Thoughts with Whiskey: 2025-09-12

Our beverage tonight:  Weller Antique 107.  Not bad, but I prefer the Weller Reserve (green bottle), which is a great tasting Wheat Bourbon.

Where to begin...

- Yesterday was the 24th anniversary of 9/11 (and the 25th anniversay will be a couple of months after the USA celebrates our 250th birthday), and Charlie Kirk was assassinated earlier this week.  Not a particularly great week for the country.  

Kirk left behind a wife and two children under the age of three.  You don't have to agree with Kirk to think that it's fucked up that he was shot for expressing his views.

Part of the deal of being American is Freedom of Speech.  People say what they like, and we don't arrest or hurt them for what they say.  Yell, argue, call someone an idiot- but anytime someone gets attacked for expressing their views, it's anti-American.  

I didn't like a lot of what Kirk said.  But I liked the fact that he was willing to go to colleges and argue his beliefs.  

I don't talk much politics anymore.  Up until now, I've chalked it up to the idea that neither party really represents me, and that debating doesn't lead to any actual insight, just pointless arguing.  But now I'm wondering if part of it is cowardice- I don't want to upset my friends by disagreeing with them.  Or strangers.  And if the implied message of the shooting of Charlie Kirk is "Don't speak up... or else."  Then the proper response is to speak up twice as loud.

(speech over.  I'll move onto lighter subjects now)

- Gene editing technology is showing promise to cure diabetes.  The potential for mRNA is limitless in what it can possibly do.  This might actually lead to the cure for cancer, dementia, neurogenerative diseases like ALS.

I recently invested in the stock market in an ETF of genetic companies like CRISPR technologies.  I am optimistic about the future of medicine.

- In fact, I really wish we'd take half the money given to AI and spend it on Gene editing; I suspect it could advance cure by years if not decades.

I'm an AI-skeptic.  I don't think it's a fraud (like I do with Cryptocurrency).  But it's overblown, and certainly not worth the billions of dollars that has been invested in it.  Right now, it's nothing more than a slightly more user-friendly search engine.  Cute, but not a significant technological advance to us.

And if it does turn out to deliver what has been promised... and take over a large number of the jobs... then what?  You can't have a world where 50% of the population is not just unemployed but unemployable.  

I suspect a lot of people who are investing in AI are thinking of the benefits without thinking seriously about the consequences.  And that's if it delivers; much more like, the investment will be wasted.

- OK, time to actually get lighter in subjects:

- The Pink Floyd music retrospective is nearing the end- only three more studio albums left.  It's been a fascinating review.  My plan is to pick another artist in 2026, but I'm not sure who to pick.  

- The Kawhi Leonard story continues to amaze me.  First, Pablo Torre may be doing the best reporting in any field right now.  This is the second significant story that he's broken with a lot of evidence.  

Second, the NBA has to come down hard on the Clippers, even if there isn't more of a 'smoking gun'.  If they don't, they have just approved a blueprint for a salary cap workaround for every team in the NBA.  The NBA will be like MLB- which is great if you want to see the same six teams contend every year.  

I'm going to predict the NBA will hurt the Clippers- maybe not five 1st round draft picks, but at least 3, and possibly suspend Steve Ballmer from interacting with the team for a couple of years.   

Thoughts with Whiskey: 2025-05-25

Current drink:  Maker's Mark.  Not my favorite bourbon, but extremely solid, and a great deal for the price.

• Finished the episode "Who Are You?" from the show Andor.  Absolutely brilliant.  One reason it works is that it's the first show since the 1977 original movie to make the Empire actually competent and scary (the later movies made the Sith scary and the Empire as just their lackeys).  A good guideline for Star Wars is that the more emphasis they put on the Force, the weaker the world gets.

• I'd like to thank Tyrese Haliburton for being the NBA villain they didn't know they needed.  He and the Pacers are both very good and very obnoxious.  Part of me roots for them to lose- the other part wants them to win it all this year so my beloved Cleveland Cavaliers can knock them off next year.

