Why do so many Arabs oppose Palestine Occupation?

On the surface the title is absurd.  Why does anybody oppose occupation and its companion, humiliation?

The occupation has a long history.  The Jews were expelled close to 2,000 years ago and not by the Arabs. They suffered wherever they went.  Some felt the only way to alleviate their misery was their own state.  They organized as Zionism and gathered support.  World War II heightened the pressure, not only by Jews wanting to escape, but also a guilty group of nations who in some ways had contributed to the Holocaust.  

At the same time Arabs were realizing national aspirations.  Some had increased their leverage with vital natural resources.  In Palestine, Arabs had contributed to the Allies.  Going back to World War I we learned that T.E. Lawrence had organized Arabs to help defeat the Turks.  

In 1948 the original intent was to establish two separate states.  The Arabs were resentful feeling Palestine was theirs and in fact they dominated the population.  The disputes seemed to go the way of Israel.  In truth they were fearful of the Arabs.  Fortunately for them they were able to have political, military and financial support for their security.  

One could say the Arabs were greedy, selfish, nationalistic, but should that be a surprise?  They wanted what a lot of western nations now take for granted after their own struggles.

Naturally the Israelis were fearful of the Arabs and set up strong defensive systems.  America has given them hundreds of millions of dollars for military equipment and been quick to shut down any efforts at the United Nations to promote Arab interests in Palestine.

Jewish immigration has made Israel stronger, but if they were to expand to more natural borders for Palestine they would be outnumbered by Arabs.  

What has the occupation been like?  Israel is partially dependent on cheap Arab labor.  Arab resistance  can result in imprisonment and shootings.   

The politics of Israel have evolved in large part around keeping Arabs under control.  We in the West have mostly heard their version.  The Arabs have been constantly pictured as violently unreasonable.

In America one group of voters who have helped decide who controls their government are labeled Evangelicals.  They are not uniform, but a strong core believes that for the second coming to happen Israel must be controlled by the Jews.  In close elections their support has been crucial and very few American politicians are willing to risk offending them.  Lately more Muslims and Arab sympathizers have supported Palestinian yearnings.  They are still pretty much a minority, but have been able to stir up idealistic people (especially youth) who see the situation a little differently.  They are mocked and criticized.  Both sides feel the other side is ill informed.

Many voters think Joe Biden is a big part of the problem.  He still is committed to Israeli independence, but made the suggestion that some variation of a two state solution should be in the works.  Plus humanitarian considerations are more prominent this time.  Some seem to feel if Donald Trump were in power the situation would soon by rectified..

Donald Trump has already contributed to the mess.  During his initial campaign he threatened to stop Muslim immigration and once elected, tried to implement that policy.  He decided that it would be a good idea to put the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem.  The White House felt it unnecessary to consult with the Palestinians.  The resistance concluded that political solutions for their ambitions were a waste of time.  As Bernie Sanders said "Talking nice doesn't work."  

Netanyahu is correct when he says that most Palestinians support Hamas.  It may be reasonable to suppose that most people would like to avoid violence, but most people have a breaking point.  Netanyahu has a history of trying to dominate Democrat politicians and they have been forced.to accept Israeli settlers.  He would prefer that Trump win the next election.  For himself another concern is his own future.  Polls suggest he would lose an election and he would likely be prosecuted and sent to jail.   Who would replace him seems very likely to be even more anti Palestinian.

In Palestine, Israel seems to have some control over the West Bank which is perceived as weak by Arabs who want more changes.  Hamas is considered extreme, but they have gained a lot of sympathy from their fellow citizens who felt more humiliation, not just in Gaza, but also in the West Bank.  Mahmoud Abbas, the P.L.O. leader may seem ineffective, but has his own reasons to maintain power.

David Petraeus expressed a concern that his military activities created as many terrorists as he killed.  That concern does not appear to have much weight with the Israelis who feel their security is dependent on suppressing the Palestinians.    

Our obsession over the Middle East has proved to be a great diversion from Russian aggression against Ukraine.  Putin would be content for the Mid-East conflict to continue.

How can the situation be fixed?  Not easily and not quickly is my first thought.  Expectations are important, but realistically more people need a deeper understanding.  There is nothing strange about the resistance of the Palestinians and their desire for independence.  Also there is nothing strange about the fear felt by the Jews in Israel who feel under attack not only by Arabs, but also by much of the rest of the world. 

Whatever legal constructs might be created the underlying requirement is to build trust.  There are a few people on both sides of the issue trying to do that in different ways.  Sports and entertainment provide some opportunities, but takes time.  Recently learned of a group called Jerusalem Youth Choir integrating  both Arabs and Jews which encouraged me to buy a tune from iTunes.  More substantial opportunities might include climate change, pollution and international crime where everyone stands to lose.   Mis- information is prevalent on all sides.  Politicians take a lead from voters, but some courageous ones lead the voters.  Yuval Noah Harriri, a Jewish intellect is one person of stature who advocates for the Palestinians.  The problem really revolves around humans. 

The Persuaders

To some of us it seems like the right wing controls the platform.  Not only do they seem to have more money, they also seem to be better organized.  Anand Giridharadas has discovered there are progressives that are conscious of the difficulties and have solutions.

One underlying motive is the frustration found by many when trying to discuss Donald Trump or various right wing policies.  Those on the other side seemed oblivious to facts.

Linda Sarsour is one with a Palestinian heritage and had been an organized protester, but reluctant to get involved with white women as they had a different agenda taking focus off of colored women.  Trump inspired not only racists and evangelicals, but also many who hated his policies.  Linda realized her own background had limited her concerns, but she recognized many issues already affected Muslims, blacks and Hispanics such as LGBTQ and reproductive issues.  Asked to take part in the March of Millions she was reluctant but adopted the philosophy that you have to meet people where they are at.  With support from other agencies  they changed the title to March on Washington and also refused to accept corporate sponsors instead raising funds from small donators, Labor Unions and agencies with similar policies.

Reminds me of Naomi Klein who noticed that right wingers coalitioned many concerns such as gun rights, anti abortion, anti LGBTQ and minorities.  Her main cause seemed to be climate change, but she realized that such groups gained power by helping indigenous causes.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/05/naomi-klein-writes-another-insightful.html

Loretta Ross had a long history working with rape victims.  Her thinking had been aligned with the victims, but was approached by a perpetrator, William Fuller who claimed he had raped women and then in prison raped men feeling it was matter of power and control,  He studied the issue including from a feminist point of view.  He gave Loretta a different perspective.  She carried it over to other aspects of anti hate activisim.  It is very common for many racists to claim "I'm not a racist, but..."  She pushes with tests such as if a black person needed a kidney and you were a match would you help?  The search is for common ground.

Alicia  Garza was one of the founders of Black Lives Matter.  What prompted her involvement was the not guilty verdict for the murderer of Trayvon Martin.  The movement is intended to raise consciousness of people and not be violent.  She saw the process of 'Waking" is a bit precarious and one should not fault someone who slips, especially in the early stages. 

Bernie Sanders was a no nonsense politician who avoided personal stories or what might be considered stunts.  His persistence over many years earned him credibility, but failed to get the attention of the masses.  His policies were not really radical as many of them were already proving themselves in other countries.  As he aged he became more pragmatic explaining more of his personal history and has made decisions to help the cause, rather then a strict adherence to policies considered too radical for Americans.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was turned on to politics by Bernie Sanders as she found herself agreeing with the logic of his policies, but she was more activist and stirring up attention.  In an effort to diminish her, conservatives dug up a video of her dancing at a rooftop party, however she updated the video and demonstrated her critics were out of touch.  From a conversation she had with Ta-Nehisi Coates  "...if we're doing the job right--is to translate public will into the actual law...But who shapes and directs and moves that public will is writers, journalists, activists and artists.  They shape the public will and bring it to a point and translate it into policy." 

Anet Shenker-Osario is familiar with Hebrew, Polish, English and Spanish which perhaps has made her realize language is imprecise.  She even has done some standup comedy.  As she puts it we strive for more clarity.  Republicans have been successful at branding themselves as representing "freedom" and "family values", but that is nonsense to think they are more committed than Democrats.  Another theme of the right wing is the importance of "law and order."  When it comes to dealing with "persuadables" she believes "What we actually see is that they toggle between competing views of how the world works, and whatever they hear most frequently becomes 'common sense' and what everybody thinks."  Repetition with the right words can make a difference.         

