The Next Civil War

A civil war is pretty serious business.  As Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided cannot stand."Stephen Marcuse contends "The United States is near its end.  The question is how"?  His book explores the atmosphere and suggests a few scenarios that could burst out in a more active war

As I write this blog, a few months after the book was published there is news that quotes from an interview with Rupert Murdoch in which he admits that he believes there was no election fraud in 2020.  Furthermore we are hearing evidence that many of the Fox personalities off air also admitted there was no election fraud, but on air were promoting the big lie.  Apparently a good portion of Americans accept the lie and would vote for Trump all over again.

Do I think they are stupid?  Or are they too proud to admit they were wrong?  I believe the problem is they don't care--some are pleased Trump restricted immigration, or turned the tide against abortion, or pushed against blacks, gays and transgenders, or they dislike high taxes and onerous regulations.  That is a measure of a divided country.  The trends foreseen by Stephen Marche seem to be progressing.  A small part of his research is reflected in the following observations.

The level of violence, both rhetorically and physically has been increasing.  Groups are preparing for armed combat with training and weapons.  Domestic extremists killed 42 people in 2019.  Police brutality, one measure might be shootings, ranks much higher than other countries.

Disrespect for government authority.  Joseph Arpaio had been admonished for illegal immigrant raids, but continued until arrested and convicted, but pardoned by Trump.  Michael German, a former FBI undercover agent points out that white supremacy sympathies among police hurt domestic terrorism cases.  Killers like Dylan Roof and Kyle Rittenhouse are lauded as heroes.  Marche states "The greatest threat to the United States is not the hard right.  It is the general decline of legitimacy of the government that underlies the rise of the hard right."

Gun ownership is growing and already is well beyond any other nation.  That is through registered guns, but "ghost" guns (made from kits, 3-D printers) already account for 30% of seized guns.  Most owners claim bought for protection and for some that means from the government.

Alex Newhouse a researcher into extremist violence points out "...online radicalization starts with alienation... Social alienation comes with anger at their lot in life...the contrarian will often provide an explanation...for why they are feeling that way."  Population projections point that the United States will be a minority white nation by 2045.

The United States Constitution was a compromise.  The slave holding states were concerned the industrial north would outvote them on important issues.  Their white male propertied population was too small to compete with the north so they insisted upon counting their slaves as 3/5 of a person and combined with the electoral college it gave them parity with the north.  Those rules allowed Thomas Jefferson to defeat John Adams in the 1800 election.  The electoral college has given the south disproportionate power ever since with a notable exception during the Civil War.  After the Civil War, the south was able to institute Jim Crow which could only increase black resentments and southern resistance.  Five of the current Supreme Court justices were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote.

A study in India focused on Hindu-Muslim conflicts.  "An increase in Muslim expenditures generates a large and significant future religious conflict.  An increase in Hindu expenditures has a negative or no effect.  The dominant culture, Hindu feels more impacted by a change in relative standing.  Whites in America also seem to feel most threatened by changes in the status quo. 

Inequality as it increases leads nations closer to war and revolution.  The Covid pandemic underlies the effects of inequality.  A comparison of nations with over 5 million population and an average of over $25,000 gross income reveals that the United States did the worst.  Not masking, not practicing social distancing and not vaccinating were political issues.  The world is inevitably going to provide other crises.  Inequality leads to a lack of co-operation needed to deal with global crises.

 Many politicians do not care about issues accept to use them for power.  Cater to and even inflame the mass prejudices.  Big money is needed to hide the desire for power.

Secession within a nation has been written into legislation for only two nations.  Canada recognizing Quebec represents a distinct ethnic population.  Also Britain recognizing a similar ethnic identity for Scotland.  Texas, essentially a one party state has generated a secession movement that prominent politicians cater to, but not quite endorse as they also have presidential ambitions.

The American people are capable of solving the big problems such as the electoral system, the legitimacy of their courts, police reform, even inequality and climate change.  The author contends "The United States, if it is to survive, requires a Constitutional Convention.  The loathing overtaking the country makes that possibility more remote every day."

The author and I are both Canadians, in other words, outsiders.  But like the whole world we will be affected how the American dilemma plays out.  Without America the world will not solve many crises such as climate change, pandemics, inequality, justice, etc.

Read the book for more scary details and citations.

What Will it Take?

Most Americans and the rest of the world have figured out Donald Trump is very incompetent and even dangerous, but there remains a hard core of supporters who feel he is their saviour.  With the electoral College, campaign finance and outside malevolant forces (eg. Russians and other anti American forces) it is still conceivable that he might get re-elected.

One has to wonder what it would take to oust him in November?  Some of his supporters are claiming the bad news including the mounting death totals are just a plot against their saviour.   Some of us think that as the deaths increase the odds improve to get rid of Trump.  Does that mean we are hoping for more people to die?    I hope not, but what would it take?

Before the election there were a number of character flaws on full display.  A misogynistic immoral womanizer who lied was known to any casual observer.  Evangelicals have been very self righteous about much lesser transgressions in the past, but they overlooked and forgave in return for his explicit promises regarding abortion and other Christian concerns such as supporting Israel.  Others were convinced he would fight to lower taxes and de regulate so they could accumulate more wealth.  Many of the wealthy ones used their resources to tap into the prejudices of the ill informed.  He unjustifiably brags about himself and insults those he dislikes.  He even criticized heroes.

After the election it became more apparent that the Russians played a role in his victory.   Many sources maintained the evidence was questionable and circumstantial.  Hard to deny that Trump did many things the Russians wanted and that in the past Republicans especially condemned.  The Mueller Report was constrained in its evidence and was dismissed by many in power (media and political).  The Ukraine scandal was to anyone who considered the facts proof that Trump was trying to benefit himself against American interests.  Some people might have noticed that it also supported Russian interests.  All this didn't move the needle against Trump.