• The House passed the "Big Beautiful Bill" this past week.  Two thoughts:

• Speaker Mike Johnson is, much like Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell, really good at his job.  He twisted enough arms to get the bill passed when it seemed unlikely.
• I'm an old school Conservative.  I like tax cuts, and I think the government overspends.  But with a current debt at over $36 trillion and a current deficit at over $1 trillion (that's over $1,000,000,000,000.00), we really need spending cuts and tax hikes.  This bill does nothing to deal with the debt seriously

• Current game:  The life and suffering of Sir Brante.  Fascinating "Chose Your Own Adventure" type game going over an entire life.  Really enjoying it

Everyone have a great holiday:  Some Gave All 

The Tarriffs: A multi-prong disaster

Let us count the ways in which the tarriffs announced by President Trump are a horrible idea:

1)  It will raise prices.  That is what tarriffs are designed to do- raise prices on goods.  As a general rule, things that raise prices hurt the consumers.

2)  It's especially bad because one of the economy was marked as the most important issue by the voters in the 2024 election, and the voters were not happy with President Biden's handling of the economy.  So voluntarily raising prices- when people were complaining about the high prices from inflation- is especially foolish.

3)  The tarriffs have significantly increased the chance of a recession.  

4)  What are the purposes of the tarriffs?  The President's advisors and staffs are giving contradictory reasons on what the end goal is with the tarriffs.  Either they are hiding the reason- or, far more likely, they have no idea.  

5)  This is solely on President Trump.  No one in Congress voted on raising tarriffs; he did not have the buy-in from the House, the Senate, or the public.  If this succeeds (and I have no idea what 'success' would look like), the credit belongs to him.  If it fails (and, based on the stock market and people's opinions on the economy, I have a very good idea what 'failure' looks like), the blame belongs to him and him alone.

6)  He's managed to offend every nation with his 10% across-the-board tarriffs, ticking off allies.  The other countries may cut deals with the US- but they also know the US isn't a fair trading partner, and will look for other answers in the long term.

7)  The idea is bad- but the execution is far worse.  The calculations for the tarriffs were poorly made- to the point that economist Adam Tooze called them "Grotesque".  

8)  And they also applied tarriffs to uninhabited islands.  It's bad enough to think that the US is being run by a wannabe mob boss.  It's worse to think that it's being run by a grossly incompetent wannabe mob boss.  

9)  It's so haphazard- every day the story changes of which countries will have tarriffs and by how much.  Not only does this reinforces the idea that the group in the White House have no idea what they are doing, but business thrives on stability- when there is this much chaos, they retreat and stop spending money.  Which hurts the economy.

Normally, when a President makes a decision I don't agree with, I at least usually understand what they are thinking.  On this one, I'm completely lost.  I'm not a conspiracy theorist- but I am completely lost what the purpose of these tarriffs are supposed to be.  I don't see how this helps the country, the world, or even Trump politically.  

The tarriffs are a bad idea, poorly executed, and an embarassment to all involved.  It will hurt the country, the world, both in the short term and the long term.

Outside of that, it's a great idea.

SignalGate: A blunder that will stick

There's an old French saying, attributed to Antoine Boulay, that goes, "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder."  That's my initial thought hearing that Trump officials used an unsecured service (Signal) and shared attack plans with a journalist.  But I suspect this blunder will stick around a while, and really hurt the Trump administration in a way many scandals and crimes haven't.

Trump learned a lesson a long time ago- if you have one scandal, people focus on it.  If you have a dozen, it becomes background noise, and people tune out.  (Bill Clinton also mastered this lesson).  So most scandals that you would expect would have sunk Trump never seem to stick to him.  

But I think this one will, unless Trump takes decisive action quickly.  People form opinions about politicians (and really, any public figures).  Those opinions get hardened over time into their reputations.  Scandals and Crimes that fit in with those reputations don't matter- people are expecting them.

So Trump could sleep with a porn star and pay her off to be quiet, and it doesn't matter.  We (the public) expect Donald Trump to do that.  When he acts like an ass, we shrug; Trump has always been a vulgar ass.  That's part of his package- no one is surprised when he acts that way.

But he's also supposed to have built a reputation as a guy who doesn't tolerate failure.  Hell, his catchphrase was "You're Fired".  When underlings screw up, Trump is supposed to can them, quickly.  That's his reputation as well.

So there's two choices here:

Trump can act quickly, firing people who allowed this to happen (the obvious scalp is Mike Waltz, who accidentally invited Jeff Goldberg to the chat).  That is in line with Trump's reputation, and if that happens, this will go away like every other scandal.

But if Trump doesn't, the public will notice.  Now, keeping loyal people who botch things is allowed for most Presidents.  But that's not Trump's reputation.  It will look bad, and he has enough problems already.  At some point, the decline in popularity becomes too difficult to climb out of.  And while Trump is President for four years, the people have votes even this year to swap over the House.  