An early inspiration for Anet was  George Lakoff who was well aware of the power of words.  As an example George pointed out the right often refers to "entitlements", but he suggests "protections" is more accurate and effective.  See more at:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/07/george-lakoff-wants-to-reform.html  

The last part of the book deals with deep canvassing.  A lot of his has evolved after traditional approaches have failed too often.  Basically you must learn and then earn the trust of whoever you talking with.  You need to widen their scope.  At this stage personal history can reinforce the message.  Every person is of course unique and conversions may take a long time, although some may hit a light bulb moment.

When the whole scene seems insane please be assured there are people working to make things better.  Anand Giridharadas made a point to spend a lot of time with the primary characters in this book.  He learned how their thinking had evolved.

Andrew Bacevich: The Age of Illusions

 Andrew Bacevich is a contemporary of Donald Trump, although they have never met they lived in what the Chinese like to call "interesting times."  Bacevich feels we have all been too obsessed with Trump, so much so that we have failed to understand the forces that made him possible.  

The Cold War ended between 1989 and 1991.  It was supposed to be about Capitalism and Communism and when the Soviet Union collapsed it was hailed as a victory for the freedom loving Capitalists.  Bacevich disagrees asserting that underneath all the ideological rhetoric the real dynamic was for power.

For many it meant a loss of a defined enemy.  The Military became voluntary which attracted high school grads at the poorer end of society.  University graduates and the better off declined to join the armed forces.  The American president became the most powerful man in the world as he can trigger a nuclear war.  There is a vetting process for presidential candidates and to be successful one must undergo scrutiny by Wall Street, the National Rifle Association, the Israel lobby, Koch Brothers, Evangelical churches among others.

During the Vietnam War, many either fought or resisted (by protests and draft dodging), but another group avoided it.  That included Donald Trump with more than one deferment.  Andrew Bacevich served in Vietnam and stayed in the military for 23 years and eventually became professor of history and international relations at Boston University.

George W. H. Bush was the first post Cold War president and one of his accomplishments was a successful limited war.  

Bill Clinton was very astute and charismatic.  Amongst other things he broke up restrictions for banks that later led to problems.  Pushed globalization which meant expanding U.S. trade with many American jobs being taken over by lower wage countries.  Considered risk averse he did authorize military actions in Somalia and the Balkans.

George W. Bush surrounded himself with "experienced" politicians who helped drag him into the Iraq War.  At one time he answered the rhetorical question, "Why do they hate us?' with the answer "They hate our freedom." 

Barack Obama seemed he would be a peacemaker, but got involved in mid East conflicts and Libya.  Infuriated some by negotiating the Iranian Peace Agreement and the Paris  Climate Change agreement.  Obamacare got off to a rocky start with much resistance.  Gay marriage became legal nationwide in 2015 with large parts of the country stunned by this new freedom.  Of course anything done by a black man would be resented by segments of the population.

As we approach the 2016 election, Bacevich draws our attention to the state of the nation.  Poverty on the increase, retirement savings diminished for many, homelessness on the upswing, opioid deaths at new record, 24.7 million fatherless children, 40% divorce rate, highest incarceration rate in the world, 40 million regular visitors to porn sites, 33,000 killed by firearms.  In short a lot of despair.

A lot of candidates offered to run the gauntlet.  Hillary Clinton expected an easy nomination, but ran up against Bernie Sanders who put up a strong fight.  He believed that without economic democracy there could be no political democracy.  Hillary with a slick presentation was able to finally win the Democratic nomination, over the man labeled a socialist.

On the Republican side, tv. celebrity Donald Trump assessed the situation better than his opposition.  Despite his libertine reputation he was able to garner evangelical support as unlike his rival for their support, Ted Cruz because he was more credible to bring about an abortion ban.   Michael Cohen had another perspective on this angle (and others).  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2021/11/disloyal-michael-cohen-version.html   Although easily criticized Trump was loved by the media who gave him a free platform for his message. 

Donald Trump is criticized for dividing the country, but Bacevich claims it was already divided and Trump not only recognized it, but was able to exploit it.

The book was published in 2019 and Bacevich was well aware of many flawed policies of Trump as well as his behavior and he was uncertain about the 2020 election.  He felt "...American politics will almost surely remain a forum for hyperbolic promises."  He would like to see stewardship replace the notion of increasing consumption.  He also feels freedom should have obligations as well as rights.

American technology has boosted speed, efficiency and precision, but has tended to convenience and relief from boredom which has allowed corporations to gain greater control of our lives.  We are close to the limit of how much we can tame nature and some acknowledge climate change is only one risk, with others including pollution, littering of plastic, deforestation, etc.  America is losing its political and cultural domination of the world.

In conclusion Bacevich maintains real necessary change will not come from the top down.  In the past Americans have rallied around causes that forced government action, such as abolition and the Depression.  He suggests a worthy and necessary cause is climate change which could lead to "a conception of citizenship that seeks to harmonize individual freedom with the common good."  His last sentence, "For Americans to shirk that responsibility will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps--or someone worse-to come."

Not sure how he would react to the January 6th insurrection, except as proof there are more factors involved than worship of Trump and that some elites will go to great lengths for power.  One hopes that Americans will wake up and realize there are higher priorities than hating others and overcome an egocentric view that they are "exceptional."  It will be difficult for Americans to accept they are only part of huge world.

JOE BIDEN DEMONSTRATES LEADERSHIP

A confession to start.  I thought Kamala Harris should have been the presidential nominee so being picked as the Vice President candidate almost seems like a consolation prize.  On the other hand Joe Biden proved himself to be above personal vindictiveness, a quality that should be appreciated more than usual in contrast to the current president.

What to like about Kamala Harris?  Barely heard of her before the judicial hearings, but I loved the way she systematically handled William Barr and Brett Kavanagh.  She certainly earned Trump's dismissive characterization of "nasty."  But she has a lot more going for her when you dig deeper.  As a prosecutor she tackled large corporations.  She officiated at an historical gay marriage.  She was tough on crime. There will be criticisms from some quarters that she wasn't tough enough or too tough, but it should be pointed out she was pragmatic and pushed as far as she thought prudent.

Somewhere along the way, Biden realized that there were a few women who were qualified to be president and their time was overdue.  He also realized that black lives really do matter and he needed to cater to that, although he seriously considered a few women including Amy Klobuchar before she recognized the party would benefit from a black leader.  Joe is known to like Elizabeth Warren who had done him a big favor in one debate and lately Governor Gretchen Witmer.  So the process narrowed the decision, but Kamala Harris still stood out.

Kamala's confrontation with Biden at a primary debate was said to be a mark against her.  Personally she seemed the better prepared and bold candidate.  However she apparently offended a number of established Democrats and her support dried up.  She was realistic and decided to drop out in the interest of both herself and the party.  Biden is said to value loyalty and to want someone he can work with and recalled how Kamala had worked with his son Beau on some efforts he supported.

Contrast that with Trump who seemed to pick foxes to guard the henhouse.  One of his early strategic supporters was Jeff Sessions.  Sessions is not someone I admire, but he had enough sense to know, ethically (and politically) he had to recuse himself from the Russian query.  Trump thinking of only protecting himself found a way to fire Sessions and has continued to do everything he could to humiliate the man who played an important role in his rise to power.

Trump knows how to manipulate prejudice to serve his goals, but continuously demonstrates he has little empathy for his rabid supporters.  Instead of pushing a healthy agenda as best he could, he prefers to continuously stoke prejudice against blacks, Mexicans, Iranians, Chinese, etc.  Trump  while insecure has an enormous ego that drives him to take advantage of ignorance for his own selfish benefit.

Abraham Lincoln is revered for his wisdom.  Choosing his cabinet he selected some of his rivals, partly to keep them under control, but also he recognized they were capable.  Barrack Obama in choosing his Vice President, did not have a close relationship, but recognized that Biden would balance the voters' perceptions of himself.  They came to mutual respect and it was actually Biden who successfully pushed for same sex marriage.  Check out a review of Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/11/team-of-rivals-has-lessons-for-today.html

Mike Pence was a clever choice for Trump, although he didn't particularly think so.  Paul Manafort realized Trump was not going to be easily accepted by evangelicals although his policies favored their needs.  Pence gave Trump credibility with evangelicals and other religious conservatives. With his own presidential aspirations thwarted Pence has decided his best path to influence and future office prospects is to suck up to Trump, no matter how ridiculous (and even detrimental to Americans).

Trump has made it easy for the Democrats to position themselves as the party of rational thinkers.  Inevitably they have to cater to special interests, financial and others, but they are doing so by trying to please a wide variety of Americans.  Whereas the Republican primary contenders back in 2015-2016 often seemed to try to one up on their toughness, the Democrats tried to prove they were the more rational candidate.   Dropping climate change agreements, and the Iranian agreement were indications that long term thinking was for sissies.  Their handling of the Covid-19 pandemic shows a willingness to kowtow to an ignorant man.  In all fairness many Republicans know better, but kept quiet in their own quest for power.

