Trumpilosis

I’ve said it before, even on this blog (you may have said it as well): I am sick of Trump. Such a statement may appear straight forward on the surface, but in looking deeper I wonder if perhaps this illness is the waxing side of a healing process.

If you’re like me, you’re sick of Trump not because of the man he is. Sure, I have become more incredulous weekly, even while believing each week that I couldn’t become more so. I am amazed how a man so blatantly unbalanced, so clinically narcissistic, and so unashamedly crude, could rise to the threshold he is currently at. 

Therein lies concern, perhaps even fear, but both have less to do with the mental queasiness that sweeps over me nearly each time I pick up a newspaper, magazine, or turn on my computer or TV. The man evokes responses of laughter to anger and all in between, but it’s his incessant presence that now induces nausea.

Think about the process you or I go through when we catch a viral infection.  It starts with a questioning awareness. Hmm…what is that feeling in my throat? It’s then followed with a struggling denial; it’s probably something I swallowed that scratched…please, please.  We’re then faced with acceptance, but cling to the hope that what we’re about to experience will be fleeting and non-consequential.  If it ends up bad, as it usually does, the whole event will occupy the biggest portion of our conscious awareness for days.

Now take that nasty cold (which everyone can relate to) and stretch it out proportionally over 16 months (June 16, 2015 to November 8, 2016) and you have what this Nation is experiencing with Donald Trump.

The first months of his run for office were filled with disregard, the only annoying little questions that popped up related to the extent of his following; a minor protest vote…perhaps… or just disgruntled talk radio yahoos? As the weeks passed it appeared he wasn’t a joke, even as he acted like a clown. Still, pundits and experts alike, especially Republicans, denied his candidacy was real, even as they speculated on the absurd outcome of his success.  It was notable that speculation was entirely on his possible success for the nomination, not his Presidency.

 Now we’re in full blown, snot-filled, gut-wrenching immersion of Trump and it’s everywhere. The rest of the news or even provincial conversation has become a backdrop to the subject of Trump.  If I tune to a TV or radio news station, or other talk entertainment I’ve begun to count the seconds before I hear the word Trump. It’s like waiting for your next cough. Watching Peppa Pig with my 3 year old granddaughter is like getting a little shot of nasal spray.

Trump, like a visit from an unwelcome disease, came in through the backdoor, fattened himself up a bit in the kitchen, and now he’s sprawled all over the living room. Even if we’re confident he’s eventually leaving, we would feel so much better if he was gone today.

I and others who share thoughts have contemplated the hole that will be left in a world without Trump. What will it be like when at the end of the day my son-in-law no longer says “…so let’s see what that idiot Trump has done today”? Will there be a collective sense of emptiness?

I am pleased to hypothesize that the analogy will hold true.

There are few non-event experiences we have in life that are more agreeable, in fact pleasurable, than the realization that we are no longer sick, even if our noses are still running a bit. The weather becomes unimportant, we focus on what’s good in people, and we feel empowered. When all is said and done, we simply have less fear.

I’m encouraged to believe that Donald Trump may be a most fortunate circumstance for Hillary Clinton. Not just in making her electability uncomplicated, but primarily in making her Presidency begin on such a positive note, much better than the so-called honeymoon periods afforded other Presidents.

When the nation realizes that the disease we might know as Trumpilosis no longer runs through our collective veins, when we can see the petty nature and misinformation that forms the basis for Hillary Clinton's detractors, when the Republican Party has purged much of the extreme right-wing from its Conservative viscera, when Obama can no longer be used as an emblematic excuse to block the work of Government, it very well may become a new healing for the Nation.

Democrat equality in Congress wouldn’t hurt either.

I believe that even though Hillary Clinton is not a naturally dynamic and competitive campaigner, it's because she is smart, because she is impassioned, because she's experienced, because she is connected, and because she is a woman that she has the potential of ushering in an era of good health. The likes of Trump will be forgotten as quickly as the Nyquil squirreled away in the medicine chest.

Hillary Revealed

Bill Clinton, the youngest President to retire from office since Theodore Roosevelt 90 years earlier, was prepared to engage the flip side of his life once he left Office, but not in politics. 