His actions in the Mid-East in part were designed to appeal to Evangelicals, but were detrimental to peace.  The Iran treaty rejection has many harmful results.  Abandoning the Kurdish forces suited the Russians, Turks and Saudi Arabians.  He even shielded a murder of an American resident.  These actions did not disturb his supporters and many found them laudable.

His dismissal of climate change and overlooking of pollution and food inspections were not big enough problem for his supporters while his financial supporters liked them.  Instead of being a world leader, Trump became an impediment to international co-operation to deal with global problems. 

Another way he bought support was with tax cuts.  Most of his supporters were grateful if they got a few dollars more, but didn't realize that inequality took another big shift against them.  The deficit will squeeze them and already has begun doing so.  They haven't caught on to their own harm.

Now we come to the Covid-19 pandemic.  He has displayed a cavalier attitude towards the danger, ignoring medical advice, he seems more concerned about the stock market, big business and his own re-election.  He is aware of the statistics making him look bad, but his approach is to belittle them and try to manipulate them.  To most rational thinkers this is beyond the last straw, but he has tapped into people's resentments of not only elites, but also their own agony over pandemic restrictions.

Most of us are aware to some degree of suffering and look at the future in fear.   Like the electoral college distorts the majority votes, it only takes a small number of restriction violators to ensure there will be a second wave of Covid-19.  It is conceivable that the timing of the inevitable second wave will escape Trump and combined with other measure he will adopt give him another four years.  Most voters are not sufficiently aware of the Republican economic agenda, but they have found a social agenda paves the way to get elected. 

What can we do?  There is already lots of evidence against Trump, but there is a big mountain of misinformation and misdirection supporting him.  The battle for credibility has been waged for a long time and it is noted that in fact the majority don't trust him.  But he doesn't need a majority as proved by the last election.  It also must be feared that even if Trump does lose the election his supporters might not accept it and that could be a serious problem.  Ideally we need to convince them Trump is not their friend.  Inequality really has been Trump's tool, but it is very ironic and should be easy to turn around.  He is a tool of the already wealthy.

Accuracy in reporting the stats should be more than enough to convince Trump supporters he is really not on their side, but that should not be taken for granted.  Apparently Covid-19 is hitting less populous areas that have voted for Trump.  They are victims of Trump and some are beginning to learn.  Now it seems the wealthy friends of the Trump administration are gaining at the expense of those with less power.  It is unfortunate that it is human nature to pay little attention to things that are far away, but to learn the hard way everything is connected.

Voting by mail offers a chance for the majority to get their opinions expressed, but there is resistance and it needs to be pointed out this is not only fair but effective.   The courts are being stacked and in ways that not only hurt progressive ideas, but also the common worker (and everybody else in many ways).  If ever it is possible, the electoral college needs to be reformed.  Campaign finance should be a concern to everyone.  Regarding the court system it may take a long time, but maybe not.

I am not hopeful and recognize it will take a very long time to undo the harm that has already been done.  We could be on the verge of another Dark Ages, but we could also on our way to a much better life for everyone if we could only realize we really are in this together.  Instead we have been divided, diced up and conquered by those powerful enough to control the levers.  What would it take?

From an earlier blog some of his enablers identified:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/07/trump-enablers.html 

WHAT NOW?

Democracy has taken a big blow with the impeachment "trial."

In some ways the Republicans know they did wrong, but felt helpless to do anything about it.  Many admitted that indeed the charges had been proved.  In some cases they felt what Trump did was bad, it just wasn't bad enough to upset the status quo.  Others were aware that they could protest (at some harm to themselves) and in the end the result of acquittal would prevail.

These are intelligent men and women who did something disagreeable to themselves.  To me, it is because of mob rule and corruption.  The Republicans feared the consequences of offending Trump who has proved to be very vindictive.  The arrogance of Trump is supported by a stubborn base, the electoral system, media support and corruption.

The stubborn base feels they have been treated unfairly.  Why are they poor and powerless while obviously selfish people hurt them?  Many of them are essentially one issue voters who feel very strongly about their concern and overlook how Trump (and the Republicans) have packaged their concern together with economic concerns of the rich.  (http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2020/01/one-issue-voters.html)   Trump is a vocal liar who has achieved celebrity status.  He uncovers prejudice that many are reluctant to admit.
 
The electoral system was set up by slave owners who feared the industrial north would outvote them and curtail their economic system.  Slavery has been abolished, but there has been a long legacy of pride and prejudice that is still part of human nature. In Canada to lure Prince Edward Island into Confederation they were offered and accepted a guarantee of 4 members of Parliament that was disproportionate to their population.  In America small states are able to fight above their weight class and to some extent it can be justified.  They have a different legitimate viewpoint that should be heeded.  But sharp politicians realize they don't need to cultivate a majority vote, but with a winner take all in most states can squeeze a winning combination.  Opinions are so set that presidential candidates do not waste precious resources in states that are consistently on one side or another.

The media often is quite strong in their condemnation of Trump and his policies, but it seems tempered.  He is so controversial that he draws attention and thereby gains a relatively cheap platform and it seems to reinforce his celebrity status.  Wealthy interests are increasingly in control of media outlets and in some cases are very slanted and in others soften their criticism.  They are increasingly sophisticated how to manipulate using massive amounts of data.

