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.

TRUMP AND THE MEDIA OR THE MEDIA AND US

The press has power.  Would-be dictators will curb that power any way they can get away with.  Delicate egos distrust honesty.

I am sick of writing about Trump but he won't go away.  The most amazing thing about Trump is his sensitivity to criticism or any diminishment.  To many of us he is laughable, except he has power and vindictiveness.  He also has a fan base that just loves his every move.

BUT the media is guilty of helping to get him elected.  They broadcast his birther claims.  Any reasonable intelligent person could see how ridiculous and unfair the claim was, but Donald well knew others were just looking for an excuse to diminish a black man who ruled over "real Americans" and the media gave him his platform.

Much of the media adopted a balanced approach which enabled them not to take sides.  But all too often lies were made by one side--such as Obamacare was bad or that  Climate Change has not really been proven that overshadowed the truth.   Another problem was that the mainstream media has become very concentrated by owners with vested interests.  Corporate ownership had been encouraged under Republicans, perhaps most noteworthy under Reagan.  Ratings are now the key to profits and survival.  News has become entertainment.

When Trump declared his candidacy, although almost all media felt he had no chance, they still gave Trump a huge platform.  Bernie Sanders was drawing crowds, but not getting much publicity with almost no explanation while Donald was able to crowd out other candidates with very trivial presentations.  Hillary was hit with a lot of disproved or trivial bad things.  After awhile it was too late.  The press kept alive ridiculous stories about Benghazi and email servers ignoring many serious misdeeds by Republicans.  Important issues are ignored.

Now the Trump team has declared war on the media with Donald actually calling them the opposition.  They have used strategies from Orwell's "1984" of distorting the truth, knowing full well that if repeated enough the lies will be accepted by enough.

What can be done?  The media has to earn credibility.  A key to that is the truth and prioritizing what is actually important.  Voters have been misled and misdirected and many have no clue how they have been duped.

The economic platform of the Republicans is more corporate and 1% friendly so they have adopted the strategy of tying themselves to social issues.  Emotional concerns can easily lead to one issue voters, but that is what leads to voting against your own best interest, even on the emotional concerns.  A few examples.

Gay and Transgender rights.  Sure they are different, but really how different?  Does it affect their ability to do constructive things?  Do they relate to others of different persuasions?  We know they come with all political viewpoints, even where they are not welcome.  Do you realize how much they have contributed to the well being of many others (including you)?  Is love limited?

Guns are supposed to protect you, but they also are a threat to others (as well as yourself).  Cars are supposed to help us get things done.  A big difference is that we have more rules about who can drive a car and how as a way of protecting the rest of us.  Do you feel you have to have access to military weapons in order to protect you from the government?  Is it only the bad guys who get hurt?

Abortion is perhaps the king of one issue voters.  Agreed it an undesirable solution to a perceived problem, but what is the best way to reduce it?  Sex education and access to contraception actually work, but are opposed by many of the same one issue voters.  To some of us that smacks of rigid anti-promiscuity.  The one issue voters tend to accept all sorts of restrictions on helping the poor, which strikes many as hypocritical.  Desperation comes to families of all persuasions and it is ironic that often abstinence only families have their share of unwanted pregnancies.  Suffering comes from illegal abortions and there is a link between unwanted babies and more suffering.  Hilary Clinton who has seen much suffering has been quoted as saying "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare."  Should abortion be a one issue decision or should it be put into context with all life and death decisions?

Socialism is not really understood, but considered very un-American.  I see it as co-operation over competition.  Both have merit and diminishing either one has negative consequences.  Neither should be authoritarian.  The balance is tricky and one might hope that the fifth estate would see a duty to keep reminding us of the difficulties.

Media is financed in different ways, but most of us take it for granted that advertising revenues, a government grant or a sugar daddy will take care of it.

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.

Money and Politics

With the American election fast approaching there are concerns that important decisions will be made that are unduly influenced.  We are all drowning in money or at least those in the battlefield states. There is nothing new in my thoughts, but unfortunately many other thoughts are not being voiced very strongly or paid much attention.  Money enters politics through many doors.  Although I am Canadian, my concerns are more visible in American politics.