Andrew Yang, Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren all brought good ideas to the party.  Bernie Sanders was perhaps the most rational of all, but was too scary for some.  I hope if and when the Democrats get to power they treat those brave enough to declare their candidacy to help push an agenda that really serves the people.  Trump supporters seem oblivious to rational thinking even when it is in their best interest, so unless the Democrats have an overwhelming victory they will encounter stubborn resistance while the entrenched wealthy manipulate the ignorant.

Politics in the age of Coronavirus

Trump dominates everyTHING.  More people are disillusioned by Trump on a daily basis, but there is a stubborn rump supported by misleading media that projects a possible Trump repeat in 2020.

A big part of Trump's triumphant self proclamations is the stock market and job reports.  Both can be misleading.  The stock market reflects wealthy people who became more wealthy as a result of disproportionate tax cuts.  It has limited impact on most workers.  The job reports reflect the ongoing projection from the Obama administration--Trump has not had to deal with a major crisis on the scale that confronted Obama.  The tax cuts are already increasing the deficit that will affect everyone.  Most likely they will result in service cuts that will hurt almost everyone.

Trump has offended large parts of America and increasingly many are waking up to his poor decisions that range around the globe.  Women are victims of this extreme anti-Trump attitude in part because the desire to rid the country of Trump is so intense that fear forces many voters to retreat to what they feel is the most risk free strategy.  In short female presidential candidates are considered too risky.   It could be argued (such as myself) that the women candidates were more competent than their male counterparts.  I am thinking of Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar.

Coronavirus changes some details.  First the response to the crisis is a test which so far Trump's team is not performing very well.  Secondly the stock market is behaving normally in response to fear.   Fear generates emotions stronger than greed.  It was said that American workers were fearful of job security, but now feel a pandemic is not only more threatening to life, but also compounding problems already established.

Trump himself has been very transparent in his concern for political consequences as being a higher priority than dealing with the medical threat.  He had already trimmed budgets that were critical to dealing with pandemics.  He has been told to let medical people make the big decisions and to let politicians be in the supportive background, but he has great trouble in keeping his mouth shut.

We were already anticipating dirty tricks, but now that attacks have begun with a new target. It now appears Joe Biden may be Trump's opponent and Republicans are bringing back bogus facts regarding Biden and his son Hunter Biden.  Unfortunately on the surface it can look bad, but based on what we know Trump's involvement is definitely misleading and unethical.   Joe Biden is castigated for bragging about firing a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor that most people thought deserved it.  His son's hiring by a Ukrainian company is painted as nepotism, which it may well have been, but no illegal actions have been uncovered.  One can be sure rather than presenting their case for re-election the Republicans will dish out negative information (much of it false) about Biden, whoever the Vice President candidate is.

Bernie Sanders, should he overcome Biden's apparent advantage would also be sure of unfair criticism.  Labeling himself a Democratic Socialist assures he will be compared to Venezuela.  He has said some positive things about Cuba that will also be highlighted.  He is more favorable to the Palestinian cause and that will be used against him (although I think he is the only sane candidate on this issue).

It is hopeful that more legal issues are becoming public that should help Trump supporters to turn against him.  The Mueller Report had been dismissed, but a judge is demanding a full version become accessible.  Many court cases are still in progress from the Mueller Report and people will realize that it was the opposite of a Witch Hunt and needs much more coverage.

To me Trump is a huge disaster that must be cut off from further damage, but realize there is a lot of real power supporting him.  Thank you for letting me vent.

The Vice President Question

Why write about Vice Presidential nominee right now?  First, it is quite often a critical factor in the final ballot in November.  Some examples I would suggest include Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, Al Gore, and Mike Pence, each who had a crucial role for significant niches of voters.  Second, although it is premature to make a public announcement it is always timely to look out for logical possibilities and
work towards them while at the same time maneuvering for one's own benefit.

Sarah Palin is a lesson by herself.  Loved by many, but she turned off enough people who were concerned that John McCain could die and leave the presidency to her scatterbrain that it affected the election.  The other three all added something positive to the package, but I would like to draw attention to Mike Pence.  Paul Manafort saw a weakness in Trump that he rightly thought could be rectified with a strong evangelical.  Trump has done a lot to suck up to evangelicals, but many feel more assured that one of their own would help pursue their agenda.

The field is narrowing, but it seems likely it will be several weeks before the Democrats nominate a presidential candidate and many will hang on due to hope or a feeling of obligation or pride.   They  have unfortunately also been narrowing the diversity of their candidates.  The Democrats have built much of their strength on diversity and need to get a turnout. to seize power.  Black women are supposedly their most reliable voters.  Of course policies are critical, but getting the vote out is decisive.

The question is probably being negotiated right now.  Candidates are trying to figure out if they can make a deal to eliminate a competitor or give up the battle and try to get the vice presidential nod.  And naturally each is assessing possible running mates to maximize their chances of winning the presidency.  They have to be careful not to offend someone they might later pair up with.  It is a delicate balance because they also have to attack rivals.

There are a limited number of possibilities for the top of the ticket and each one has their own needs.  White man, older, younger, gay, white women, Asian, billionaires, moderates, democratic socialist.

Comparing policies is useful and many seem ideal.  Realistically they will run into resistance from voters (in the form of polls, protests, etc), the Republicans, their own party plus businesses (with logical arguments or corruption).  And it depends on how much power the voters give them on November 3rd, 2020.

My favorite candidate is still Kamala Harris, not so much for diversity or even policies, but her style.  She demonstrated very well on congressional hearings that she is prepared and is good at sequencing questions.  Understands root causes.  I do like the way she handles questions.  She has appeal to blacks, Asians and women.  She would do well in debates and give a practical balance to a ticket with almost any presidential candidate.

Another favorite candidate is Cory Booker.  Well liked, but likely the assumption another black man would not likely beat Trump.  He is well liked and even regarded.  However he would boost any non black nominee with a prime audience for the Democrats. 

Still on the minority client Julian Castro has positioned himself well by endorsing Elizabeth Warren and pulling over his Hispanic endorsers.  He would be a good match for others.  He may have squandered chances with other candidates, but depending on circumstances he could be what gives the Democrats enough credit with Hispanics to win the election.

Jay Inslee would prove the seriousness of climate crisis soldier.  He might work best with a woman or minority presidential nominee.  Governors carry executive experience.

Andrew Yang is not likely to get the top position, but has one of the best ideas which I see is inevitable.  Future jobs are threatened by automation and artificial intelligence  I am not sure that he would attract enough minority voters, but he would attract the youth vote and intellectuals.  He is the most future oriented of the candidates.

Overlooked another significant candidate, Deval Patrick who since dropped out.  He certainly is worthy as a former governor with a good record.   From where I view the contest he is too far behind, however that could change fairly quickly.  As the last African American in the race it would take only a few good breaks and he could win it all.  Or he could make himself a logical Vice President nominee.  His Governor experience would give executive credibility.

I am reluctant to favor the two billionaires, although they both have merits.  They will be seen as protectors of Wall Street.  Inevitably Wall Street money will be part of the equation, but the Democrats should project concern for the masses, not the wealthy.

Are there are others besides rejected candidates.  Stacey Adams  is well regarded and working successfully on voter registration, an obstacle that she has identified.   Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is young, articulate and atrracting attention.  She would be risky for Sanders for the socialism angle, but age counter balances Sharod Brown  projects experience and is a very good talker.  Beto O'Rourke has appeal for Texas which would be a big win for the Democrats plus he also has appeal for Hispanics.

Among the remaining candidates:  Elizabeth Warren fits the bill as a progressive (consumer protection) woman, but would not be suitable should Bernie Sanders win as it will put too much emphasis on socialism which we know will be ignorantly used against them.  On the other hand she might well be good for a male moderate as a reassuring balance. 

Pete Buttigieg has a realistic shot at the top job and has earned a lot of respect and name recognition. As a moderate, gay, veteran, and very articulate, young liked by intellectuals he could balance any of the older candidates or a woman.

Amy Klubochar, after New Hampshire seems more viable for the top as she is moderate, articulate, mid westerner female with a never losing record.  She has also improved her leverage for Vice President.  A moderate woman she might be a good pairing for a progressive male (Sanders) or a newcomer (Pete Buttigieg.  Two women would be risky.