One of the problems of unregulated capitalism is that it tends to concentrate wealth.  The wealthy have power that they naturally tend to use in order to maintain their wealth.  They are the ones who pay for lobbyists to persuade those with legislative power to pass laws that favor the rich.  Taxes are one area that can be modified so the rich can grab a larger share of profits.  Regulations are a restraint on their ability to squeeze more profit.  Unions and minimum wage laws impact their ability to boost profits.  Discrimination laws impact working conditions and in many cases affect their feelings of self righteous superiority.  Health regulations affect what we eat, drugs we use and how safe we are.  Trump is especially vain and selfish and favors his personal and family interests above all others.  Campaign laws have loosened so that the very wealthy can get their message out and to some extent without attribution.  Corruption has now reached the stage where a dishonest politician can gain help from foreign entities who have their own agenda.

He may not be acquitted in the next few days as predicted, but it certainly seems likely.  The Democrats are in the midst of selecting a candidate to oppose Trump and have to be concerned how this impeachment effort affects their choice.  One of the biggest single factors is the ability to defeat Trump.  Joe Biden may be tainted, but others feel he is the one most likely to defeat Trump.  It is certain whoever wins the nomination will be slandered viciously by the Trump team.  Other Democrats feel that Trump can be defeated by any candidate, so why not go for a more progressive candidate.

To me where Trump is more vulnerable is his base.  They have been lied to and in many cases hurt badly.  All the talk about stock market records and job reports hides many economic realities.  Wealth is being more concentrated, Americans are not protected as much as before and important problems  such as the climate crisis are being ignored.

Bolton's book, at this point seems like it could make a difference.  An unlikely Democrat tool he has his own motivations and policy preferences.   Although it supposedly contains some explosive information with the credibility of a true insider.  There have been other incriminating books that have probably dampened Trump's approval, but have had almost no effect on his base.  He has proved most of the time that he can use his base to gain his preferences.

Part of me is outraged at the many insults he has delivered and the harmful policies he has helped arrange.  To others they are amusing or helpful or ignorable.  Not enough impact.  It is sometimes difficult to convince someone they have been lied to or worse, manipulated, but that may be the most effective.   If they are really upset about abortions they can easily forgive infidelity or a tax break for the rich.  They accept that Trump exaggerates, embellishes, distorts and outright lies.  Some rationalize that he does something really important to them or is entertaining.

The hope is he will lie about something that is important to them and they become aware of it.  What is important aside from the one issue?  One possibility is betrayal of the nation, not just accepting help.  There have been lots of examples---ignoring his own intelligence agencies and accepting the word of Putin--abandoning the Kurds who were essential to U.S. policy, delaying much needed aid for the Ukrainians to resist the Russians, poor treatment of immigrants who have helped America.  It won't affect some, but if really hammered home which maybe Bolton's book may help with it will affect some.

Everyone has friends, acquaintances, fellow workers who have been betrayed by Trump who proclaims otherwise.  Parents, children, siblings have been hurt through de-regulations, or abusive powers.  It is easier to ignore the abuse of immigrants even if that issue is not your core issue.  Some will come to realize they have been bought so that others (including some they care about) can suffer.

Sincerity is a key component to acceptance.   Trump does many things to undercut his sincerity.  His infidelities should shock more people.  His coverups are also an indication of his deception.

What he really thinks of his base which is not as amusing as his usual insults.   He loves the poorly educated.  He knows better than the Generals.  He is undermining health care.  He is doing away with protections to favor big business. 

It is true that the Democrat policies (pretty much any of the candidates) are superior in my opinion than what Trump is actually doing.  They also are tainted with wealthy money trying to influence the country, but their policies are directed at actually helping the majority.  They should argue for their policies and offer contrasts.  That may not do it.  Much as I admire Michelle Obama, especially when she said "when they go low we go high" it is time to draw the contrasts in more than just style. 

What Now?

The Mueller Report, redacted as it is, is pretty damning.  The media, many activists and the Democrats will certainly kick up a fuss.  The next move is really up to the Republicans.  They can fight being pushed out with legalities and using their control of the Senate and Presidency and now even the Supreme Court.  But eventually they will reckon against the 2020 election.

That must give many pause for reflection.  The Mueller report is only a part of what crimes and misdemeanors are yet to come.  Not only is Trump's past full of legal and public relations problems, but going back to the CIA/FBI revelations to key Congressional members there is more cause for concern.  Mitch McConnell threatened the Obama administration that he would accuse them of meddling in an election, thus creating a clear path aided by the Russians.  Now we learn the Kentucky Senator and Majority leader also had some dealings with the Russians.

Would the public overlook all this Russian inter actions and Trump's obvious attempts at obstruction?  Many would forgive Trump for various reasons.  I think much of the 1% are very grateful for their tax rebates plus loosening up constricting regulations.  Others are pleased at all the rhetoric and action against minorities.

Many were discouraged for their job prospects and lapped up many distortions against Hillary Clinton.  A few may be willing to examine their perceptions.  Others may realize that many policies were not in their interests.

Minorities are not the problem for job prospects.  Really it boils down to the greed of those with power and money.  They are looking for cheaper alternatives and finding them with automation (and artificial intelligence) and shifting increasingly job descriptions to low labour costs, less regulation overseas markets.  There are ways of dealing with these problems, but they aren't given much of a platform.  Although a bit outdated here is a blog from 2014 that illustrates the job future: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/08/rise-of-robots.html

The tax cut was really engineered by donations from the wealthy.  And although a token amount was given to encourage low income voters the wealthy supporters gained a bigger hunk of available wealth.  Some have invested in creating jobs and of course extra money being spent creates jobs.  However huge chunks of money were mainly used to consolidate wealth.  On the other side the government will be dealing with deficits which eventually all tax payers will suffer for.  But at the same time programs that benefit lower income people will be curtailed as the wealthy see them as harmful to their interests.  The many inter connections will increase inequality.