Can money sway the opinion of an educated man?  I would say yes with some logic and some emotional appeals.  Can money persuade people to vote against their own economic interest?  Evidently.  Can money influence the ignorant masses?  I would say so admitting that we are all ignorant of the complexities.  Politicians are elected to represent our interests because we are too busy worrying about other things.

Money has become the most critical factor in getting elected and fund raising the most respected talent.  Perhaps because voters are too preoccupied with other concerns to really know the issues or even what is in their own best interests.  They are increasingly vulnerable to the loudest or most clever  or most frequent argument.

So critical to getting elected that most politicians spend an increasing amount of time fund raising.  A big part of the rest of their time is spent trying to satisfy those who have given them money.  That means less time trying to sort through the difficulties of their responsibilities and less time getting to know other elected members that they might have to compromise with.   The average voter has too little time to understand the complexities of issues and now the trusted elected officials are also being squeezed for the time.

The main beneficiary of campaign money is the media, the different branches of which get paid to advertise the merits of some political parties and express negative viewpoints of the opposition. Undoubtedly that is why they give little emphasis to the negative effect of money and in fact often use fund raising statistics as an important part of the horse race analysis.  Money is equated with virtue or at least as leverage much more than something that demands critical attention.  Viewing the election as a horse race helps create fear that your side needs to spend more money to keep up with or distance the party from the opposition.  The actual issues are not discussed in great detail.  People who rely on the media to better understand the issues are poorly served.

We look to the media to explain things. Some of us trust them to at least present the facts.   Perhaps we make our media selections based on our biases, but nonetheless we assume we are getting the real goods within that framework.  Seldom are we getting an honest analysis of the issues, but we certainly learn of gaffes and the politics of every decision.

Media accept ads that have been discredited by fact checkers or are in questionable taste.  To me that is similar to in the past accepting ads for tobacco until it was outlawed.  An election represents a bonanza that most of the media eagerly embraces.

A virtue of a rich man is said to be that they can't be bribed or unduly influenced by special interests. There may be some truth to that, but because the cost of getting elected is going up it is choking good intentions.  It is refreshing to see that money does not always ensure victory, but it is necessary to make oneself heard.

In the recent Republican primaries, the first major elections after the Supreme Court made it possible for corporations to contribute unlimited amounts of money for political campaigns, it was found to be very influential. Unfortunately vast amounts of money was used to tear down opponents, in this case opponents that will be asked to unite under the final candidate.  Winning the nomination was considered more critical than the long term benefits of showcasing their own policies.

In Canada I found it very disturbing that the victorious Conservatives quietly took away the $2.50 contribution to a political party for each federal vote it was able to secure.  It seems to me they felt they were better at fund raising, in reality had better access to large corporate donations.  I feel that the $2.50 each vote gave to a party encouraged people to vote for the party of their non strategic choice without the party feeling obligated to a special interest.  Parties had to satisfy the mass of voters to get their support.

My position for several years has been that proportional voting is the most practical form of true democracy.  In Canada we have a multi party system that gives a much wider choice of options than the American system where a third party is too expensive for a winner take all set up.  Most of us find it hard to accept that the majority of votes were for other policies than those that are now in power.  Big monied parties do not need to win majority approval, only a plurality.  That means their strategy is in part to split the opposition.  In the end if successful they can ignore the desires of the majority.  An election should be a battle of arguing ideas.

Possibly there are a few donators who just want a fair election and feel that with their contribution they are more likely to achieve that goal.  Unfortunately it is human nature to expect something in return for a favour.  Perceptions can be negative, even when not justified.

We want our law makers to spend time trying to make fair and just laws.  We do not want them to be obligated to any special interests.  Money gives leverage to those who want to take advantage of the rest of us.

The winners all say that it is better to have one party in control as they can get things done.  The minority parties at best force compromises.  In time voters will recognize that some parties are not working with the others and that some ideas are better than they originally voted for.  Our society will gradually become more liberal or more conservative, but with respect for those on the other side.

I do not believe any politician wants to be beholden to any individual, after all that really means they have less power than they originally desired.  I also don't believe any of us voters like the idea that anyone we vote for has obligations that may not be in our interest.  No perfect solution seems likely, yet in the interest of democracy we have to strive for a system where money is not the decisive factor.