Joe Biden could improve in more favorable states, but it is an uphill battle.   He might not be ideal, as already been Vice President.  It would be weird if asked Barrack Obama, but I think Barrack should be offered Supreme Court position

Is there an advantage to publicly announcing a VP choice in advance?  Risky?   Yes, but  the candidate needs to assure primary voters that they recognize the need to represent everyone.  Possibly near the end of the process.  Vetting process takes time.  A handicap Democrats will endure is that while the Republicans are settled on Trump who has already long been on the campaign trail, they have to wait until the presidential candidate is decided.  The Vice Presidential candidate also has potential to create attention.   The presidential candidate has to be comfortable with the running mate.

Geography should only be a minor consideration, but a candidate has to represent everyone.

After the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries trends will develop and decisions will have to be made.  Some are dropping out and with the bandwagon effect it seems like a three person race with possibly two outsiders and perhaps Mike Bloomberg.  Bloomberg seems less likely as a Vice President although with his money if he wanted it it might happen.

THE IOWA CAUCUS

These are the views of an outsider, not even American.  Definitely not an expert on caucus, but find it interesting and this particular one important.

The mess reflects poorly on Democrat organization.  Republicans are jumping on it (deflecting from the impeachment "trial."  As I try to wrap up this post Thursday, Feb 6, 2020 at 1:10 pm there is 97% of district reports in. 

The Iowa caucus is critical, but maybe not crucial on the path to the presidency.  Mike Bloomberg skipped it, but has spent massive amounts on advertising that is starting to have an impact.  Tension between progressive and moderate with each wing having more than one candidate.  At some point voters will have to gang their votes together for their wing and at the end some people will have to accept someone from the other wing.  There are two women left who have a realistic shot, one from each wing and it is possible either one could be a vice president, if not go to the top.

First the idea of a caucus appeals to me.  In the final process it is necessary to reach 50% +1 to be declared the winning candidate and obviously before that it is necessary to sort through a variety of preferences.  I bet a lot of 3rd party voters in 2016 wish they had a chance to vote again.  Small states do give lesser known candidates a chance to be better known.  I prefer the opinion of voters who have a chance for one on one conversations than media giants.  Jimmy Carter, Barrack Obama and Pete Buttigieg proved to people on a one on one basis they deserve a bigger audience. Voters are pulled in different directions,  but can work towards consensus that gains more acceptance.

Public voting can be intimidating with your neighbors, friends, etc maybe differing in opinion.  Transparency is at a premium as at one level those participating know how many voted and for whom.  A problem is the time required which has to affect workers and parents.   This year satellite locations including Paris, France, Arizona and Florida allowed those who travel in the winter, mostly retired people to vote.  This means the voting is slanted towards older people. 

Jimmy Carter was relatively unknown on a national scale when he announced his presidential candidacy in late 1974 there were over 10 others with some waiting to announce.  With the low number of delegates to be won, none of them took Iowa as seriously as Carter.  He knocked on doors, left notes, followed up, but his goal was to get national media coverage.  Tim Kraft was hired to organize small committees across the state and encouraged small donations.  His campaign had a policy of carefully budgeting.  With his wife he was able to lure media to many of his events and made efforts to attract national media that yielded positive results.  He won the caucus and with the media attention he gained momentum that carried him all the way.

Since then any serious candidate has made Iowa a priority.  It has been critical for such as Barrack Obama and John Kerry and perhaps Pete Buttigieg.

As the first state will help create  momentum ideally it should be representative of America as a whole.  Problems with Iowa are that it is mostly white which probably hurts the Democrats more who need to attract a strong black turnout.  Another concern is that it is very rural.  In order to attract Iowa voters politicians make promises of state interest.

It is very tight at the top with 0.1% separating Pete Buttigeig and Bernie Sanders.  A very subtle difference, but could be magnified.  Below them are Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden.  They have all been boasting how they were going to win, but now reality starts to set in.  Fifth and still in the running is Amy Klobachur who I think actually could win it all as she has the best combination of age, experience and practicality.  Like Kamala Harris she performed very well at the Brett Kavanagh hearing.  Joe Biden's strength was supposedly that he was the one who could best beat Trump.  He has been hit by Trump with an alleged scandal in Ukraine which I recognize is way overblown, but the nepotism is real.  On a CNN town hall for the first time he talked about his stuttering and was very impressive, making him more human, but also more open and intelligent.

They all (including almost all of the non winners) would be very acceptable to me.  I especially liked Kamala Harris, but also like Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg. Both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have proved themselves smart and hard working warriors for workers and have been denigrated for socialism which somehow most Americans misunderstand.

WHO IS GOING TO BEAT TRUMP?

For many Americans getting rid of Trump is more important than policy details.  Some hope legal procedures can be used, but most think it more practical to vote him out of office.  Apparently that task seems easy enough that Democrats already have well over a dozen candidates.

The Republicans had a similar problem in the 2016 primaries with a dozen or so candidates.  From my perspective one problem was that they all felt they had to be tougher than their opponents to get attention. In the end Trump proved to be the most obnoxious.  The Democrats are each trying to be unique while trying to deal with certain litmus tests.

Trump has actually earned a lot of brutal respect (with the help of domestic and foreign enablers) that many Democrats fear him.  He did get in with less than a majority of voters and is concentrating on his base (the deployables).

Getting an early start can be helpful.  They can all expect to be scrutinized like they have never been before.  Their opponents of both parties are looking for dirt and the media is wanting to draw a crowd with sensational tidbits which could range from sex scandals to stumbling over words.  A lot of worthy people are scared off.  Others realize the effort requires a super human effort and after assessing the odds decide they are better off not running.  Sherrod Brown is one example.

Biden and Sanders are supposed to appeal to older voters who are more reliable at the ballot box.  Age is a factor.  Looking back we now realize that Ronald Reagan was in early stages of dementia and a case is being made that Trump is well advanced.  Also the younger generation has new ideas and enthusiasm.  A contrast with a 70+ Trump would be a plus.

Joe Biden should not be compared to Donald Trump's licentiousness, but that possibility has been opened.   Joe is being judged by much higher standards than Trump has been--not caught boasting or what would be considered sexual assault, but taking advantage of male privilege, something many male and even female voters can forgive, but one can imagine Trump will paint him as a hypocrite.
While Joe's career encouraged touching many now feel today such behaviour is overstepping personal space boundaries. 

Bernie Sanders my favorite from 2016 has drawn a lot of attention from progressives.  His age is against him and by declaring himself proudly as Democrat Socialist provides a bigger target.  Ironically a lot of his support comes from younger voters.  Although he has a history of involvement with civil rights he seemed too distant from blacks compared to Hilary Clinton.

My favorite candidate Elizabeth Warren is very conscious of Trump's racist attack which is really accusing her of dishonesty.  She has stood up for ordinary consumers better than others with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders.  She has spent a lot of effort developing policies but it seems voters' attention span doesn't permit too many details.  She is usually ranked in the top four or five and might do well in the debates, but might seem vulnerable to the Trump machine.

Kamala Harris makes a good impression.  Like many politicians she has a history of doing what she thought right and practical at a difficult time.  Some will think that can be used against her.  Her idea of boosting teachers fits in with what I consider a major priority.  Half black and half Indian could gain some support while at the same time be awkward, remembering that Obama was considered by many blacks to not be black enough.  It also reminds that Trump gained votes from racists.

Amy Klobuchar also made a good impression at the Kavanaugh judicial hearing   She has been criticized as being rough on her support staff.  Women are not supposed to be tough.

Beto O'Rourke even though he lost his Senate race in Texas created a lot of enthusiasm.  He is very open and expressive.  An example of changing dynamics was when established Republicans thought Beto's participation in a rock band would turn off voters it had a positive impact.

Cory Booker had made many media appearances and has a share of admirers.  Single men are frowned upon and suspected of being closet gays.  His new girl friend, activist and actress Rosario Dawson could be an asset.

Pete Buttigieg would not have been possible a decade or so ago.  A gay mayor of a fairly small city, but he has already aroused very positive attention.  His intelligence strikes many as outstanding and he has quick reaction to questions.

A lot of good people have been left out of my assessment which is more a reflection of the multitude than their individual value.  My focus is on the Trump question.  Name recognition is critical, after all most people base their decisions of what has filtered through to their attention.

The winner could turn out to be someone not mentioned.  The debates and fund raising will juggle perceptions of relative merit.  The Vice Presidential candidate could emerge from these candidates or not.  Balancing the duo ticket is considered important to the campaign.  The primary candidates in many cases will boost their popularity which can be transferred to the package.  Senators often have a national brand awareness, but Governors actually have more administrative experience.  Hopefully business experience won't be a priority.  Science awareness should be a factor.  Diversity of options could be a positive favor.