It is reasonable, though, to assume that Hillary had planned, at some level, a career in politics, and no wonder. Starting life in equal footing with her spouse, by all accounts with more cerebral firepower, then spending the next 21 years as a virtual lady-in-waiting, she was likely primed to realize in her own life the gender equality she had advocated for decades.

For Bill in the late 90s, he wanted to construct a vehicle that delivered tangible value, where the application of his time produced visible results as opposed to the blurred outcomes of government administration. The past 16 years have demonstrated the fact of the choice he made. If it had been to paint really bad pictures, I’m sure we would have seen those instead.

He chose to create a charitable organization that would provide assistance and relieve suffering for people whose needs were dire and whose distress transcended nationality.  Why he or anyone in a similar position decides to build a mechanism to help human beings for whom they have no responsibility doesn’t merit analysis.

In the last days of his Presidency Bill Clinton was asked in a formal interview why he allowed himself to do something so foolish and reckless as his backroom sexual encounters with Monica Lewinski.  He insightfully replied “…for the worst reason in the world, because I could.”  Safe to say, he chose to build the Clinton Foundation for the best reason in the world, because he could.  So goes the paradox of opportunity.

Some might admire the all too common televangelist who extracts, through guilt and fear, small dollars from the faithful of limited means. They then compile the dollars to create great edifices for their “church” and for themselves personally. I’m not one of them. 

I prefer to see the wealthy touched for big dollars to provide direct aid, with no one else benefited disproportionately.  It’s limited welfare and may provide more inspiration than solution, but without someone to instill the transfer it doesn’t happen.  Unlike the great philanthropists of our time (Bill Gates e.g.), Clinton managed it with simple influence.  The modest quid pro quos donors received (there are always quid pro quos, even if it’s just recognition) should hardly be a controversy, let alone a scandal.

Hillary Clinton has had minimal involvement with the Clinton Foundations, given the attention she paid to her political career.  She was not as a Tammy Faye to a Jim Bakker.  Even if there was some interaction between her as Senator or Secretary and the Foundations run by Bill Clinton, it doesn’t merit the outrage that Republicans have leveled or which the media has given deference to.

Show me how Hillary benefited personally from the Foundations, other than pride. Don’t hand me the bullshit about speaking fees. They would have made those regardless.  In a nation where LeBron James receives $100 million for shooting basketballs for 3 years or Carly Fiorina receives $100 million for driving a company into the dirt over a 5 year period (at least LeBron sinks his baskets), I’ve become numbed by outrageous earnings, and the Clintons are hardly standouts.

The fact that Republicans have decided to use the Clinton Foundation to play into the narrative that Hillary Clinton is dishonest, is a testimony to their own failed narrative of which Trump is the personification.

I will concede that if the only thing the Clinton Foundations did was to airdrop billions of bibles (in the appropriate translations) over desperate populations then there would be no useful controversy for the Republicans, even if the Clintons owned the companies that printed the books. However, the real story has nothing to do with the Clinton Foundations, since the work done by those foundations carries no weight for those who are quick to condemn the Clintons.

The real story has to with the unrevealed secret why Hillary is so inherently dishonest, why Conservatives across the country know she is not to be trusted, why Trump can pose (thumbs up) with a fan whose t-shirt reads “Hillary for Prison in 2016”, why anything she is or was involved in stinks of corruption, why her words by definition are suspicious, and why the only appropriate path for her is to “lock her up”…probably Guantanamo.

There is a reason that Republicans and the media treat this conniving, manipulative, and lying personality as an natural state of being for Hillary Clinton which I am going to reveal to you here:

Hillary Clinton is…a woman.

If Hillary Clinton were a man there is nothing I can think of; Benghazi, email, computer servers, and certainly not a successful charitable foundation that could have been used as distrustful, let alone as prison quality activities.

Trump has lied at levels never imagined possible among public figures, political or otherwise.  Just ask the thousands of New Jerseyites who celebrated 9/11. Politifact has him lying over being honest by a margin of 2 to 1, look it up! Yet we never hear him described as inherently dishonest, rather he is described as a man who is acting that way. The difference is that a man can change, but the woman cannot.