Set your markers

God I'd tired of politics.

Partrly, I'm just tired, period.  My wife's 50th birthday was this week, and our plan was to go to Vermont and attend a baking class.  Long story short, we spent three days driving in a combination of freezing rain and whiteout conditions, had one fender bender, made it to Vermont but not to the class, and I was so stressed that I lost seven pounds in four days.  The lesson learned- no trips to the Northeast in February.

But I'm also tired of politics- in large part because we've got two parties that are not only convinced they are right, but that if you support the opposite side there must be something wrong with you.  And it's only gotten worse since the Inauguration.  Trump and his team are making a lot of moves.  And the friends who I have that support him since he's doing a great job and making the tough decisions, while the people who don't like Trump think he's destroying the country.

Fine.  I'm an engineer.  I measure things for a living.  Let's set some parameters and then see the results of Trump's decisions.  I'll try to be as fair an objective as possible.  My goal is simple- come back in a year and check these same numbers, using the same sources, and compare the results.  

I'll give the date and values of when I've started measuring, along with my sources

1)  The current national debt.

Date Measured:   09/19/2025

Source:  US Debt Clock

Current valve:  $36.499 Trillion

Current ratio of US Federal Debt to GDP:  123.02%

2)  US Employment Rate

Not the unemployment rate, which only accounts for people looking for jobs.  This is the percentage of the number of people who have a job as a percentage of the working age population (people beteween the ages of 15 and 64)

Date Mesaured:   January 2025

Source:  US Employment Rate

Current Value:  60.10%

3)  Consumer Price Index

This measures the 12 month change in prices

Date Mesaured:   January 2025

Source:  US Bureau of Labor Statistics

All items:   3.0%

Food:  2.5%

Energy:  1.0%

All items less food and energy:  3.3%

4)  National average fuel price:

Date measured:   02/19/2025

Source:  AAA Fuel Prices

Current Value:  $3.164

5)  Average rent price in the US

Date Measured:   November 2024

Source:  Rentcafe

Current rate:  $1,748

6)  Average and Median US Income:

The average salary is the sum of all income devided by the number of workers.  The median salary is the midpoint, where 50% of the population is above the line and 50% is below the line

Date Measured:  Q4 2024

Source:  SoFi Learn

Current Average Salary:  $63,795

Current Median Salary:  $61,984

7)  Current population below poverty line

Date Measured:   2023

Source:  American Progress

Poverty Threshold:  $30,900 for a family of four

Poverty Rate:  11.1%

I welcome other parameters.  They should be objective, easy to understand, and easy to check.

Thoughts without Whiskey- 2024-07-06

Too early in the morning to drink...

• Politics:  Biden needs to step aside, today.  He's 82, and he's already shown that he is not capable of being President today, let alone for four more years.  It's tragic- I actually don't think he's done a bad job, given the problems of the past four years- but for the good of the nation, he needs to announce he won't run for re-election

• Politics 2:  At this point, unless Kamala Harris steps aside (and why should she), she would be the natural replacement as the Democratic nominee.  I admit she hasn't impressed me as a politician; she's all right talking to people that already agree with her, but the President also needs to address people who either disagree with her or are unsure.  On that front, she's been terrible so far.  There are issues that work in her favor (abortion, crime) and issues that work against her (immigration, inflation).  But that applies to every politican.  We will find out if she is up to the task.  Harris and the party has four months to make the case- and the chances of her winning are much better than if Biden remains on the ticket.

• Politics 3 (last one):  If I'm a Democrat (I'm not), or I'm a person who hates the thought of Trump winning (I am), then I am furious at the Biden White House.  They've known he's been having problems for months.  People have seen several video clips of him forgetting, appearing lost, stumbling.  But rather than acknowledge this, they covered it up, did not give the press a chance to interview him, and blocked any primary challengers.  

It's now July, it's almost the convention, and the public only just now has discovered how far gone Biden is.  Worse, Biden has announced that he's staying in- and because he has the delegates, I don't think the Democratic Party can block him.  

Trump went through a Primary.  I don't like it, but the GOP has decided he's their standardbearer, and they had a fair chance to test him and replace him.  The Democrats didn't with Biden.  

If Trump wins in 2024, the people who covered for Biden deserve the blame.

