They Also Serve Who Only Stand and Wait

by Chris James

A refresher.  The thesis of my previous, apologetically, rather long column (Moving Forward By Going Backward) was that, taken together, enough of Donald Trump's major mutterings were strongly suggestive of an isolationist mind-set or, possibly, of an actual strategy. Campaign static though it may have been, this political concept of circling the wagons is decidedly retro, and is putatively dismissible, based on world-wide historical evidence.  I suggested that the true way forward was to be expansive on the global stage, via the driving force of future-focused, always-superior, proprietary, technological advances.

Of course, there may be situations when bringing jobs, based on yesterday's technology, back to the U.S. may make sense.  Having stuck my neck out with my previous column, a few days later the newspaper carried a story that seemed to confirm the existence of exceptions.  On closer inspection, a large percentage of the 8000 jobs hypothesized to be "brought back" was found to be in the phantasmagoric category.  There were many qualifications appended to the revivalist claims.  Examples: Many new - not existing - jobs will be located at a Florida plant not yet planned, let alone built; some jobs will go to undefined "outside contractors"; while federal, state or local government "incentives" are allegedly not involved, discussions will be held "with business partners, states, and cities about where to create these jobs."  Well, this little potpourri of weasel-words does little, if anything, to make the case for exceptions.

Then, as if on cue, a column appeared in the newspaper a few days later presenting the other side of the technology coin.  Every three years, the 35 members of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) - a group of major (with the exception of big guns China, Russia, and India) and smaller economies - conducts an international study of 15-year-old students' competencies in reading, math and science.  In 2015, 72 countries participated, with about 540,000 students completing the assessment, representing about 27 million 15-year-olds in schools.  In this latest assessment, the U.S. cohort ranked 20th in reading, down from 14th in 2009; 31st in math, down from 25th in 2009; 19th in science, down from 17th in 2009.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to what these data mean in terms of future global leadership through technology.  My reaction is Blecccch!  If you thirst for details, then Google PISA (the 2015 Program for International Student Assessment).  You may be tempted, as some have done already, to throw rocks at the study.  For example, by arguing that the study is not statistically significant, or that the sampling is meaningless, etc.  In contrast to that kind of criticism, the U.S. Education Secretary understatedly called the PISA results "sobering news" - not just in an absolute sense, but also in comparison to the superior test results from competing economies around the globe, as well as the disturbing downward trend of U.S. results.

Probably because of my stringent, possibly strident, views on this subject, I have been taking some flak in the form of counter-arguments from those (O.K., the few) who have heard my message. However, I am protected from such assaults by my self-indulgent comfort in the knowledge that I am impregnably right.  Thus, by the Laws of Nature, the President is horribly wrong - or, as we nature-lovers appropriately say, "up a tree".  The following paragraph is an example of the stand-off.

Main counter-argument: We can do both.  That is to say, gorge on well-used technologies, miraculously resurrected from goodness-knows-where, AND gun the new technology engine. Sorry, but no can do.  Resources are finite, including the planet-sized pile of $$ to make it all happen (although, maybe not the latter, if the sight of the National Debt crashing crazily upward through Obama's distant ceiling doesn't bother us).  Choices between strategies of the, now burgeoning, older technologies and the emergent new would have to be made.

With yet another miracle piled on the first one, let us assume that all the right strategic choices are made.  The capacity of the system to retch up products will then become monumental.  All that is then required to make life complete is market outlets for this cornucopia.  But since the domestic market will soon be overwhelmed, then the saving grace is, of course, global markets.  Mostly, those of the same economies that were not too pleased when the U.S. ran for cover, and who, by this time, will have adjusted their global business strategies to exclude the now untrustworthy U.S.  Well, good luck with that.  It's a bit like Brexit proponents wanting to have all the advantages of EEC markets without having to formally join the bloc and obey its rules.  Dream on, baby.   

I'll leave readers to their imaginations to visualize the kind of results from this potential chaos in the U.S.  I'm not going to spell them out, except to say that the U.S. government interfering with global business, upon which the U.S. so desperately depends, by gaily festooning the U.S. position with "remedial" targeted penalties, taxes, fees and tariffs in order to bring a fatally ephemeral sanity to the inevitable chaos, is hardly the image of a "free market" - let alone to wonder who ultimately pays for this burdensome bureaucratic cascade.  Such mad, blatant, government intervention into U.S. business has all the rancid stink of pathetic socialism.   And, as such, the eventual bottom line results will be.......?