Women are burdened with the reality that for the Conservative mind, as with racial bias, if a woman strays from traditional female paths they can easily succumb to the stereotypical attributes of being something less than honorable.  Perfectly nice Conservatives I know, including women, will say to me “I know Trump is crazy, but I could never vote for that woman”. There is a reason why they say “woman” instead of person or her name.

How Americans react to Hillary’s candidacy as she runs against a dangerous nutcase, when her truthfulness is woefully attacked, will reveal just how far we’ve come in dealing with gender equality…or not.

Ecolems

Occasionally I feel I retained only one thing from my undergraduate degree in Economics, although it would bear me a valuable understanding over the years. Simply put it is this: Economics is not an exact science, it is a social science.

Despite what you might hear or infer from intellectuals, politicians, teachers or economists who present numbers, formulas and endless analysis about cause and effect (with abundant certitudes), it’s really just about human behavior, with all the mystification you might assign to your crazy uncle at the Thanksgiving dinner table.

In that sense applied Economics as a discipline struggles with predictability... and predictability is the key to economic success or the lack of it its failure.  What could be less conducive to predictability than fear driven human behavior.

Two examples: I have a truly lovely friend who bristles at hearing the word welfare, let alone discussing it, because she is so certain of its negativity.  Or dropped onto any city street or town square and it would take me only seconds to find a person who knows that taxes are bad, by definition!

 These folks find themselves in a bubble of shared identity with others of like mind who vacillate wildly due to misunderstanding or lack of education. They are ripe pickings for pundits and/or preachers who, to promote their own self interest, insulate them from diverse views.

I’ll call these good folks Economic Lemmings or, say…Ecolems.

The bubbles that exist in the American culture today, which house our Ecolems, have never been so distinct.  One can speculate on historical comparisons, but due to technology, the nature of communication today has no precedent.  People have always lived in bubbles of a sort, but never have the bubbles been so big.

Economic certitudes are often combined with regional identity, religious affiliations, or provincial history.  All of a sudden, notably since the turn of this new century, Republicans and Democrats have become Red America and Blue America. This must feel similar to the not-so United States in the 1850s.

To use the immortal words of Donald Trump; what the hell is going on? Donald, you know exactly what’s going on, as your followers are comprised entirely of Ecolems.

Let’s look at the two economic issues mentioned above and see how the Ecolems respond; welfare and taxes, which are not mutually exclusive.

Welfare quite simply is the transfer of resources from one person to another without a transaction between the two taking place, although there is an implied benefit for both parties.  It makes no difference of the economic station of either party and a gift meets the definition.  It is everything from Social Security, to Church kitchens, to section 8 housing, to food stamps, to evangelical missions, or to boomerang children.

The controversy comes with the inclusion of choice.  My Ecolem friend thinks charity is great, even though that’s still welfare (shhh…don’t tell her). To think (as she does) that we can leave issues of poverty and homelessness up to churches shows that her understanding of the economics of welfare doesn’t extend beyond her middle class neighborhood.

The idea that strangers are at the receiving end of a transfer handled by a third party has become an anathema for her.  She cannot see the purposes of the transfer even though she is potentially a beneficiary…she gets to live in a society with less deprivation, more opportunity, and probably less crime.

Instead of questioning the quality or efficiency of the transfer she prefers to embrace the certitude that welfare is just plain bad, mostly because she perceives the unworthiness of the recipient. She’ll follow the advice of like minded preachers even though it leads her to an ocean bluff. 

When more people survive economically everyone benefits. The fewer…then everyone bears the cost. Think health care.

This flight from economic awareness is even more prevalent when it comes to taxes.

So complete has the concept of taxation been defined by those who are most affected (i.e. the rich) that it’s as if each American at birth were issued a gun with the sole purpose of shooting themselves in the foot when they reach the age of majority.

The reality is that the concentration of wealth is the single biggest drag on economic growth. Ironically, it negatively affects the future wealthy along with everybody else.

Wealth concentration, contrary to Republican BS, does not create jobs. Think social or human behavior.  People, including the wealthy, tend to flip from production to protection of wealth once it’s accumulated.  Money is effectively pulled out of the economy and primarily used as an investment tool for accumulating more wealth with the dangerous use of speculation.