Trump has gone against the majority in many ways although admittedly his base likes much of his efforts and/or find him entertaining.  He has offended many allies and upset peace initiatives.  Meddling in the Mid East endangers us all.  Some of it was just to please his base, but some was for selfish unfathomable reasons.  The Iran Nuclear deal did not suit his allies in Israel and Saudi Arabia, but was critical. for world peace  He took the side of Israel regarding Iran plus Palestine and also of the Saudi Arabians on Yemen.  Another group of voters will be threatened by these actions.

He has gone against American traditions regarding Russia.  Although no collusion  has been legally declared more Americans will wonder what the connection must be between Russian election aid and Trump's many favorable words and actions.

On the social front besides rhetoric and actions against visible minorities he also supported anti-LGBT efforts.  A touchy issue that is very key for many voters is abortion.  Most people are repulsed by abortion, but realized that effective ways to diminish it include sex education and access to contraception.  Some realize that it is difficult to judge women and their families when they find themselves in an unwelcome pregnancy--rape, incest, health issues, economic hardship are some factors. Sex is very hard to control and in a misogynous and sexually obsessive society, men are able to avoid responsibility.   Society seems to be evolving in their acceptance of new morality.

All of this must make the upcoming election frightful for many Republicans.  Even those in what have been considered safe seats  have to be worried how much power they will have if their Republican colleagues are not able to win.  If they refuse to take any responsibility how will their voters react?  They are already sliding.

Much of party actions are coordinated, but they have to realize real power  comes from being part of majority with control of Congress, the president and judicial.  If they punish the "bad apples" and show respect for bi partisan efforts inevitably some people will forgive them.  Impeachment is risky for both sides and at this stage unlikely to happen.  Renominating Donald Trump should also be a risky choice for the Republicans.  An association with Donald Trump could drag down many Republicans. 

Much of this mess will carry on.  The Republicans (giving a lot of credit to Mitch McConnell) managed to avoid a Democratic Supreme Court choice replace a conservative judge and then go on to add two more of their choices.  At the lower levels of the judiciary Republicans have been very active in assuring a conservative bent for at least another generation.  The electoral college will continue to distort the popular vote and states still have leeway to gerrymander.  (Dark) money will still be effective at subverting votes.

It may be a few years before the U.S. is back on track.  They have to earn trust from their allies and respect from others.  They need to tackle problems like climate change, future of jobs, inequality and campaign finance.

THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN FROM A JOURNALIST PERSPECTIVE

Katy Tur was encouraged to recount her adventures on the Trump campaign and the result was "Unbelievable."  The voters knew everything they needed to know to make a better choice, but many just didn't care.  Katy Tur didn't set out to be Trump's shadow, but circumstances conspired against her.

The story alternates between election day and various significant events. during the campaign  There is a lot about Trump much of which you have already been told, but may have forgotten because there was so much unbelievable.  A reporter in this campaign, Katy found herself in a very unique position.  Never before  has a candidate spent so much time insulting and intimidating.  Trump  for all his faults used members of the press for his own purposes.  Despite his public hostility towards Katy he consented for interviews.

From my position insulated from the actual campaign, Katy reinforced many of my prejudices.  Trump lies and lies and lies some more.  He sometimes puts it that he engages in harmless hyperbole and that offends my educated snobbery.  He insults.  He doesn't really approach discussing issues, but seems to know what his followers expect.

Katy recounts how Trump intruded into politics with his birther claims.   Most of us acknowledge that underneath it all was racism.  Talking to some of his followers without admitting to it confirmed the link.  Lyndon Johnson once said "If you can convince the lowest of white men he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket."  Hitting out at established prejudices such as the Chinese don't play fair, Iran is playing Americans for suckers, Mexicans are stealing jobs and bringing in drugs, etc. his base didn't care about his shortcomings.

Katy pointed out that Trump for all his bombast only made one change to the Republican platform.  That was to strike out plans to arm the Ukrainians. We are still learning more about the links from the Russians to Trump.

Just before one of the presidential debates NBC discovered the infamous Hollywood Access tapes.  Katy was the one who notified the Trump campaign that they had the tapes and would be publicly releasing them.  This seemed like a stunner, but not for long as Trump managed to round up a few Clinton accusers and brought them to the debate.  One of them was a woman that Hilary Clinton had defended her accused in a rape case in Arkansas.  The issue was soon neutralized with lots of voters offering their support.  It did spur some other women to publicly accuse Trump of sexual assault, but again he weathered that storm. 

 For anyone who took a good look at Donald Trump there was enough evidence that he was totally unqualified to be president.  It was easy to spot, but enough people loved his antics and with a few fortuitous events he pulled it off.  One of the fortuitous events was the Electoral College, heavily influenced by slave owners meant that he won despite getting almost 3 million less votes than Hilary.  James Comey, soon to be fired actually helped nail the coffin.  Who fully understands what the Russians (and other outsiders) were up to, but they didn't want  Hilary to win and had tools to diminish her chances.

There was a personal toll on reporters.  Katy, at the beginning had a happy relationship with a French man while she worked at an enjoyable job in London.  At the end she was planning a marriage to a fellow traveler on the campaign trail and moved back to New York.

Two  links to other Donald Trump blogs:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/07/trump-enablers.html 

http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/02/trump-and-media-or-media-and-us.html

HILLARY CLINTON'S "WHAT HAPPENED"

At first her book was to be avoided.  It was too self-serving.  However as time marches on some commentators have praised her for her astute political observations.  I have blogged about her before and believe she has been a target of unfair vicious criticism.  Far from perfect, but one must realize it takes a strong personal drive to weather the many obstacles to the presidency.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/08/hilary-clinton-republican-target.html

The political process is structured, yet for most of us it is full of mystery.  She helps unravel some of it.  There was no one factor that did her in, but more a series of factors that chipped away at what was once a formidable lead.  She freely admits she has her share of flaws and in some cases itemizes her mistakes.

