 30 minutes 3 times a day stuck between Brady Bunch reruns and The Jeffersons. You couldn’t serve people what they wanted with the context they wanted- so you gave them straight, complete facts with a straight face and let them apply their own context.  Now media is fragmented to where a 3% market share is huge, and straight shooting is dead. Even the best journalists quit trying to challenge us. They serve us what we want by arranging and selecting facts and applying context to make stories what we wish to see in them, and our tech knows what media will excite us.  Most of what’s “mainstream media” is the slice that serves the prime consumer: 25-40 years old, professional, urban, liberal-leaning, with substantial discretionary income. So now if you’re an educated professional, working for a large company in a white-collar job… these days you log in from home, work on zoom, order from Amazon. It’s annoying, but life is working. And if you look at the media that targets you, the biggest problem out there right now are those that want to reopen too quickly.

If you’re a small business owner, a self-employed tradesman, a wage earner or any sort of gig worker (ie the people Biden needs to win back from the president to win this time), three months of this has been hell. If you had savings, it’s gone. You can’t work, your children are home with you complicating work even more. Stress is elevated; money is scarce, and even if the $600 a month in federal assistance works for now, the uncertainty of what’s to come is crushing. Even as the signs are there, the articles pushed back to the mainstream consumer talk about elevated levels in “black and brown communities” that need “understanding and voice.” That’s true – but what those also are are the communities of people that still need to head out in the world every day to work. They are still getting sick because they’re still out there, and having been out in it since the start, they’re not nearly as scared of the virus as they are of losing their livelihood. Further, having not been scared by the world they continue to toil in all day, they continue to visit their friends and family more, and quietly dismiss you when you try to shame them. They’re over it. And they’re turning on Democrats again, and on the rare occasions when they speak up, they’re again facing condescension (here’s looking at you, Governor Whitmer). Those aren’t all MAGAs out there; it’s also your blue-collar swings.

Also, polls now aren’t really polls. For years, exit polls have needed rebasing because Republicans are less likely to respond – a fact that was exacerbated in the 2016 election when Trump voters began to feel that announcing loudly that you expect to vote for Donald Trump could cause indignation from someone around them and began to not state (or misstate) their intentions. With tensions running high in 2016 the weight-adjusted polls turned out to be not weight adjusted enough. Tensions are higher now. Also, currently most polls being completed are online polls by your favorite news sources. You can’t walk down the street, get in someone’s space and get a good poll sample in-person anymore. With online being the only way that works, it turns out (as an example), that most people that respond to a Huffington Post poll are still voting for Biden (although less than you might expect).

And once again, there’s a candidate who isn’t exactly rising to the occasion.  Biden has emerged twice since being named the presumed party nominee- once for a late and horribly jumbled explanation of Tara Reade’s accusations, and another botched interview with Charlamagne Tha God – both of which were designed and curated by campaign aides to be well-choreographed softballs and neither of which won him a voter he hadn’t had already. Conversely, if either interview had any effect at all, it decreased voter excitement which (according to Charlamagne Tha God himself) is likely to depress voter roles. Trump raised $212MM this quarter – a clip he’s been maintaining steadily since he started his re-election fund the day of his swearing in.  Biden raised only $60MM in hard money in April – despite his new status as the Democrats’ ordained winner. The president has a motivated base, is organized, and has a turnout plan that was tested in dry runs during the early primaries (and generated unprecedented primary turnouts for an incumbent presidential primary). Sitting in his basement without a formal role in the government, Biden needs to create viral moments that will excite women, minorities and wage earners, and so far his performance seems likely to depress turnouts for all three.

And it’s happening again. This time… just don’t be so surprised.

Similar Read: Mainstream Media or “Fake News”?

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

by with 5 Comments FeaturedGlobalPolitics

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.

What the 2019 Election Results Say about 2020

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

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. 

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

A Center-Right Response to Climate Change

by with 4 Comments FeaturedPolitics

“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.

Similar Read: Human Extinction (Brought to You by Capitalism)

Luke’s Consciousness from Night 1 of the Debates

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

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. 

Similar Read: Luke’s Consciousness From Night 2 of the Debates

I’m Tired of “Wokeness”

by with One Comment CultureFeaturedGen Z

Wokeness. You’ve heard of this term. If you are a member of the Black community, you most likely have come across this term through everyday vernacular and if you are a student of color in college, this word has been thrown around in almost any conversation regarding equality rights and progress for underrepresented individuals in depreciated communities. Wokeness is a mental state coined by people of color declaring knowledge upon the current marginalization of Blacks, women, Latinx, LGBT+, poor, and working-class groups. What may have started out as genuinely powerful philosophy has transformed into a popular term. One that has enforced a mentality that progress is only through performative wokeness rather than different intellectual, conversational, and communal spheres.

I’m tired of “wokeness”. Because those who have used it have used it solely to advance their own purposes. We regurgitate the same information. We select individuals and praise them to push their agenda of “wokeness” that services individualistic people in the group. In the Black community specifically, social justice warriors tend to service straight BLack men the most. Their prerogatives seek to validate and confirm old information. Although this information is important and should be supported. Communities of color specifically Black communities have evolved into popularism and elitism online. Social Justice Warriors are influenced by who follows them as well as their audience. Black culture sells. And social movements are sometimes the sole proprietors of mass profit. If not “woke” individuals are benefitting from social enterprise, they benefit from popularism.

We thrive off popularism – especially within the college atmosphere. Where social media likes, retweets, and reblogs dictate and reinforce our success and popularity. As fluid and beneficial social media pages can be i.e. sparking movements like Black Lives Matter, pushing for clemency against wrongly indicted women, and exposing sexual offenders for the world to see, online popularity and social media effects are detracting from real-life conversations, progress and success that would be exhibited in college culture today, all masked in the ideology of wokeness.

However, wokeness has been tested time and time again in the real infringement and harm of certain populations. When media influencers that we love say something against the most popular rhetoric, when we disagree within a marginalized community there is an urge to cast out these people and continue a paradigm of “wokeness”. It’s a hierarchal approach that detracts and limits our conversations on how to fix certain aspects within Black communities. It makes popularism and what is most agreed upon the agenda of engagement instead of encouraging difficult conversations within educational institutions. I am not advocating for limiting knowledge on the difficulties that minority and certain populations go through. Instead, I am advocating for the humanization of these groups. That they are victims of systemic oppressions but also that they can be limiting to their approach of engaging different dialogue across lines. And until we eliminate performative wokeness, we cannot grow our community affairs, detracting from our philosophy of growth and progress.