In 1993 with a large Democratic majority Bill Clinton pushed through and signed into law one of the biggest tax increases on the wealthy in modern history (The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993). His eight year term in office ended with spectacular economic success, including economic growth, budget surpluses, record employment, and low inflation to name a few.

In 2001 George W. Bush, with a slight Republican majority in Congress, passed his EGTERRA (aka Bush Tax Cuts), the largest tax cut for the wealthy in the history of the Country, then followed with immense government spending into limited markets (military e.g.) which further concentrated wealth.  The Conservative Heritage Foundation predicted these cuts would eliminate the National Debt in 9 years. Bush’s eight years ended with near total economic collapse of the Nation, record unemployment, and massive debt…oops.

The continuation of these cuts under the Obama Administration is a primary reason why the economic recovery since 2008 has been so slow, since it has had to rely chiefly on debt.

There are many supporting factors that relate to these Administration’s successes and failures. Nevertheless, taxes properly leveled and revenue properly applied are the single biggest engines for economic growth because they reduce inequality of wealth, generate spending, and (hopefully) reduce debt.

You could read the conclusions of Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz (and others) to Ecolems all day.  No matter.  Ecolems know all taxes are bad and will vote for anyone who wants to cut them or oppose anyone who suggests taxing the wealthy. The Ecolems oddly have no problem submitting to consumption taxes (sales tax e.g.) which puts the revenue burden squarely on the non-wealthy.  They march dutifully to the cliff’s edge, even with all those holes in their feet.

As Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have proposed, an immense public works effort to update US infrastructure would be an economic boom for the Country. However, the revenue source cannot be debt nor taxation of the lower and middle classes.  This needs to be borne by the top 20% and mostly from the top 2% based on income and net worth.  Everyone would benefit, but interesting the top 20% would still benefit the most.

Vote Republican and you’ll never see it happen.

There is nothing inherently wrong with inequality; in fact we’re better off because of it since it promotes the predictability of hard work and ingenuity. However, when it gets extreme as it has today, human nature takes over. The economy begins to feed on itself by economic growth yielding to the incessant concentration of wealth by the rich. The Ecolems continue their march to the sea

My Fat Lady is Singing...I Hope

The T-Man has dominated political news so completely over so many months that I feel like a person who’s been force fed doughnuts.  Initially he was comic and oddly fascinating.  Now I’m just sick of it, and with each repulsive Trump “gaffe” (are they actually gaffes?) I want to hug the toilet.

One such recent Trumpism struck me hard.  More than repulsed, as I was with his compulsion to describe his genitalia during a national debate, I was aghast at his ignorance and virtual lack of empathy, just as Khizr Kahn so articulated.

On August 3^rd in Ashburn, VA Trump announced at a rally that a veteran had given him his Purple Heart medal.  He said “man, that’s like big stuff.  I always wanted to get the Purple Heart…this was much easier”.  When I saw the clip my jaw dropped.

There is no point in speculating or analyzing why this Purple Heart recipient (whose combat injury had caused him to lose a leg) decided to offer Trump his medal. He had his reasons and they remain his. Trump on the other hand was fully accountable for his actions in responding to the veteran.

The obvious and appropriate response would have been to refuse to take it on simple grounds that possession of the award can only belong to those who have earned it.  Trump is so diluted as to think that possessing the little piece of metal and ribbon is all one needs to be part a very exclusive union. “I always wanted to get the Purple Heart” he said, and there he was, proudly displaying it.

I am so, so extraordinarily amazed that a public figure can reach the age of 70 and not be aware that not only wounded veterans, but for many soldiers who died during conflict the Purple Heart is the sole award for giving their lives to the Nation.  For others it can be their entire quality of life.

The sacred nature of the Purple Heart recognition transcends all other awards of merit or heroism since it embodies what military sacrifice is all about.  It should be the final thought of any leader in committing to a foreign policy.

Mr. Trump, in case you’re not aware, soldiers get hurt and killed…and you have the unmitigated gall to think you deserve to be their Commander-In-Chief.  Where’s that toilet?