One thinks of America as one of the most free countries in the world, yet it falters in comparison  to many others regarding its treatment of women. Part seems to be the evangelical elements that feel strongly that a women's role is in the home.  Bill Clinton lost his first attempt to be Governor of Arkansas and some attributed it to Hillary maintaining her maiden name.  For his next and successful attempt she added Clinton to her name.  To many she seemed an uppity woman and was constantly criticized.

Press coverage seemed  to emphasize negatives, particularly the email "scandal" that really wasn't.  lt should have been a minor concern considering how many Republicans had a poor history in this area including George W Bush, Mitt Romney, even Mike Pence.  Donald Trump truly had some outstanding scandals.  Trump University and his Atlantic City fiasco really showed what he thought of the common working man.  What he thought of women was captured for all to hear and he still faces accusations of over a dozen women.

Bernie Sanders was my preferred candidate, but I can appreciate that he was not as practical as Hillary.  I preferred his plans on the Israeli Palestinian conflict where most American politicians are biased.  It seemed rigged against Bernie as if  Hillary was pre ordained.  Bernie who did draw large crowds still needed the public to get more familiar with him.  He did not get the coverage that other established candidates did.  Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were well known personalities. Although Bernie did what he could to boost Hillary after he lost to her it seems likely there was some resentment that caused some to look for a third candidate, not vote at all or even vote for the Republicans.

A lot of issues raised about the unfairness of the process which I agree with.  How can the Republicans screw people and make it seem like the Democrats did it?  George Lakoff has in my opinion a more robust way of dealing with the Republicans.  I can only imagine there must be some personal animus against him as his ideas are not controversial or difficult.  The only reference to him in the book is a sexist remark he once made.  Get more perspective at:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/07/george-lakoff-wants-to-reform.html

Conservatives realize their true agenda has little appeal to most voters.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/10/social-conservatism-is-pivotal.html  For many the election is about one issue--abortion, or it might be acceptance (or not) of homosexuals, or it might be gun rights.  The National Rifle Association ganged up on Hillary stating that she planned to replace Second Amendment rights which was false, but scary to many.

After the book was published in September of 2017 we learn something almost every day how the Russians meddled in the election.  Donald Trump has a long history of dealing with Russians and his one attempt to alter the Republican platform was to diminish sanctions against the Russians.  Maybe he really thought that was the way to peace and was just overly sensitive that he didn't win the election on his own merits, but that stretches credibility.  The Russians helped dig up dirt or at least what could be spun as dirt, amplified false information and targeted information where it would have the most impact.  When Obama wanted to alert the American public to Russian meddling, Mitch McConnell threatened to sabotage the effort.

Hillary studied early voting states vs one day only voting plus polls to prove what a devastating effect Comey's press conference had.  All the polls had her winning right up until his announcement that further investigation was about to be conducted.  Those who voted early voted for her while those who voted later steered towards Trump or third party candidates.  Trump's campaign was being investigated, but that was not publicized.  Although Trump is accusing the F.B.I. of favoring Democrats, the truth appears the opposite.

The Electoral College presents a challenge.  You don't have to get the most votes, but get the most electoral votes.  By itself this distorts all campaigns, but everyone has the same rules.  Hillary argues that she did put in an honest effort (based on poll results) in the three states, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania that made the difference.  In each of the states a third party candidate drew enough votes to allow Donald Trump to win.

Voter suppression was another very significant factor.  Voting rights were loosened in 2013 with the John Roberts led Supreme Court.  14 states added restrictions including not only new identification requirements, but also cutting early voting days.  In the states with new voting restrictions turnout decreased by 1.7%,whereas in other states turnout actually increased by 1.3%.

Although issues were significant Hillary notes that the best predictor of a Trump voter was someone who resented Mexicans, blacks or Muslims.  She was thinking of that when she said her infamous statement about "deplorables." She admits that others who favored some Republican policies but did not see themselves as bigots were resentful.  Still she admits it hurts that people preferred to vote for Trump or seek a third party alternative.  After all he has a history of racism, misogyny, that was well known.  So if voters didn't sympathize with Trump's views they at least accepted them.

Hillary's book doesn't tell the whole story, but voters would be foolish not to recognize the many truths.  She doesn't spare herself.  I am glad I overcame my initial reluctance to read the book. America is stuck with a very bad decision and although not enough realize it, things will have to change if America is to be the country that used to be respected and admired by most of the world. She tried to have serious discussions on policies while Trump was more comfortable with hyperbole, insults, and even threats.

TRUMP ENABLERS

We can rant all we want about Donald Trump's misdeeds, but somehow he got into power.  An increasing majority of American voters now realize a horrible mistake was made.  Can we go forward somehow?  The problem is, the status quo suits some people.  In my head there are a number of enablers who bear responsibility.

Number One:  The electoral college.  You might think this is trivial or something that can't be changed.  The origin of the electoral college goes back to the Constitution negotiations.  The southern colonies (especially the elite) that owed their economic wealth to slavery were very concerned they would be out voted and were able to obtain some protections.  Even though they thought Africans were sub human they were able to insist that a slave was worth 3/5 of a human which enabled them to build up their population base.  This was eventually discarded, but the electoral college has been maintained.  It assures that small states can have disproportionate power in presidential elections.  In cold hard facts Hillary Clinton won almost an extra 3 million votes than Donald Trump and she never contested the electoral college.  Obviously if you want to win you have to play by the rules and the Trump camp took advantage of the rules.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/12/the-half-has-never-been-told.html  The rules need to be changed.  Remember George W. Bush lost the popular vote, but was able to win the electoral college.