Mike Pence is an interesting case.  Apparently Paul Manafort realized that Donald's reputation would not encourage evangelicals to support him and manipulated events to get Mike Pence on as vice president.  It is a wonder that he would pair himself with such as obvious offensive candidate, but it is speculated he had his own ambitions.

The possibility of a female duo has been raised.  It could draw more female voters, but the Democrats are already strong in that area.  Aside from turning off misogynist males it could also have a negative impact with evangelical women who feel women's place is in the home.  Women like Jacinda Ardern draw admiration from both sexes  helping to create a better atmosphere.

In the last election Climate Change was seldom discussed.  Partly suspect that the media did not want to offend some of their big advertisers.  Unfortunately the danger has accelerated and it will be harder for denialists to be taken seriously.

Trump loves to cut down his opponents with a slick nickname and insults.  Everyone is vulnerable, but really he is also very vulnerable.  He seems very sensitive to criticism and is transparent in his hate for Obama who in reality was a far superior president.

I am inclined to believe almost any one of them could beat Trump.  More voters are conscious of third party dangers.  The demographics are moving favorably for the Democrats.  Trump has lost more voters than he has gained by his mercurial ways and policies. Turnout is critical.  Trump has a hard core of believers he can count on, but the more lethargic voters are more conscious they will definitely lose if they don't vote.

In addition to a concern about beating Trump, another danger the Democrats do face is a purity test.  No person is without fault.  I would like to think that intelligent caring people learn from their mistakes, but too many people are not willing to forgive.  Most of the candidates have already found it necessary to apologize for past behavior or choices made under unique circumstances.  A recent example inspired a blog on the topic:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/02/self-righteousness-and-forgiveness.html

PHOTO EXPLANATION:  Admittedly not my best, but Benjamin Franklin was a most admired American who never ran for President.  You can't run today without a lot of money and you really have to want it.  Perhaps suitable people would prefer a role like Benjamin Franklin's, after all he contributed to America's success and is recognized more than many of the subsequent presidents.

Hillary Clinton Republican target

Bernie Sanders would have been my choice, but now it boils down to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.  Of course voters can partly undo that vote by how they vote for senators, representatives and governors.  Or they can vote for a third party or not vote at all.

Hillary has always drawn critics and she has made her share of mistakes, but most of the fuss is really petty nitpicking that should be dismissed by rational people.  Conservatives have always to one degree or another resented strong women and she draws more attention than other woman.

Pretty well all of the scandals against the Clintons have been disproved, but they keep coming up.  Voters must think there is some fire with all that smoke.  Perhaps there is, but one should also consider who is generating the smoke and why.

The core Republican agenda is economic with some legitimate concerns about freedom, but mostly freedom to exploit other people.  Conservatives by definition like the status quo and resent outsiders trying to widen their comfort zone.  They are smart enough to realize that to get the masses to vote against their own economic interests they will have to enlist other grievances.  Hence we have a marriage between fiscal and social conservatives.

Donald Trump has accused Hillary of being an enabler for her husband's adultery and there is some truth to that although Trump is deflecting from his own philandering.  Outsiders can never really know what goes on inside a marriage.  She tolerated her husband's "cheating" and tries to present a facade of marital unity seemingly calculating where she gets the most power.  For his part Bill also realizes she is an asset for his goals.  This is a very delicate matter that no outsider can really judge.  Jenny Sanborn divorced her husband, the Governor of South Carolina after he had a well publicized affair and has faded from national prominence.

The Clintons have grown rich through politics (not by any means suggesting bribes) and perhaps that has coloured their thinking.  Again likely true to some degree, but they both seem very involved in public service that has indeed made a difference.

Benghazi is unbelievably ridiculous.  The Republicans tried to exploit that while it was actually happening.  They continue to bring it up.  It is disgusting.  The situation might have been handled differently, but the Republicans do not have clean hands on this issue by their stinginess on security budgets and their willingness to divulge names.  Running embassies in hostile foreign countries has always carried a risk which thankfully some people are willing to take.  The Republicans had far more embassy attacks with more deaths under George W Bush.  They should have allowed for the risks, but chose to lower budgets.  But like other accusations the whole issue puts a little doubt in people's minds.  On the other hand a few others are amazed that there have been no high level war crimes investigations concerning the Iraq  Invasion and not very much media or Republican attention.

The Emails.  The FBI director who made the most serious claims is a strong Republican, but even he was forced to admit she did nothing illegal.  The history of Republicans and emails has involved mass deletions that were for the most part very suspicious.  After consulting with others she chose convenience which is what most people would do.

Criticisms over the Clinton Foundation are troubling.  There has always been some arm twisting to get people to donate and no doubt some donors saw an opportunity to lobby their interests.  There are literally millions of people benefiting from Bill Clinton's program and it has passed scrutiny of watchdogs.  They shouldn't ignore perceptions, but should not be ruled by them either.

Nobody has endured as many "scandals" as Hilary Clinton.  They have pretty well been dealt with in a legal sense, but conservative critics keep reminding people about all the smoke.  A lot of it is to distract from their own positions which disadvantage poor people and their own scandals.  Donald Trump has a lot of dirt of his own.

Yes many of her decisions do seem like calculations--the TPP, the Iraq War stand out for me.   That is what politics is about.  Without power you can do nothing, but to get power you have difficult choices and sometimes voting against your beliefs is wise or at least political.  We are often forced to re-evaluate our choices.

The one lie that disturbed me was the one about the danger she claimed on a airplane landing in the Balkans.  Memories can get mixed up, but glorifying oneself is to be avoided.

Donald Trump main strategy is to criticize and to use hyperbole.  He claims he can do a better job, but is vague on details.  His qualifications are very questionable, and his demeanour is counter productive.

I think Hilary like her husband and Obama has an idea of what she thinks is right and what is important, but also realize she has to cater to vested interests to achieve the best balance.  In her campaign she declared she wanted to improve the Affordable Care Act incrementally while Bernie really wanted to upend the apple cart at some risk.

It may not be an ideal choice, but it is clear.  The smoke is meant to be misleading.
You can inch forward or take a giant step backwards.  In an earlier blog I commented that the world looked on the American election as a kind of IQ test.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/06/the-american-iq-test.html

the Media and the American Election

Some of you may be sick of another political article from me.  I apologize as I had not intended to blog about the American election quite this closely, but the results from last night's primaries have really narrowed the opportunities and I think very counter productive to the best interests of everyone.

Everyone knows that money makes a difference in an election.  But another element is communications that sometimes can overcome money.  When you combine big money and the main stream media it is hard to battle.

A few elections ago I became conscious of the power of the media.  The Democrat Howard Dean got off to a roaring start by being an early adopter of social media and raising money without relying on traditional big donors.  His platform appealed to a lot of people who paid attention.  However there were other contenders some of whom had greater name recognition and were able to tap into big money and he started to lose some of his lustre.  What really did him in was a screaming rant that was not intended for media exposure that nevertheless was caught on tape.  It was played it seemed almost every time his candidacy was discussed in the media.  He never recovered.

Undoubtedly the media has played a role in many elections, but I didn't notice because the issues weren't of big concern or my favourites got in anyway.  I worked in newspapers for about twenty years at a time when people were becoming conscious that newspaper ownership was becoming more concentrated.  Here in Canada one consequence was that fewer towns had a correspondent in Ottawa for their local paper and that seemed to affect voter turnout.   To get more details on newspapers and Canadian politics:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/04/kill-messengers.html

The same process was well underway for television and radio.  In the U.S. it was discovered that profits could be made off news if it was packaged in a more entertaining way.  That meant sensationalism, short clips and punditry.  At the same time Americans have loosened laws regarding election spending to the point that many politicians have found fund raising a critical part of their re-election efforts leaving less time to actually do their job.

Big money is influential in countless ways.  Data analysis, transportation to hopscotch around the electoral districts, and advertising all cost money.  Much of that money comes with obligations and almost all of it with expectations.

In the last two decades alternatives have developed through social media.  This is where alternative ideas can reach the public, but even here big money has intruded.  Social media has become a platform for all sorts of ideas, some of hate.

All this to say is that I think the American public has been given a raw deal by the media.  There certainly is cause for anger amongst most people, but big money has had a lot of success in steering that anger.  In the not so distant past the media played a more significant role in informing voters.