Khizr Kahn forcefully stated during his speech at the DNC that you have sacrificed nothing.  You responded by saying you have sacrificed a lot, telling George Stephanopoulos you have built a lot of “things”, created jobs…in other words made a lot of money and expanded your infamous “brand”. 

It is no accident, nor should it be a surprise that a person who views the accumulation of material wealth as a sacrifice thinks he can earn a Purple Heart the “easier” way.  I’m sure your handlers will have you send the medal back to the veteran who gave it to you and publish that action, but no matter. You won’t understand.

It’s time for you to go back to your reality TV so I can start writing about things that matter.  Is that the fat lady is singing? Please…let it be.

Reality Politics

I actually cringe to use the T-word in opening an essay on American politics.  Not out of animus, rather just from weariness.  The reality that for nearly a year the Donald has been one of the first words heard upon tuning into news radio or TV has lost its fascination. 

It’s time to review what this one man phenomenon is and why he exists.

Dispense with the political system.  I’m already long on record that Trump can’t win the general election and that he will quit the race before experiencing a resounding defeat.  I’m still comfortable with both those predictions.  Therefore, for me there is no point in reviewing his inadequacies, lack of character, or psychosis. 

The real value of this political season is observing the petri dish that the virus known as Donald Trump has thrived in. After all, even if this DJT virus consumes its own carcass, the petri dish remains.

Marshall McLuhan, 20^th century philosopher/intellectual, is best known for his five word brain-teasing quote: The medium is the message.  Although McLuhan and many others have written to near ad nauseum to define the phrase, I believe most would feel the Donald personifies its meaning.

Trump has existed and prospered to date in an environment that fully accepts his presentation where others performing in the same manner would not be so accepted.  He virtually feels no obligation to tell the truth or even reflect on the inaccuracies of what he says. 

This actually bizarre performance is not only accepted by the followers who have been duped by his snake-oil sales, but also by the news media which has been at a loss to figure out how to respond.  The news media may seem to be hobbled by the respect they traditionally afford a candidate vying for the Presidency from one of the two political parties, but I, for one, don’t cut them much slack.

These attitudes began and continue long after the reality which is Donald Trump has been completely exposed.  Why?

Talking to a Trump supporter (if you can find one that will discuss Trump without using the name Hillary) or hearing them interviewed, it is clear that what Trump says or the positions he takes are without consequence.  I believe at this point Trump would start to lose support from the faithful if all of a sudden he began to base his comments on facts.

Trump’s claim that if he committed murder in Times Square it wouldn’t deter his following isn’t off track (as weird as that sounds).  The concept itself is appealing to his supporters because it fits a reality in which they can vicariously exist; where a super-leader can do anything, even if only for their viewing pleasure.  Call it Reality Politics.

Donald has had a successful business career (I find it difficult to deal with people who like to argue that he has not).  It doesn’t mean he has been successful at life; people who spend all their working years making sandwiches can accomplish that.  However, even with his questionable ethics and bankruptcies he has built a lot of stuff.

What brought him mega fame though was not his business success, which was nearly unknown to most Americans. It was his television show. Donald Trump was a Reality TV star.

To the chagrin of my wife I like to call it Unreality TV. Think what you want, but Reality TV has come to bridge the space between story telling fiction and news-style realism.  It’s like reading the enthralling autobiography of a person who didn’t exist. 

Even though the fantasy factor that is part of nearly every scene in every reality TV show is known to the viewer, it makes little difference.  People perceive it like they are watching Scott Pelley on CBS Evening News.

It doesn’t matter what it is or what it purports. Whether it’s flipping a house, making a soufflé, finding a mate, building a coffee table out of popsicle sticks, finding an apartment in Tanzania (or as Trump says: Tan-Zania), or competing as a small business the only reality is the broadcast itself.

This is a new world we live in, driven by exponentially growing populations, and the delivery of rocket-fast communication and information.  It is the medium that Reality Politics can also find a friendly environment in which to grow…ergo Donald Trump.  It is also somewhat scary because it can be so confusing and, therefore, divisive.  What I see on my iphone might be different than what you see on yours, but who has the time or wherefore to figure out which (or either) is truth.

It is no wonder why the elements that comprise the contents of a petri dish are called a medium. It really is the message to pay attention to…not Donald Trump.