Finally, I would like to vigorously reiterate that I am still standing on the side-lines waiting to see what actually happens.  Nervously, yes.  And not just because of what you may have read in the above text.  I am bothered by the phrase "make America great again."  There are two ways to interpret that.  One is that, we the people are joyous over what is, to all intents and purposes, an isolationist strategy.  We are supremely happy to be safely encased inside our own little cocoon.  This is a narcissistic, egotistic ethos.  The other perspective is the opposite of such self-serving introspection, namely that much of the world sees us as great again.  After our eight wearisome years in the global garbage can, this latter perspective is much, much tougher to achieve, requiring exceptional leadership and statesmanship.  Dear reader, you choose.

The Electoral College Explained, Sort Of

by John Stevenson

Thanks in advance to my colleague Mike, a 1955 Brooklyn Catholic Youth All Star second baseman who actually earned a tryout with the Detroit Tigers.  I owe Mike for allowing me to borrow from his knowledge of The Game---of which I have precious little.

Don’t expect this to assuage the grief or quell the anger of those who believe the recent election should have been decided by the popular vote.  It will not convert those who believe the Electoral College system is outdated or undemocratic and should be abolished (good luck with that one).  It’s just an explanation---of sorts. 

The World Series is not a single game, but a series of four to seven individual games.  The team winning the most games wins the World Series.  It makes no difference which team scores the most runs.  Rules are rules.

In the 1960 World Series, the losing New York Yankees scored 55 runs---more than twice as many as the winning Pittsburgh Pirates, who scored only 27 runs.  The Yankees won three lop-sided games, while the Pirates won four close games.  But the total number of runs is irrelevant---the World Champion is the team that wins the most games.

Our quadrennial presidential electoral system is not a single nationwide election.  Each state holds an election to choose a slate of electors. Then the chosen electors vote to choose the president.  Thus the election is decided by the states, through their chosen electors, not directly by the popular vote.  This is provided for in Article II Section 1 of our Constitution. 

In this way, candidates get credit for winning the electoral votes of individual states just as the Pirates got credit for winning individual games.  Deciding the presidential election by the popular vote rather than by the electoral votes would be equivalent to deciding the World Series on total runs rather than on games won.  In effect one extremely long game---not a Series at all.

It would be theoretically possible, of course, to abandon the current, Constitutionally mandated, electoral system in favor of a nationwide popular vote.  This would place overwhelming elective power in the hands of the voters in just the few most populous states, and effectively disenfranchise the voters in the remaining states. 

The chance of abolishing the Electoral College system in favor of a popular vote system is extremely unlikely.  This is because it would require a Constitutional amendment---which in turn would require ratification by three fourths of the about-to-be-disenfranchised states.  No dice.

More likely, the rules of the World Series will be changed to award the Championship to the team scoring the most overall runs.  Fat chance.

In the 1960 World Series the Yankees scored more runs but the Pirates won more games---and thus the Championship.  In the 2016 election, Hillary won more popular votes but The Donald won more electoral votes---and thus the Presidency.

This is probably because the Founding Dads, all being rich white males and foreseeing the 2016 Hillary candidacy, modeled our presidential electoral system after the World Series.  

Calexit

by John Stevenson

It sounds sort of silly, but I imagine the proponents are quite serious: California should secede from the Union.   The impetus, of course, is the looming presidency of The Donald. 

Press and pundits initially scoffed and proclaimed his candidacy a joke.  Some media outlets even refused to dignify the Trump candidacy as political news---relegating coverage to the entertainment section.  Celebrities threatened to leave the country if Trump won (I believe Cher said she would move to Jupiter).   But the unthinkable has happened.

The very thought of Mr. President The Donald is apparently so hard to swallow that there is now a movement afoot in our State to secede from the Union.  This has been in the news lately.  Here is a sampling.

“Secession: California Liberals Want to Leave U.S. Over Trump Win”  in townhall.com.

“Californians are calling for a ‘Calexit’ from the U.S.---here’s how a secession could work” in businessinsider.com.