After Obama won his historic victory back in 2008, many hoped he would be able to deal with the problems inherited such as the Iraq war and a major recession.  But others were upset that their world was changing in frightening ways.  Part of it was undeniably racist with Mexicans taking low level jobs away from Americans and of course a black man in charge.  A bigger problem was increasing inequality.  The truth is that some at the very top benefited from outsourcing jobs to other countries, from hiring cheap Mexican labour under the table and from laws that enabled them to keep more of their "hard earned" money.  As I understand it the Tea Party was at least partially motivated by the fact that most of the ones responsible for the financial disaster escaped with virtually no punishment.  Somehow that natural anger got diverted  to the awfulness of Obamacare, environmentalists and regulations hurting jobs plus terrorism.

The real cause of unhappiness is inequality.  An enabler of that is campaign finance laws (courtesy of big money influences).  Three realities we all have to face are automation, climate change and too much hate.  A lot of intelligent and educated people have an understanding of that, but they aren't enough to win elections.

Donald Trump has hosted a reality show and drawn a lot of fans.  People think he is tough and smart and to some degree I agree.  But I would add that it is all self serving.  I don't think that he really believes (or cares) that Obama was born in Kenya, but realized that that suggestion drew him a lot of attention and reinforced some negative views of many Americans.  He is very strong on some notions such as building a wall that will be paid for by Mexicans, slamming the door on Muslims and reviving torture, but is very vague about practical details.  Many of us don't really care about the details.  Lately his antics have been alarming, resulting in actual violence.  Many of his facts are unproven.  For my views of the consequences of torture:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/12/torture.html

Mostly unseen by the media has been Bernie Sanders.  He doesn't fit in.  He is proud to call himself a "democratic socialist" which scares a lot of people (especially the 1%).  When he was drawing bigger audiences than most politicians he got very little media attention.  His explanations got even less coverage.  Those who heard his message really liked it, but more attention was given to the outrageous.  Donald Trump got more free media attention than all the other candidates put together, but yet he was seldom, if ever pinned down to a serious explanation.  Networks all prefer Trump's boisterousness to Bernie's explanations.

Bernie points out that the "corporate media" as he characterizes it, is most interested in the criticisms of his opponents (Donald Trump is famous for that) and social gossip.  They do not really get involved in important issues.  They benefit from an interest in the horse race aspects of an election.

Bernie is pointed out as a radical, but here in Canada many of his ideas are already taken for granted.  We already have and would fight to maintain a single payer healthcare system.  Our campaign finance laws could use some improvement (and more enforcement) but they are ahead of America.  Free tuition for qualified students to university has been done in other countries and could make a real difference to global competitiveness.  Climate change, although denied by special interests is gaining public acceptance and by refusing fossil fuels funds Bernie has credibility like no one else.  He has a long time record of human rights including some jail time.  He is not against military action, but was one of the few to vote against the Iraq War.  Having said all that he is also too boring for the networks.

Bernie does see the real problems Americans should be concerned about and has proved over a long period of time he is sincere.  Pretty much everyone else is very careful what they say to avoid offending their donors or their base.  He has mostly exercised good judgment sorting through what he thinks is best for everyone.  He is not just an idealist as he has quietly improved much legislation through amendments.

What is in the media's best interest is high ratings so they can charge more for advertising.  What is not in their best interests is challenging the 1%. The rest of us are losers.

Information and the American Voter

Super Tuesday has come and gone, tightening up the primary season.  It will be difficult to change trends that have been set in motion.  For some of us self appointed analysts it is difficult to understand how so many people can ignore their own best interests.  For some of us who follow differences of policy the choices are almost obvious, but the vast majority of actual choices do not seem to reflect careful thought.  Perhaps I am being self-righteous.  Feel free to judge.

The truth is the average person, even more than the average voter doesn't have the time or inclination to examine the many different policies that would affect them in one way or another.  Maybe they shouldn't have to, after all life can be a struggle and there are many more things to enjoy.  The problem comes in where people with vested interests are able to take advantage of apathy and stir up emotions for their own benefit.

How many of you had heard of Bernie Sanders two years ago?  How about John Kasich or Jon Huntsman?  Or switching gears how about Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump?  Of course my readers are ahead of the curve on these names, but we should also consider that there are many capable conscientious people who do not have the resources or name recognition and give up the battle before any voter realizes they have already lost a choice.

For those who don't really care very much, the media is their resource for identifying people they should pay attention to.  Hilary Clinton has earned a lot of attention and in fact has done or at least tried to do some worthy things.  Donald Trump inherited wealth and some business smarts and built his name with real estate and reality tv.  Hilary has been able to attract significant amounts of money from people who share at least some of her aims and Donald has been able to attract a big amount of notoriety partly through his television involvement.  Along the way he has learned what gets attention.

My choice would be Bernie Sanders and I have admired him for at least two or three years.  My knowledge comes from watching him speak on tv shows with relatively low ratings.  He made a lot of sense and when checking his background his character commanded a lot of respect.  Unfortunately his speaking platform is not as impressive as his policy platform.  He deliberately avoids attacking personalities and rejects financial donations that will tie his hands.  His biggest concerns seem to be inequality and campaign finance.  He has a solid background of supporting human rights for racial minorities, Muslims, women and gays.  He recognizes climate change needs urgent attention, but sees the first two priorities (inequality and campaign finance) as obstacles.

You may have noticed that Donald Trump dwarfs all other candidates in media attention, amounting to a lot of free advertising.  Bernie, despite drawing the biggest crowds gets very little media attention.  There are at least two reasons for that.  Donald is great to build ratings.  The more outrageous he is the more people tune in to get more.  Offending people, even war heroes and making huge exaggerations just draw more attention.  Bernie tries to avoid attacking people, preferring to explain his policies accurately.  In other words he is boring.

The second reason is more serious.  Bernie's policies are not what big money donators want to be heard.  He is easily dismissed as a whining socialist of little consequence.  As critically, he is not what the media owners want either.  Aside from wanting to tax wealth at higher rates Bernie's ideas on campaign finance mean that the media would not get as much revenue from political campaigns.

I admit sometimes the candor of Trump has astounded me.  His criticisms of George W Bush not keeping us safe were right on.  The whole presidency of the younger Bush has been sugar coated and at least some Republicans were happy to get over that hump and pleased to criticize the establishment that has failed to deliver what they wanted.

Donald Trump often spouts things that are true and revealing.  "I love the poorly educated."  If someone is allowed to vote it should be our collective responsibility to encourage them to think as clearly as possible about the responsibility.  Education is just another budget item subject to cutting, except when emotions can be stirred up.  Anti union rhetoric is one tool used.  Another is the influence of religion.  For some, religious education means promoting what they believe and in many cases it means distorting the curriculum to reflect their beliefs.  Bernie seems radical for advocating free university education, but in fact university education in the job market is the equivalent of high school education a few decades ago.  Besides in a competitive global marketplace education is vital.  And to top it off education is what a responsible voter needs.   Some earlier thoughts on education: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/02/reign-of-error-what-direction-should.html

For those whose highest goal is the pursuit of wealth they gravitate towards policies and rationale to support their greediness.  But they are smart enough to realize many of these policies are counter to the interests of the average person, so they have to find away to disguise their goals.

Emotional factors sway voting choices.  Many people vote against their economic self interest and often knowingly.  The best example might be abortion.  Almost everyone would agree that abortion is a horrible practice.  Other sub groups feel that promiscuity is also unacceptable.  Emotions are stirred up and they become the primary criteria for a voting choice.  Hopefully some people can take a practical view and look at the consequences of making abortion totally illegal.  Like drinking alcohol, when forbidden abortion will go underground.  This means rich people or those with connections can resort to it when they feel threatened by an unwanted pregnancy.  But others either do something desperate sometimes with fatal results and others end up with unwanted children and a change in their life projectory.

If the bad consequences don't make them re-think, perhaps these one issue voters might consider what policies could help avoid or at least minimize abortions.  Two things spring to mind.  The first is sex education that gives information to help prevent pregnancies and also promote the idea of consent.  The second is to make contraception more accessible.  The problem with both of these ideas is that they promote promiscuity which is also unacceptable.  The discussion of these factors is difficult, but part of the information needed to be shared.

An undercurrent in America (and the rest of the world for that matter) is racism.  We all identify with our ethnic background, but for some people merely preferring your own kind is not enough--they hate  and fear the "other."  Many rational politicians have tapped into this.  Everyone has some idea of political correctness boundaries, but a few subtly cross them and Donald Trump not so subtly. Recently he received an endorsement from a former prominent Ku Klux Klan member and after some "confusion" disavowed it.  Racists have a good idea who favours their view of the world.