 

• Sports:  The Cavaliers signed Donovan Mitchell.  Mitchell's an outstanding player, and he is showing that he wants to be the team leader (look at how he was encouraging his teammates during the playoffs games, even when he was injured).  The Cavs have a lot of talent, and hopefully the new coach Kenny Atkinson can elevate the team.  Given the moves by the rest of the Eastern contenders, they will need to step up.

• Writing:  My friend Don Mewha has written a book.  I'm jealous.  During COVID I tried to write a superhero story.  I did finish the story, sent it out to try and get published, got rejected soundly, and put it aside.  (Though if anyone wants to Beta read it, send me a message)

I've got a couple ideas germinating in my head, but I'm trying to figure out if I have the time and energy to try again.  It would be something different.  It's definitely a better way to spend my time that trying to beat Grimdawn on Hardcore mode.

Thoughts with Whiskey- 2023-09-14

Tonight's Drink of Choice:  Blade and Bow Bourbon.

* Just returned from a vacation to the Northwest (Portland, Seattle, Vancouver).  It's a gorgeous part of the country- mountains and ocean, not too hot nor too cold.  The scenery is outstanding.  It's expensive, and the traffic is a nightmare- but I completely understand why people love that part of the country.  I love living in Ohio- but I think that part of the country would be my second choice.

* Seattle and Vancouver were fun.  Portland... not so much.  The city has fallen badly since the last time I went there (over 10 years ago).  It's an example of The Broken Window Theory- visible signs of crime and disorder lead to worse conditions.  All three cities had grafitti- only Portland looked (and felt) dirty.  All three cities had homeless people- Portland was the only one of the three that felt unsafe.  

*  But Oregon itself?  Fantastic!

Oregon is beautiful

* The GOP is opening an inquiry to look at Impeaching President Biden:  Of course they are. 

Here's the thing- Biden did do something wrong.  The evidence is clear that Hunter Biden allowed himself to be paid millions of dollars by Burisma, because they believed that having Hunter meant access to (then Vice-President) Joe Biden.  It was an obvious conflict of interest, and Joe Biden should have been much more forceful in vowing that there would be no undue influence.  

Was it wrong?  Absolutely.  Is it impeachable?  Anything is impeachable if you get enough votes.  But I don't think most voters would say Biden should be removed from office over it.

Here's the dilemma- Constitutionally, Impeaching is the only way Congress has to condemn bad behavior from the President.  When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  When your only tool is Impeachment- everything looks impeachable.  We're going to see a lot more Impeachment hearings in the future unless this gets changed- no matter who the President is.

So we'll go through this hearing, taking up our time, when what Congress needs is some partial measure- a declaration of condemning the President's behavior- that could be argued, voted on, and moved on.  

* Football season has started, and for the first time in almost a decade, I'm in a fantasy football league.  I sat down the wrong QB, but somehow managed to win the game.  Don't ask me how.  

* I do feel bad for fans of the New York Jets.  They went all in on winning this year, and now their season is over when Aaron Rodgers tore his ACL.  I root for Buffalo (and how the hell did they lose that game?), and I felt bad for the Jets.

2024 election kickoff

A few random thoughts as the GOP had their first primary debate in Milwaukee, kicking off the 2024 Presidential season:

Let the games begin...

1)  The skillset to be elected to a national office and the skillset to actually govern well once elected barely overlap, and seem to be growing further apart over time.  Being entertaining, clever with improv quips, and being able to raise money doesn't really help that much once you've actually won the office.  

2)  The GOP candidates keep acting like there will be an event- an indictment, a health issue, something- that removes former President Trump from the field.  That way, they can appeal to his voters without actually attacking him.

Maybe it's a smart strategy- but I doubt it.  People have been looking for something to cause voters to drop Trump for seven years.  

My question to all of the other candidates- why should the people who voted for Trump in the past vote for you over Trump instead?  What is your case to them?  

Because right not, ignoring Trump- or worse, sucking up to him- is a very bad look for all of you.

3)  I feel bad for Mike Pence.  Remember, the January 6th mob wasn't chanting to hang Joe Biden; they were chanting 'Hang Mike Pence'.  He did the right thing on January 6th and avoided plunging the country into a Constitution Crisis.  As he reward, a mob tried to kill him, his own president backed the mob, and he's despised by both parties.  

He's not my choice for President- I don't agree with him on much.  But I honestly believe he deserves a medal and heroic commendation.

4)  I remain a fan of Nikki Haley.  I don't agree with her on everything, but I think she is more capable of running the country than any of the alternatives.  I think she could win the general election.  But I don't know if the GOP primary voters are interested- she's currently 3rd in polling, but 30 points behind Trump.  