“California secession organizers say they’ve opened an embassy---in Moscow”  in latimes.com.

“California must lead, not secede” in sfchronicle.com.

And from whatsupwiththat.com: “Some private citizens in California, distraught at the prospect of an America under President Donald Trump, are advocating that the State secede from the Union.”

So, nutty or not, there is a movement underway that hopes to put a secession initiative on the ballot in 2018.  Here are some thoughts about the November election which might shed just a ray of light on that thinking.

Nationally, Trump lost the popular vote with 63.0 million to Clinton’s 65.8 million---a deficit of 2.8 million.  In California, Trump lost with 4.48 million to Clinton’s 8.75 million---a deficit of 4.27 million.  Californians voted almost two-to-one for Clinton over Trump.

Now get out your pencil and exclude California from the national totals.  In all States combined (including D.C.)  except California, Trump got 58.5 million, Clinton 57.1 million---a difference of 1.4 million in Trump’s favor.

In a nutshell:  Mathematically, Clinton’s entire 2.8 million popular vote margin over Trump came from California.  If not for California, Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million.

(Just an aside: one jurisdiction gave Clinton an even larger share of votes than her 2:1 margin in California.  That was Washington, D.C., where Clinton’s Soviet-sized margin was a whopping 22:1.  But back to California.) 

There’s no denying California’s blessings.  The beauty of its coastline, Mt. Shasta, Yosemite, the Sierras, the Golden Gate.  The agriculturally rich central valley and the energy resources beneath our feet and offshore.   Arguably the best climate of all States except Hawaii.  California---the Golden State--- truly a gem.

Unfortunately, California’s one-party-governance has not matched its natural splendor and great economic resources.  According to taxfoundation.org, California has the highest State income tax rate in the nation, and among the highest State gasoline tax and State sales tax. 

Despite these sky-high taxation rates, nationsreportcard.gov lists California’s public school children’s test scores as 48^th in the nation.  The original Bay Bridge took only 40 months to construct; the recent eastern span replacement took over seven years---not counting the years lost to squabbling over the design.  California has the 16^th highest poverty rate among all States, and The California Budget and Policy Center says “When you factor in our high housing costs…California has the highest poverty level in the nation.”  World class potholes and other disrepair in Berkeley and on I-880 are legend.   But the nanny State of California leads the way in mandating such things as what kind of grocery bags and soft drinks are permitted.

A Manhattan-based film critic and writer for The New Yorker magazine famously said “I can’t believe Nixon won.  I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”  This illustrates the provincial thinking that can develop in an echo chamber, where diversity of opinion is scarce.  The lopsided political environment in California, where one-party rule prevails, has left scant tolerance, let alone encouragement, for dissenting thought or expression. 

Based on the November election results, Californians are certainly politically out of step with the nation as a whole.  Like the Manhattan film critic of five decades ago, the Calexit folks likely don’t know anyone who voted Republican.  Marinating in their insular bubble, they don’t see this as an opportunity for introspection.  Instead,  they are sure it’s the rest of America that’s out of step.

Really?

Obama vs. Trump

by Monreale

We are told that Obama is everything Trump is not, usually said with the intent to diminish Trump.  They are, indeed, very different and the differences were apparent right from the beginning of their presidencies.

Obama seems a fine fellow and a good husband and father.  If I were looking for a cultivated, cosmopolitan, intellectual dinner companion he'd be high on my list.  But his charm and smoothness have not disguised how out-of-pattern he is as an American and how his long search for an identity, as told in his book, Dreams From My Father, have influenced, some would say warped, his view of the world. 

We should have seen the problems coming. Here's a man who worked as a community organizer, a state senator, and a less than one term US senator. He's never held a paying, private sector job. He was "Barry" until college but then began to insist upon his given name, Barack, to the discomfiture of his white grandparents. Barack, a Kenyan Muslim name, was the name of his black father, a fallen idol who abandoned him. His white mother took him to Indonesia where she married a second time and then essentially abandoned him to his grandparents in Hawaii. Both black and white, then, at a certain point his blackness began to dominate. Religion had little role in his life until he met his teacher and mentor for 16 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who officiated at his marriage.  Wright was a notorious black racist, bigot and anti-Semite who condemned America in the strongest terms.  Obama associated with Bill Ayers, a former Weatherman leader who has never disavowed his youthful violence. What he found in that association has never been explained. Not until age 44 did wife Michelle Obama say, "For the first time in my life I'm proud of my country." At first Obama refused to wear the customary flag pin in his lapel, a narcissistic take on a simple symbol that gives comfort to many. So when, at the very beginning of his presidency, Obama proclaimed his intention of "fundamentally transforming the United States," we should have been afraid, very afraid.