The real issues that impact the average person (the 99% in other words) are not very prominent in the mass media.  The horse race aspects are emphasized and provocative personal taunts or gaffes are more often headlined.  The media, once called the Fifth Estate is supposed to protect the public from the hidden doings of the powerful, but instead are advancing their own concerns.

The reaction of the media to Super Tuesday is of course mixed.  One blog commentator pointed out that according to the media Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have a chance to upset Trump, but that Bernie is all finished, although the numbers are not dissimilar.  To me that promotes heavy advertising from the Republican race and hoping to dampen a candidate they don't want.

TRUMP VS SANDERS

The U.S. primaries are starting to thin out the also rans.  New Hampshire will force some voters to re-assess their choices and some investors (and donators) trying to infuence the outcome will re-calculate where their money will have the best impact.  On the surface it seems we could end up with a contest between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, although there are a lot of dynamics that could change that.

Many commentators have suggested that both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have tapped into the feelings of anger. more effectively than the other candidates.

This year there is a lot of discontent among potential voters.  The important thing is to identify the real cause.  Some have identified it as too many Mexicans, too many Muslims, too many gay rights, Obamacare, the climate change hoax.  I hate to give them any credence, but obviously many do abide by such suggestions.

I boil it down to the status quo not being what it used to be.  The rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer with a big void developing in between.  Of course this is a bit over simplified, but the basic idea is encompassed in the statistics that demonstrate while productivity has gone up, the profits have not been shared proportionately.  Furthermore the people at the top are starting to assert themselves.  They believe they just have to be unshackled and everything will be ok.  They should not have to pay such a high percentage of their well deserved income, nor should they have to tolerate regulations that hem in their ability to generate more profits.  There are a lot of people trying to get a bigger piece of the pie or at least hang on to what they have.

Money talks.  Most of the viable candidates for president literally have a billionaire backing their efforts.  Donald Trump may well be a billionaire and can be self righteous about it.  In fact wealth can do great things; Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy are just two examples of wealth benefitting the masses. But it seems some billionaires think not only that they should have a right to pursue their dream of even more wealth, but that they should be able to tell others to do without.

The Media has a stake in all this.  They love to see expensive tv ads and a close race promises lots of those, especially when backed up by loose campaign finance laws.

Donald Trump certainly knows how to draw an audience.  I am astounded at how gullible people can be.  Shout a few derogatory remarks and many hold him in awe.  He doesn't take much trouble to explain himself, but easily assures people he is the best and can handle any difficulties very simply.

Bernie Sanders is not accepting Super Pacs or large donations.  Some of what he says is mocked by the establishment, but most of what he advocates such as single payer medicare and free tuition is accepted by other industrialized countries.  Basically he is fighting for the little guy, but in the end his approach might well be better for everyone.  No reflexive military response to international problems.  No abandoning people who can't afford an emergency.  Pay attention to what scientists have learned.  Our future is with youth being educated.

They each still have competition and could fall by the wayside.  Bernie just has one competitor,  Hilary Clinton but she has more connections.  Donald Trump has the advantage of a split opposition that still has a lot of egos that aren't ready to quit even if supporters tell them they should for the sake of the country.  One problem with the primaries as each candidate inevitably criticizes their opponents and some of that will carry forward and lot of bruised feelings will hamper future efforts.  So the longer they drag on the primary battles the harder it may be to win the grand prize.

One of my fantasies would be for Elizabeth Warren to endorse Bernie which I think would be a huge (and logical) step to the first Jewish president in American history.  He could reward her with Vice President or Treasury Dept, either of which might launch her to be the first female president of the United States.  Timing is important as decisions are being made and to some extent locked in.  But of course there is a risk as an endorsement might offend the other candidate.

Iowa, the process begins

As a Canadian I have no say in the American Presidential campaign, but the whole world has a stake in the final result.  The final result is more than just who becomes president, and includes the makeup of the Senate and the House of Representatives.  Together they will set the laws and even determine who interprets the law.  They can all have a huge impact on the rest of the world.  I don't pretend to understand all the details of the process, and I suspect few Americans do either.  As with anything similar, a lot of preparation has gone on for this contest and will continue with adjustments.

Iowa seems a strange place to begin the formal process.  It is more rural, less diverse and apparently has a higher percentage of evangelicals than most states.  All these factors colour the result, but more importantly help set the wheels in motion.  Farm subsidies are a bigger issue than elsewhere and candidates have to address this concern.  Interestingly the big Republican winner, Ted Cruz is against subsidies to the ethanol growers, but tempers it a bit by refusing subsidies to other energy providers to even the playing field.  Less diverse people and more evangelicals puts greater emphasis on the issue of abortion and same sex marriage.  Candidates often find themselves locked into positions that might not carry as much weight in subsequent elections.

Being the first chance to gain attention the Iowa caucuses can be critical to many politicians.  The outstanding example is Jimmy Carter who was basically an unknown former governor of Georgia.  He identified Iowa as critical to gain public awareness and build momentum.  Far ahead of the Iowa caucuses he devoted a great deal of time to understand what Iowans were concerned about and cultivated contacts.  He also was able to boast about his zero based accountng that was demonstrated early in his campaign.  Although he didn't win Iowa he got national attention and was able to build on it.  It hasn't always worked out that way for everyone as many have been able to overcome losing in Iowa (even badly) to win the final prize, but it is now seen as a necessary credibility step.

This all gives Iowa greater power than their small size would normally give.  Many citizens take the responsibility seriously and candidates are forced into  explaining themselves to large numbers of small groups.  They offer what many consider an archaic process that differs for Republicans and Democrats.  I don't totally understand it, but was struck by what I know about the Democrat caucus system.

Each candidate is given a space that others can go to register their support.  There is even a spot for the uncommitted.  After each candidate has a representative speak on their behalf the assembled voters get to make a choice.  Any group that has less than 15% overall is broken up and forced to go to another group.  Sometimes the uncommitted are able to dominate, but they also are split up if they fail to reach 15%.  Many of us in multi party systems end up voting strategically, but in reality we are guessing with skimpy information.  In Iowa it is pretty clear amongst the Democrats which candidate is dominating and which might benefit from some support.  After some jockeying a decision is made and I think in some instances it must be more satisfying than attempts to strategize votes in other jurisdictions.

With the results in, the dynamics are changing already.  Although the rest of the race to the White House has different rules it is normal for some losers to give up.  Behind the scenes some financial donators are making decisions as well.

There were a few surprises, but not totally out of line with predictions.  In many ways I am very unimpressed with the voters response, but then they probably don't think much of my reasoning.
Donald Trump to a great extent coasted on his tv reality show and some bombastic declarations.  He was defeated by a narrow minded focused, Ted Cruz who understood the importance of hard work and organizing.  As a Canadian I would like to interject that Trump's assertion that Cruz might be disqualified for his Canadian birth was very unfair.  That little bit of doubt probably encouraged some marginal Cruz supporters to look elsewhere.  I think originally the Constitutional requirement of natural American birth was to protect the new democracy against foreign born aristocrats. Nonetheless it is a stupid law that hurts everybody.  All voters deserve to get the best person available.  Also don't forget the Constitution left out women and slaves as voters.

The establishment was relieved to learn one of their favoured candidates, Marco Rubio finished third.  This will allow voters and financiers to consolidate their efforts and resources against the outsiders Trump and Cruz.  A year ago it was assumed by many that Jeb Bush would be able to represent establishment Republicans, but I think the Iowa results make that much more difficult.  Others will soon be weighing whether it is worth the effort.  Becoming president isn't the only motive as national attention can result in a political appointment, a tv contract a lobbying position or selection as the Vice President nominee.

The Republicans were able to tap into a well of fear and ignorance.  That is compounded by the size of the field meaning that each candidate tends to try to outdo their opponents in sensational claims.  It is true that the American economy is a big letdown for many voters and that international conflicts are scary, but they overlook who is responsible for that and who has been mopping up the mess much better than his predecessor.  In eight years a lot is forgotten, but the origins of much that is wrong in America was brought about by policies, decisions and people that associated with Republicans and which they wish to continue.  Obamacare, a big step in the right direction is denigrated (I think that is the right word) and too many people accept the Republican view.  A decision to go to war with Iraq was one of the most stupid and deceitful decisions ever with very long lasting consequences.  Giving rich bankers and investors less regulations resulted in a major disaster for which others paid the price.

There is more to the economy than just regulations or the lack thereof.  The global economy  works best for rich investors who can shift money and manufacturing facilities easily to co-operating jurisdictions for more profit.  We are also at a point where machines can produce more goods than people can.  For some investors they are able to take advantage of this and for the most part seem unconcerned about who they are displacing.  There have been small attempts to adjust, but they are resisted by those at the top of the food chain.