5)  As for the Democrats?  I think Biden's done a very good job- he's reduced unemployment without causing a recession, he's supported the Ukraine without getting us involved in the war.  But he'll be 81 in November, I don't know if he can handle four more years, and I don't have any reason to think that VP Harris is capable of being a good President.  I'll vote for Biden over Trump.  Any other GOP candidate, and my vote is gettable.  

What the hell happened?

 I am utterly fascinated by this chart:

Not the political aspect- Liberals being more depressed than conservatives, or women being more depressed than men.  I'm sure there are a 1,000 theories explaining that.

What I'm fascinated is why depression starting rising in 2014, and continues to rise today.

What the hell happened in 2014?

If it had started in 2008, I'd explain it was because of the economic collapse.  If it had started in 2001, I'd blame 9/11.  If it had started in 2020, I'd understand it was because of COVID.

But 2014?  What gives?

I don't see it as politics- in 2014, Congress went from Democrats to the Republicans... but the Democrats held the White House.  And since 2014, we've gone through every iteration of the two parties being in and out of power.  Depression keeps rising.  So I don't see politics being the cause of the depression.

I have two theories, and I suspect it's a combination of both, plus other factors I haven't realized yet.

The first was offered by my friend Don Mewha- who aruged that we've always been this depressed and are just doing a better job measuring.  It's a valid theory... I do think people are more willing to accept being depressed nowadays compared to the past, and that this is a recent development.

And yet... if this were the main cause, I'd expect a sudden jump in depression levels, not a steady rise over the years.  I'd also expect it to even out.  And- this is anectotal- more people I know first seem more depressed or angry now than they did a decade earlier. I'm not ruling out this idea, but I don't think this is the main reason

My other theory?  Social Media.  Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram.  It was around before 2014, but we seemed to have reached a critical mass right around when the depression levels shot up:

I'm not quite sure why there is a strong correlation between social media usage and depression levels.  Maybe because social media is a drug that pours outrage and awful behavior into it's users.  Maybe because as people have to ability to speak to the world and listen to anyone in the world, they are drawn to the most horrific stories, depressing them.  Maybe...

I don't know why.  But there seems to be a strong correlation- to the point that, if I were a father, I'd ban my children having a cell phone or account on social media until they had graduated highe school.  

I am open to being wrong on my theories.  But I don't know a better one that explains things.

The Potential and the Problem

 Nikki Haley announced that she is running for President.

I really like Nikki Haley- more than any candidate since at least Mitt Romney, and possibly longer than that.

(Note:  The fact that I liked Mitt Romney tells you that (a)  I am Conservative by nature and (b) I am a political dork.  I plead guilty to both charges)

On paper, I think Nikki Haley could make a great President, for the following reasons:

1)  She was a popular two term governor in South Carolina.  As a general rule, governors make for a better training for the Presidency than time in Congress.  Governors have to actually manage the state, and have to deal with the state legislature that often is working against their goals.  

2)  She took the position of UN Ambassador in 2017, and held the position for two years.  So she has both governing experience and foreign policy experience.

3)  In 2015, she signed a bill to remove the Confederate flag from the Capitol grounds.  Which shows she is willing to take on her own party.

4)  She is a woman and a person of color (her parents are Sikh immigrants).  It would be good for both the GOP if she was the nominee- and it would be good for the country if, in a 2 party system, both parties showed they were open to being led by anyone, regardless of gender or background

In addition, people who have worked with her vouch that she is very smart and very hardworking.  Add everything up, and she can potentially be the next President- and that would be a good thing.

Here's my concern:  I fear she is running to win the 2004 Presidential election instead of the 2024 Presidential election.  Her first campaign events were highlighted by her supporting term limits, support from the Freedom Caucus, and wanting  "mandatory mental competency tests", for politicians over the age of 75.  While I understand the appeal (attacks both Biden and Trump), is a little too cute.

One of the biggest problems the GOP has is that they no longer know what they stand for.  In 1980, Reagan ran on a few core principles (low taxes, a stronger military to stand up to the Soviet Union, a smaller government footprint), won, and those principles drove the country.  But that was over 40 years ago.  Trump's appeal to the GOP was, in part, because he wasn't trying to be warmed-over Reagan.  Unfortuantely, Trump's appeal was a combination of a cult of personality and a constant barrage of attacks on the other party.  There was no principle except for "I should win, and they should lose".  That's not healthy.