The Media that is now mostly upset played a significant role. Trump knows show business and attracted a notoriety that greatly boosted his platform.  As always the media was more interested in their own ratings than discussing the issues and the credibility of the candidates.  Climate change should have been a much higher profile issue, but the media mostly ignored it.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/02/trump-and-media-or-media-and-us.html

The evidence is piling up that not only did the Russians want Trump to win, but were deeply involved.  Hillary Clinton had been critical of a recent Russian election and honestly earned the scorn of Vladimir Putin.  Trump has in the past been helped by Russian mobsters.  The Republicans had their own motives, as usual taxes and regulations that were very concerning to the 1%.  They knew that a social agenda would help draw in evangelicals and many low education voters willing to vote against their economic self interest.  It is hard to keep up to date, but read the link for a good perspective on Russian activities.  https://www.juancole.com/2017/07/trumps-russian-akhmetshin.html

The education system is uneven with many parts of the country investing more than others.  It seems ironic that Trump did best with the low education voters.  At the same time many of the wealthier better educated voted for their economic self interest.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/02/reign-of-error-what-direction-should.html

Big money was not only able to contribute massive amounts of money for their interests, but because of laws passed by conservatives and supported by conservative elements in the Supreme Court, could keep much of it secret.  Elections should not be decided or influenced by big money.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/07/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html  The big and dark money enabled gerrymandering that ensures Republican congress members fear their home base more than the Democrat opposition.

Ultimately the voters.  Did they really think Donald Trump was going to represent their interests?  Did they think he understood the complexities of the modern world?  Did they feel putting such an immoral man in charge of their nation was ok, because he would somehow do the "right" thing?  Unfortunately, despite losing the popular vote the Trump agenda will get its chance to set the country back and maybe much worse.http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/06/the-american-iq-test.html

Democracy allows one to get what one voted for.  Some hope that after this experience the voters will wake up and vote more reasonably.  Hopefully they are right.

The photo is of a non voter, Sabre, but I like him much more than the enablers.

ARE PEOPLE CATCHING ON TO TRUMP?

Polls indicate the level of satisfaction with Trump is declining, but there is still a very hardcore support base and he is backed by a majority Congress who are working on their own agenda.  The Supreme Court and lesser courts have been tilted conservative.  The Republicans have survived special elections, however with a reduced majority.

Perhaps I am too much an elitist snob, but I cannot understand why his manner of speaking and behaviour doesn't turn off everyone.  Boasting, especially about the trivial as well as important things all by itself should turn off most of us.  Exaggeration is offensive.  His lies are easy to catch and are getting commoner.  Egotism does not work well with Commander in Chief.

The Russian thing.  Maybe he was just the beneficiary of Russian efforts, but the contacts that we know about are very suspicious.  He has associated with Russian mobsters.  I read many months ago and confirmed more recently that the only Republican planks asked for were to do with lifting Russian sanctions.  They show little concern for Russian efforts to undermine the American elections--perhaps they just don't care now that they won with or without their help.  Vicious false stories took away from Clinton's platform.

Trump University illustrates how he looks at the masses.  Apparently he was willing to pay about $25 million dollars to shut the complainers up.  Ordinary people are just opportunities to squeeze more money while providing little value.  He complains about a meanness in the Affordable Care Act revisions, but has demonstrated plenty of his own disinterest in the welfare of his constituents.

This was not meant to be a litany of his many misdeeds. Unless you are illiterate you have had plenty of opportunity to learn about the blatant misdeeds of the Trump administration.  It is not just that Trump is terrible by himself, but he has enabled the minions of the 1% to start dismantling and reversing strategies beneficial to the rest.  He is influenced by despicables and tries to enlist their followers  in his cause.

As a foreigner I am not impressed. He did play the electoral college rules better than Hilary, but the rules originally were set up to protect slavery and do not reflect reality today.  Too many opponents voted third party or stayed home.  Who knows what the investigations will uncover, but there was plenty of evidence before he was elected.  Enough said.

THE HALF HAS NEVER BEEN TOLD

Most of us whites think of slavery as history with no significant consequences today.  But slavery shaped America in ways most citizens are unconscious of with very definite impacts today.  Edward E Baptist has done a scholarly job of uncovering the real story.

Eight Presidents were slave owners helped by a Constitution that counted slaves as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of electing members to the House of Representatives which in turn gave slave states more leverage in the Electoral College. This is the same electoral college that has enabled Donald Trump to win the recent election, even though he trailed Hillary Clinton by well over 2 million votes.  Southerners forced the capital to move to newly created District of Columbia to be closer to them.

The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 is treated as a clever manoeuver by Thomas Jefferson, but it was more complicated.  In 1793 in the colony of St-Domingue the most successful of all slave revolts started.  Until 1799, under the leadership of Toussaint L'ouverture they fought off British infantry units. By 1800 Napoleon was in control of France and he wanted to restore monarchy.  He sent 50,000 soldiers to St-Dominque, better known as Haiti, but they too were defeated.  He had planned to send another army of 20,000 soldiers to take back New Orleans, but ended up diverting them to Haiti where they too were defeated.  To cut his losses he offered a bargain price for Louisiana.

Further to that, many French landowners, including sugar specialists migrated to New Orleans.  They brought some slaves with them, but wanted more.  Northerners had a delicate balance.  They did not want southern slave states to gain more political leverage, but some were invested in the slave trade.  The Mississippi Valley was now open to slavery.  Louisiana became a (slave) state in 1812.