Trump on the other hand is in many ways a type of ordinary American. We've all known Trump types, a man of contradictions. He's a braggart and a blowhard but in certain ways unusually disciplined. He doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, doesn't do drugs but his sexual drive has taken him through three marriages. At the same time he's raised extraordinary children who are all close to him.  He's a clever man, a self-promoter, one who willingly looks for and takes every advantage. He's also a natural leader, charismatic, a man of enormous persistence and guts, able to hold his own without help in the most knock down, drag out situations and come out on top, a man who is fearless, speaks his mind, not afraid to surround himself with accomplished, capable people who profess different ideas, a strong patriot, a man whose charitable works are many, often done anonymously, a guy who’s been knocked down but has come up fighting and won against tremendous odds. 

Of course he's a businessman, a species that draws a knee-jerk contempt from the progressive elite. He's not an intellectual at all but a classic American pragmatist entrepreneur writ large. As president his priorities are crystal clear--he puts American ideas, American people FIRST. Other countries, other people will be well treated if they support American well being and if not, not. No subtleties, no equivocation.

He'll make an unusual president. The comparisons are to Andrew Jackson and there's something to that. Trump has an unparalleled opportunity, with luck, to leave our country much better off than the way he found it. He could also fail badly, even disastrously, although the outstanding team he's assembled minimizes the risk. He'll be working against an opposition that now seems close to fanatic. I'm nervous but hopeful.

A Simple Analysis

by John Stevenson

A friend said that people are telling him they knew all along that Trump was going to win.  He opined that they didn’t know it, and were just band-wagoneers or were puffing up their credentials as astute observers and analysts of the political scene. 

Well, here’s a news flash.  I predicted it, and I’ve got it in black and white.  Prove it?  OK.

The Sunday evening before election day, I was at a small gathering of fellow GOPers.  After sufficient consumption of Rombauer Chardonnay, the host asked us all to make predictions, and he documented the results.

As you can see in the accompanying image, we were called upon to predict four outcomes: which party would control the Senate; which candidate would win the presidency; whether Hillary Clinton would be indicted/impeached; and whether she would be pardoned. 

Let’s focus on the question of which candidate would be elected president (the lower right quadrant of the accompanying image).  There were five of us.  You’ll see that two said Clinton, three said Trump.  To the right of my name, note that I correctly predicted Trump the winner.  I was among those three who got it right.

I don’t know the reasoning of the other two (political astuteness, or clairvoyance, or just wishful thinking).   But my answer was based on analysis.  Not a profound analysis, mind you, just a simple analysis.  I offer it here.

After Trump had been nominated, in the lead-up to the general election, Trump supporters had a rough go of it.  Hillary Clinton called them deplorable: racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic---and worse: irredeemable.  As we all saw on TV, identifiable Trumpers were vilified, beaten, chased, egged, spat upon.  Yard signs were set afire.  After all, the Trumpians are deplorable and irredeemable---so they deserve being attacked.

Even in our little valley, Trump supporters felt they should hide their colors.  Seemingly, many cars sported Hillary decals---virtually none for Trump.  No “Make America Great Again” hats on display either.  Not because there weren’t Trump voters (they came to 24.9% in our county), but because they thought it prudent not to fess up. 

So I can’t lay claim to special election knowledge or predictive powers.  It just seemed to me to be pretty obvious.   If you can earn a load of grief for admitting to being for Trump, better to keep your yap shut.

Ergo: there were undeclared Trumpers out there, and they weren’t showing up in the polling.  Of course I had no idea the extent of this understatement of Trump support---but anyone with half a brain could have told you it was there. 

And that, dear readers, is why the polls got it wrong and I got it right.  I only wish we had put money on our predictions, or at least a bottle of Rombauer.