If I can offer Nikki Haley some advice, it would be this; pick the principles and main ideas that will guide your policies because you believe it is best for the country to deal with the issues of 2024.  Don't worry about 'winning', either in the GOP Primary or the election. Because right now, I have no idea what those core principles are- so it's a blank canvass for someone to fill in.  

It might as well be you.

GOP- what do you stand for?

 "(They) never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

Israeli diplomat Abba Eban was talking about the Arabs.  But right now, that quote is how I feel about the Republican Party.

Last week, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky visited the US.   And many (Though thankfully not all) on the right used this as an opportunity to... attack Zelensky.  Examples.  Are.  Plentiful.  

....

....

Umm... guys?  Speaking as a longtime Reagan fan here:  If you can't be accused of being a warmongering savage who wants to nuke the world to stop the evil commies.... what's the point of being a Republican?

Anyone who thinks today's Republicans are cut from the same cloth as the Buckley/Goldwater/Reagan Conservative movement that dominated the GOP from the 1960's through 2000's aren't paying attention.

The 1980's Conservative movement was dominated by four cornerstones:

1)  A strong military built up to stop the Soviet Union

2)  Lower taxes and reduced regulation to help businesses, along with increased free trade

3)  A smaller government in size and scope, encouraging less dependency on the state

4)  The Moral Majority- fighting cultural issues like pornography, abortion, etc.

At times, the cornerstones clashed (given a choice between lower taxes and smaller government, taxes won out every single time).  But the Republican Party stood for something, whether you agreed with it or not.

(Side note:  The Democrat Party, now and back then, didn't have four cornerstones.  They had fifty different groups all pushing for different agendas.  It's not coherent or consistent, but it is a working model)

But now, in 2022?  The Soviet Union collapsed.  Today's right wing seems to have no appetite for a bigger military or a smaller government.

OK, fine... the issues of 2022 are not the same as the issues of 1982.  Trying to keep the exact same platform will likely result in losing.

So what does the Republican Party stand for?  Not the rhetoric- what are they actually willing to vote on and risk losing their seats to support?

I don't know the answer- and I pay enough attention that I should know the answer.  

I've heard people complain about partisanship being high.  I don't mind that- partisanship is always high.  What's different, in my humble opinion, is that the partisanship isn't about anything.  And, ironically, because it's about so little, it makes the vitriol much worse.

Another quote- "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."   That's how I feel about the parties now.  They don't really argue about anything, so the fights are more vicious.

Which party wants to help Ukraine more?  Which party is actually willing to raise taxes?  In the past decade, both parties have had times when they controlled both parts of Congress and the Presidency.  And both times, they find excuses not to do anything significant.  

I don't write about politics anymore (current post being an exception), because it doesn't mean anything.  I don't think either party stands for anything except whatever current trend makes them popular enough to win re-election. 

There's an election coming up in 2024 (there's always another election).  It's an opportunity for the GOP to define what they stand for.  But I fear it's just another opportunity to miss an opportunity. 

RIP Conservatism

The Conservative movement is dead.  Has been for a while- but the latest spending bill really emphasized the point.  There are still people calling themselves (or calling others) 'Conservatives'- but the real Conservative movement- the one championed by Buckley, Goldwater, Thatcher and Reagan- that movement is dead.  

To understand why it died, start with this premise:  The Conservative movement was made up of four platforms, like a chair with four legs**:

1)  Taking a strong opposition to the Soviet Union

2)  Smaller Government

3)  Social Issues

4)  Lower Taxes

Each of those legs got twisted around over time, for different reasons.

Start with the opposition to the Soviet Union.  That leg disappeared in 1989 along with the Soviet Union.  The Conservative movement succeeded- now what?  During the Presidency of George W Bush, it morphed into the US trying to become the World's Policeman, and looking at the Middle East.  But the Middle East was never the existential threat that the Soviet Union represented, and we (the US) could never decide if it was better to act as the World's Policeman or to walk away from the rest of the world when it comes to tyranny.  We still don't know which is better.

The second leg- smaller government- the Conservatives proved they were never serious about it.  It was a great weapon to use against the Democrats- but when the Conservatives actually had the power to shrink government, they never flinched.  They proved that ratchet theory correct- government grows, but never shrinks.  