The industrial Revolution really gained traction in northern England and the first significant product was cotton textiles. After the invention of a cotton gin in 1790 it unclogged a bottleneck in the process. They could sell as much as they could make and so they wanted more raw material.  America was expanding and had lots of land and cheap labour.  America by 1819 controlled the world's export market for cotton.

It is thought that machines are more efficient than manual labour, but in fact for quite a while human labour increased its efficiency faster than machines.  The secret was whips and violent calculated intimidation.  Just before the Civil War records were set for picking cotton and this became critical for economic growth.

Separation of families was seen as an economic decision.  Men were bought for particular needs, usually a wife not needed.  Women without children can work without their distraction.  Brothers and sisters were split as new buyers wanted one or the other, but not  both.  Men were called "boys" and whipped to humiliate them.  Men and women would form relationships and have them broken up and then form new relationships.  Thomas Jefferson once declared that separation from loved ones mattered little to the Africans.

Sex was a lure for many men buying female slaves.   Many women were bought for sex often being stripped at auctions.  Mulattos were one result.

Andrew Jackson, the hero of the Battle of New Orleans was also an Indian fighter and slave owner.  He pushed Indian tribes (about 50,000 individuals) off lands that allowed expansion of cotton and slave labour.  Texas belonged to Mexico, but American settlers moved in bringing slaves and after celebrated military actions were able to claim a large amount of land, in fact the third largest annexation in American history.  Slave owners saw this as a new opportunity.

Cuba, despite laws supposed to stop slave trade across the Atlantic imported 700,000.  Cuba became the biggest sugar producer in the world.  Southern slave owners were interested in Cuba as a source, but more to expand their leverage politically

Finance developed through the cotton trade.  English manufacturers needed material and farmers needed money to produce cotton.  Slaves were useful as collateral.  Bonds were sold to northern states and Europeans with in effect slaves being securitized.

The northern states developed manufacturing, stepping in with tariff protected cotton (England still did higher end textiles) and that led to supplying the south with such things as shovels, hoes, shoes, axes (using for clearing forests for farming).  They developed symbiotic relations with the southern slave owners and this led to sympathetic political arrangements.  Southerners were concerned about their property rights and demanded the right to have escaped slaves returned to their owners.

There was northern resentment of slavery and political forces to restrict its development.  Demographics changed over time with most European immigrants settling in the north and fearing competition from cheap labour.  The northern states could count the new immigrants as 5/5 of a person and gained control of Congress.  Southern slave owners were fearful of losing control and convinced the poorer whites that they needed to protect state rights, claiming if the north could impose equality of races, the whites would lose their status.  The author is quick to point out that the war was not for state rights, but to maintain slavery. It seems one political party still uses similar tactics to convince large numbers to vote against their economic self interest.

After the Civil War blacks gained some freedom, but it wasn't long before the whites reasserted their dominance.  Blacks had no accumulated wealth and soon had to contend with segregated schools and a range of Jim Crow laws.  In truth the situation was not much better in the north

A consolation and a form of communication for African slaves was music.  Their music was borrowed by whites and now is an integral part of American culture and spread around the globe.

There are many details that prove that slavery was critical to the development of American capitalism and created a culture of distrust, fear and continuing damage.  There is still much room for improvement.

The author, Edward E Baptist had a thought provoking response to a review of the book by the Economist magazine that puts the situation in a relevant context.  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/07/economist-review-my-book-slavery

As a Canadian it is easy to be self-righteous, but we shouldn't be.  As one example it turns out that George Tuckett  a former mayor of my home city, Hamilton made a fortune by cornering the tobacco market in Virginia during the American Civil War.  He had a warehouse in Lynchberg, Virginia and was allowed to go back and forth because he was a Canadian.  I learned that his home originally known as the Tuckett Mansion is in my opinion the most interesting building in town, now known as the Scottish Rite building.  Thanks to Robin McKee.

RATIONALIZING TRUMP'S VICTORY

Using words of Mr Trump himself, his election  to me is a "disaster" and "a catastrophe," but there is not much short of an armed rebellion that can be done.  A few days ago on Facebook I read a post that defended the electoral college that allowed Trump to win the election, even though Hilary Clinton actually won the popular vote by a number approaching one million and expected to go higher.

Every voting system helps determine a political strategy.  Here in Canada we are wrestling with a new system that could be either ranked or proportional.  Both are superior to the electoral college.

Some of the arguments made on the electoral system had some sense, but the more I think on it there are serious problems with the electoral college.  Whenever the number of voters is barely over 50% the election itself lacks credibility and it would be unfair to say anyone has a mandate.  The reasons people chose not to vote are many:  suppression, inconvenience, apathy, poor choices, distrust and I would add the feeling that your vote doesn't make any difference.

A voice on the radio pointed out that the electoral college can negate two million votes.  That means a lot of upset people who made the effort to vote.  The politicians knew the rules and one of them played them better, but the losers were the voters.  The way the electoral college works many votes are wasted meaning they have no impact on the final results.  If your party gets 0.5% less than the winner, by definition in most states your vote doesn't count and the other party gets all the electoral votes.  For many that would be a reason where the odds are further apart to not bother.

One of the arguments was that politicians would ignore the small population centres and to some extent that is true, but right now they ignore the states that have a tradition of voting one party consistently.  But if each vote is equal politicians will go anywhere where they feel they can make a difference.

Another argument was that the founders, those who negotiated the original Constitution did not favor a pure majority.  That is true.  What I understand is that at the time many of the politicians were slave holders and were very concerned that they could be out voted by the industrial north.  Many of the early presidents were slave holders including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.  Also bear in mind that only propertied males of a certain age were eligible to vote.  There are people who think that was a better arrangement, but most of us would disagree and have been successful in expanding the number of voters.