Over on the Democrat side it became obvious they have a two way race, casting aside Martin O'Malley, an intelligent individual but without a national profile  He never really had much of a chance to make himself and his ideas known on a national scale, but at least he made it to the debating platform.  Others dropped out and others decided not worth the effort.  Senator Elizabeth Warren and Vice President Joe Biden are out of the running, but may get a significant appointment if their party wins.

There is not as much difference between the two remaining Democrat candidates as there are between either one of them and the Republicans, but there is a difference.  Bernie Sanders is characterized as an idealist and it is unusual for an idealist to make it this far.  Usually they have to compromise more than Sanders has so far.  Like Trump he is also tapping into a great discontent in the American population, but I think he has identified the causes better than anyone.  He may not be able to implement his ideas, but likely would bring us closer to a fairer society.  Clinton positions herself as practical.  She knows that Congress will be difficult to work with and promises she will get results incrementally.

Perhaps as the fields narrow down the important issues will be discussed in a more reasonable manner.  Republicans reflexively deny climate change, a stance that still carries a lot of weight, but is slowly fading.  Obamacare needs to be improved not abolished.  Immigration (including refugees) needs to be reformed.   Inequality will inevitably get worse until there is either a violent revolution or a collapse of society.

Campaign finance over rides everything.  No prospective politician will get very far without large amounts of money.  They will have to spend a great deal of time and effort to get the money and perhaps even more critical, compromise.  One example is Marco Rubio getting money from a casino owner who is demanding favourable treatment for Israel which may not be in America's best interest.  Energy companies are huge donators who want to maintain their status quo.  Investors donate to give themselves favourable treatment.  It seems most of those willing to contribute to a campaign want something that is not in the best interest of the rest of us.

The media sees the whole process as an opportunity.  The news creates interest and they tend to treat it as a horse race or a platform for sensationalism.  Most importantly they can get a lot of advertising revenue.  They certainly can and do often distort things.  CNN highlighted a weak moment of Howard Dean that helped undo his campaign, but had little to do with what he offered the country.   If they would just highlight candidate distortions and falsifications they would be rendering a public service, but they tend to just skim over the issues.

Will the Americans end up with the best result under their system?   We may never know what dedicated servant who is knowledgeable and exercises good judgment under stress would have come forward if it had been easier.  We can get only those who muster the resources to put on a good show.

The idea of starting with Iowa is not all bad as it forces candidates to talk to more actual voters.  That gives hard workers a chance to create awareness.  Part of the problem is the length of the voting, starting with the primaries and also including the national campaign.  It is a huge country and it takes time to cover it all, but there is another dynamic that cuts that down.  Many states already give the appearance of giving their voting delegates to one party or the other which means both parties feel little need to cater to them instead putting their resources where the outcome (as determined by history and polls) is undecided.  There is a trade-off between the expensive time required to make a case and the scope of the voters concerns.  There is no perfect system, but it is due for a study.

Clinton Vs Sanders

My bias is that either Hilary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would be much preferable to any of the Republican candidates--so if you disagree you can skip the rest.  The world will be a different place if either of these two become President of the United States.

I also confess that I liked Howard Dean who eventually lost to John Kerry in the 2004 primary.   Howard Dean has since made contributions to the Democratic party.  John Kerry after losing the 2004 presidential election has proved to be an admirable Secretary of State.  Either man would have been better than what actually happened--unnecessary war and a major financial crisis.

Underlying the political scene in the U.S. is that rich people have a disproportionate influence in the matter.  Unfortunately this will not change, but should in one way be the voter's focus.  In that regard Bernie Sanders is the knight in shining armour charging at the enemy.  Again, unfortunately one man can only do so much and any attempt to change the situation will run up against Congress who have proved to be most resistant to any great change affecting the distribution of wealth.  Congress has several entrenched ways of resisting radical change.  In the Senate you need 60 out of 100 votes to move forward on many laws.  In the House of Representatives gerrymandering makes it seem unlikely the Democrats will gain control over the next election or maybe even two.  This also presupposes that all the Democrats (most of whom have their own donor obligations) would support Sanders agenda.

Campaign financing has been widened since a Supreme Court decision on the Citizens United case.  As campaigns are so expensive and so prolonged this gives wealthy people a chance to dominate politics.  They complain about government stealing their money, about lazy workers or those on welfare, about undesirables killing our culture.  In actual fact most Americans are born handicapped in the sense that  they are unlikely to be given the opportunities offered to the families of the 1%.

The only political way around those obstacles is a real political movement where elected officials fear for their re-election  Perhaps if Bernie can get a bigger platform that might start to happen, but I think it would take another election in 2018 to give him the necessary leverage.

Like many armchair critics I have sometimes been disappointed in Obama.  He could have spoken out more often and louder.  In truth he is an excellent speaker with a good vision.  He is hamstrung not only by rules, not only by racial prejudice, but also by money.  He would not have been elected if he had not attracted large amounts of money which inevitably comes with obligations.  He has accomplished a lot and now that he is in his last year is offering a better vision that his monied opposition.  Many of his good things have squeaked in with a lot of muscling and luck.  With a congress more supportive he would have accomplished a lot more.

Hilary Clinton is a politician and understands she needs money and she needs political support to get elected and to get things done.  I think she is realistic in how to gain power and what the constraints are.  I think her intentions are reasonably honourable.  Her pragmatism is commendable.  But at the same time her hands will be tied with her dependence on Wall Street and other campaign donations.

To some extent she seems also tied into being relatively hawkish on foreign affairs.  To some degree this may reflect a need to counter Republican bluster, but much may just be her inclination.  I think she has a fairly good understanding of the Mid East, but not quite as inclined to diplomacy as Obama or Sanders.  It is a delicate negotiation to talk to find common ground and building trust and reflection that cannot be denied.  Projecting strength undoubtedly intimidates many potential troublemakers.  I think a big part of war talk comes from arms manufacturers who benefit from international tensions.

The drinking water crisis in Flint Michigan has had different responses from the two candidates.  Bernie demanded that the Michigan Governor Rick Snyder resign.  In some jurisdictions that might have happened, but not very realistic for a Republican Governor.  Hilary took the more diplomatic route and suggested that Governor Snyder seek federal help which he did shortly after.  You could argue her timing was good (as others had made the same suggestion), and that Bernie was within his rights, but this time Hilary did exhibit better diplomacy or political manoeuvering.  Flint hits closer to home for me as several years ago both of my children competed in the CANUSA games with Flint and we have visited Fint and hosted some athletes from there.

I think they both have similar ideas on climate change, but I think Bernie would have more leverage against the big oil conglomerates as he has avoided donations from big oil.  Either would give the planet a better survival opportunity than the Republican denialists.

Electability is a big concern.  The Republicans led by Trump are very blustery and getting the attention of the masses who do not understand the details, mistrust authority and have their own set of prejudices.  Bernie seems to tap into some of the mistrust sentiments, but is a lot more practical in what he offers.  Clinton does have some inevitabilities about her--Bill Clinton was popular and successful and Obama did trust Hilary.  On top of that some voters see that a woman is overdue.  Perhaps Elizabeth Warren could be a vice president for Bernie,  but not practical for Clinton.  Bernie would probably be a one term president allowing Warren to be the first women president.  Elizabeth is the first choice of many Democrats.

Gun control is one area where Hillary has the backing of more Democrats and Bernie is somewhat not quite on board.  I think here he might be the practical one as he has a constituency that is rural.

It is amazing to watch the Republicans cut each other up and try to outdo the others by promising more stupid action.  The Democrats (including forgotten Martin O'Malley) have so far avoided such antics, but they are now criticizing one another and picking out words outside the context.  It is very true that Hilary Clinton has the inside track with lots of connections and in the end this could be the strongest factor against Bernie.

My hope is that Bernie will do well in the first two primaries and get looked at by some of Hilary's backers, particularly minorities who will see he is more on their side than they realized.  Black Lives Matter seems to have gotten Bernie more involved in their issues and he does have a long history of supporting minority groups including gays.  Bernie may win even if he doesn't get the nomination because he will steer the Democrats away from catering to the wealthy.

The mainstream media is glossing over Bernie who has been attracting comparable crowds to Donald Trump and has more grassroots donators than anyone, but he is a threat to their masters.  Most of us realize the world is stacked in favour of the very rich, but feel powerless to do anything about it.  Bernie speaks for us.  Hilary might be more successful in minor improvements.  History swings like a pendulum--one side dominates, then becomes complacent and an opposition emerges.