So now the 'Conservative' movement is now two legs:  Social Issues and Lower Taxes.  Lower taxes is a non-starter:  you'll notice there are no taxes in the 1.9 trillion spending bill (How is it being financed?  Deficits.  Deficits without end).  So that leaves Social Issues

Social issues morphed over time.  The social issues that people were concerned about 60 years ago aren't the same ones as today.  There's still a few hot button issues- abortion and gun control, for instance.  But mainly, both parties use social issues to rev up their voters.  Voters get geared up about the culture war in a way they don't over economic and foreign policy issues.  And the GOP abandoned the high ground on character in 2016.  As the other three legs withered and died, social issues became all that defined the movement.

The Conservative movement dominated the GOP for fifty years.  But it's now dead, and right now the Republican party is a cult of personality for Donald Trump.  I miss the Conservative movement- not only was it the political movement I grew up with, but I don't see anything that on the horizon to replace it.  

Pour one out for Buckley, for Goldwater, for Reagan, for Thatcher, for the intellectuals and politicians who created the Conservative movement.  You may have despised them, but I preferred them to what is available now.

(**The Democratic Party, by contrast, is made up about 50 legs- different factions with different agendas.  This has advantages and disadvantages)

The bullet the US Dodged... and the remaining bullet

 The definition of fascism, courtesy of Merriam-Webster:

"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

In some ways, Trump has been a fascist.  He demonizes his opponents to the point of calling for their suppression (He's twice led chants of "Lock Her Up ", for two different political opponents, four years apart).  He's constantly attacking the media.  He's questioning the electoral process before the votes have even been counted.

But in many key ways, Trump is not a fascist.  He hasn't made a power grab.  And a pandemic is a perfect storm to make such a power grab.  Trump could have closed the borders, killed all trade with China, and force the states to accept whatever safety measures the federal government deemed were necessary on the argument that it was to protect the nation... and the nation would have gone along with it. 

Why didn't he?  My own pet theory... Trump doesn't want power.  He wants adulation. He wants people to act subordinate to him, at all times, under all conditions.  And that's all he wants.

So, assuming he'll lose in November, he'll use the pulpit to clain he was robbed, that he was a great President, that outside forces were out to get him, that he was cheated... and then he'll leave.  He doesn't want the power of the Presidency.  He wants the aura of the Presidency.

So he'll leave, and we'll have escaped the Trump Presidency.  We could have gone fascist, and we didn't.  The country dodged a bullet.

But...

I don't think Biden's a fascist by any means (in fact, I think he is much more Conservative than Trump- certainly more respectful of traditions and the Constitution).  But I think the Trump Presidency revealed that there are a lot of people who, if they had been in Trump's place, would have pushed the US to a fascist state in their desire to improve it.  

(And yes, I think it's both sides.  If you think the Pandemic should explain why the President should grant Medicare for All by fiat, bypassing Congress- that's fascist and tyrannical)

The Trump Presidency has revealed how much contempt the two sides have for each other- and how little respect they have for the other side.

Politics is about reaching compromise between groups with different agendas.  It involves trading, making deals, and working within the system.  If your only plan is to destroy the opposition so you can implement your programs unimpeded... that's not politics.  That's war.

With Trump, we peered down the abyss of fascism.  My fear is that, instead of backing away, someone will encourage the country to jump.

Thoughts with Bourbon: Rank Punditry (VP Pick) edition

 Making a prediction and locking it in on August 7th, 2020:

Susan Rice will be Joe Biden's Vice President.

(Note:  This will likely be proven right or wrong within the week.  If it's wrong... it won't be the first time I've made a bad judgement).

Here's my reasoning:

1)  Biden guaranteed back in March that he would pick a female VP.  This could be seen as grovelling- or it could be that he already knew who his VP was going to be, and since he already had it locked in, why not make the guarantee?

2)  Biden, I think, wants a VP who will act like him when Biden was President Obama's VP- a trusted advosr, the last person in the room before the President makes his decision.  From what I understand, Rice and Biden got along very well during the Obama adminsitration.  If Biden trusts her, he could see her fulfilling the role he played for President Obama.

3)  Biden wants to make 'his' pick.  If he picks Harris or Duckworth, he will be seen as caving to pressue.  There is no good political reason to pick Rice- therefore, if she is chosen, it must be because he believes she is the best person qualified for the job.

Now, the big question- is she?

She's a former National Security Advisor and former Ambassdor to the UN.  Her credentials in foreign affairs are serious and legitimate.  