It is true that rural residents do have a different set of priorities that should be respected.  I have lived in a rural area at a young age, but have spent most of my life in urban centres and each has influenced my thinking.  The rural voice is much needed and it doesn't mean much if they don't have some power, but neither should they dominate the majority of the population.  An earlier blog on this issue:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/10/the-rural-urban-divide.html

Since the twentieth century only two elections have been decided by the electoral college when the popularity vote was different.  In both cases the Democrats lost.  I think most Americans would agree that George Bush was not a successful president and I would venture that most Americans (and most of the rest of the world) do not feel good about the Trump presidency.

There have been Supreme Court judges who felt that their job is to determine the original founder's intention before they rule on new laws.  It appears that more judges who think that way are apt to be appointed.

Any Constitution is prone to flaws because they are made by humans with vested interests.  One flaw that draws attention is the practice of gerrymandering.  In Canada the task of deciding voting district boundaries is formally non partisan.  In America that task is given to partisans.

In elections since 2010 with one exception the Republicans have been able to win more House of Representatives seats with fewer votes than have the Democrats   Since 2012 they have been able to obstruct which is ironic.  Many of the things they obstructed are what voters complained that the Democrats didn't do.  Ironically (or perhaps not) the Republicans did win the majority of House votes and retained the majority of seats in 2016.

Voting systems can be very complicated, but I believe an important question is why didn't more people vote.  A winning politician has more credibility when they can claim they represent all the people.  A country benefits when every voter feels their vote counted.

"FAIRNESS AND FREEDOM" Book Review

When my son, Michael recently moved to New Zealand to try his luck at getting a job this book got my attention.  In some ways it is one of the more profound books I have read.  Profound might be interpreted to mean they supplied me with notions that support my already established beliefs.  Perhaps so, but  not enough people have really thought out the issues of fairness and freedom.

New Zealand and United States are both open societies with much in common.  The American author uses a comparative study of the two to analyze what he sees as a significant difference.  In United States freedom is the underlying philosophy, while in New Zealand it is fairness.  Fairness sounds namby pamby to those who feel individual freedoms are the highest value of all, but freedom, not really understood can be perceived as selfish and short sighted.  Your freedom should end somewhere away from my nose and vice versa, but freedom lovers don't always appreciate that aspect of it.

Each concept has its faults, after all human nature is not conducive to restraints of any kind.  Envy, resentment, vengefulness, pride, fear and above all selfishness are normal human traits.  Harnessing those traits is a hard task if one wants to optimize civilization.

They were both English speaking colonies.  The United States gained its independence after a bloody war whereas New Zealand took a longer more legislative transition.  Americans fought the original inhabitants, known as Indians and pretty much subdued them.  The New Zealanders fought the Maoris who were more united, at least in language.   The Maoris managed to find a more decisive role in their society.

Land seemed endless in America, whereas there was a definite limit to New Zealand.  Land reform helped to stabilize affairs in New Zealand in 1891.  There was a much higher percentage of owner occupied land in New Zealand.  New Zealand abolished provinces in 1876 whereas United States is really a union of states with federal oversight.

From the beginning Americans felt the need for personal liberty, although they justified slavery. Over time the New Zealanders developed a concern for fairness although they abused the Maoris.

In 1920 New Zealand put restrictions on gun ownership.  Americans are very vocal about their gun rights under the Second Amendment.  Violent crime and imprisonment are much more common in America.

In 1893 New Zealand became the first nation to enfranchise women.  Women were better represented in the New Zealand Parliament than in most of the world.  In 1936 New Zealand was the first nation to broadcast Parliament.

United States adopted an electoral college in order to assure the smaller states they would have disproportionate influence, but often distorts what the majority of Americans actually want.  New Zealand adopted a proportionate voting system that many people (including myself) believe is more fair and better reflects what New Zealanders want.

After World War II,  New Zealand fought against the United Nations Security Council having vetoes wishing to give more power to the General Assembly.  They always seem to fight for peaceful negotiations.  Ronald Reagan was infuriated with their refusal to accept nuclear battleships on their ports.

After a lot of historical details of both nations the author summarized his thoughts on the two title traits. Freedom can be interpreted in many ways, but essentially refers to no or minimal restrictions on what a person can do.  In reality one person's unrestricted freedom runs up against another person's freedom.  One of the best examples deals with slavery.  Slave owners were adamant that they had the right to own other humans whose freedom obviously meant nothing.  Any law is a restriction on someone's freedom, but is often to protect others.

Tea baggers seem to resent taxes, and claim that the American Revolution was fought against taxation.  In fact the actual Revolutionaries were against taxation without representation.  After the Revolution taxes were increased as it was realized money was needed to maintain a free and strong republic.

Fairness is a restraint on freedom.  One person's unlimited freedom has to cut into the freedom of another.  How do we determine what is free and fair?  The author has a good perspective well worth examining.

Rich people in the United States sometimes are heard to say that poor people are just envious of successful people.   In New Zealand and other countries envy has been a problem.  Equal opportunities do not lead to the same outcomes.  There is envy that some people with talent or who work harder achieve more.  There are many people who feel entitled, some because of wealth and others because they want to receive more than they give.  Fairness would include people rising to the top of their talent and effort.

Democracy and freedom come with responsibility.  Part of the responsibility is to vote and not claim ignorance or claim choices are fraudulent.  Americans actually have a very low voting record and yet one party seems to think there are too many people voting.  Part of the responsibility is to recognize no one got their level of success without support from a wider community.  The next generation deserves as much support as our generation was given.

By the way my son did get a job teaching and seems very pleased with living in Auckland.