The bad news is that she's never run for elected office, and she lost the opportunity be Secretary of State because of the Benghazi debacle.  No one really knows how she'll react under the spotlight of a national election.

Politically, I think she's a poor choice because she doesn't have elected experience, and because the GOP will bring up Benghazi for several months.  The paradox is that, while I think she's a poor political choice, my respect for Biden will increase.  There's no reason to pick Rice for VP (as opposed to Secretary of State) unless he truly believes she's the best person for the job.

Biden's 78.  At his age, who his Vice President is carries significant weight.  Susan Rice wouldn't be my choice- but I think she will be Biden's.

Political Game Theory: Biden's move

At the moment, according to FiveThirtyEight, Bernie Sanders is likely to win a plurality of the delegates but not a majority.  Bernie has a rock-solid base of 15-25% of voters who will support him no matter what.  The rest of the voters are split among the other candidates.

This is very similar to 2016's GOP Primary.  Trump had a rock-solid base, and the other candidates split the votes.  Since the GOP primaries are winner-take-all, Trump built up a large delegate lead even though he rarely won any states with over 50% of the votes.  

Because the Democratic primaries are proportional (if you get above 15%), Bernie isn't on pace to build that type of delegate lead- but if he wins a plurality by the convention, it will be difficult to not award him the nomination.

The other candidates have a classic Prisoner's Dilemma.  Any one of the could likely beat Bernie if it was one-on-one.  But all of them want to be that one.  So they need the others to drop out.  But none of them have any incentive to drop out to help the other.

So here's where someone needs to cut a deal.  If I were Joe Biden, I would be making two phone calls today.

The first is to Senator Elizabeth Warren, with a simple deal, "Bow out an publicly support me.  I will make you Secretary of the Treasury.  You will have the authority to reform Wall Street and the Banking System.  I will be focusing on so many issues that I will defer to your expertise on fixing the economy."

Will that work?  Possibly.  Senator Warren has to know she's a long shot at this point, and this would put her in a position to implement a lot of the reforms she believes in.  

The other phone call is to Senator Amy Klobachur, "Senator, you've run a hell of a campaign.  But it's time for us to join together to beat Trump.  Join me as my Vice President.  We both believe in the same policies.  And I'm 74 years old- I don't expect to run a second term.  You'll be in the driver's seat to win in 2024."

And end it with a little bit of arm-twisting, "If you're not interested, I'll call Pete Buttigieg and see if he'll take the deal instead."

Again, will it work?  Biden is 74.  And while it's very tough for one party to win three elections in a row, winning a second- especially if Biden steps down and makes Klobachur his heir apparent- is a good spot.

Mayor Mike Bloomberg has said that the other candidates should drop out so he can challenge Sanders.  But he's not giving them any reason to do so.  In this idea, Biden is offering something of value to two candidates to join him.  He's cutting a deal.

He's doing what a good politician should do.

Political Thought: Primary voters

The New Hampshire Primaries are today.  The number I'm curious about isn't who wins, but the total number of primary voters.

In 2016, there were 253,062 votes for the Democratic Primary.  In 2008, there were 287,557 vote for the Democratic Primary.  In 2004, it was just under 218,000 votes for the Democratic Primary.  

This year, there are multiple candidates on the Democratic Primary, and it's an election where they are trying to vote out a disliked incumbent President.  

New Hampshire voted Democrat in the 2016 election, but it was close- 46.7% to 46.25%.  For the Democrats to win in 2020, they need to keep all of the states they won and flip some of the others.

In theory, passions are running high- not only for their candidate among the Democrats, but to vote out President Trump.

The turnout in the Iowa Caucus was low- but Iowa had so many problems that I'm not sure it's a good example.  But if New Hampshire has a low turnout under these circumstances- a close Primary election in a year they should be passionate about throwing out the President- then I would be very worried that too many voters have just tuned out completely.

Congress' Hammer

(Fair warning:  This is a political post.  I speak for no one but myself.  I welcome debate and disagreement)

"I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."-  Abraham Maslow, The Psychology of Science.

From everything I've read about President Trump's call to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, it's skeevy as hell.  President Trump all but tied Ukraine getting some anti-tank weapons to him investigating Hunter Biden, son of the former Vice President.

It reeks of corruption, no matter the circumstances.  No matter what Biden did, President Trump crossed a few lines and basically implied he'd leave an ally in trouble if Ukraine didn't help him politically.

Have other Presidents done worse?  I believe it.  Doesn't matter.

Is it impeachable?  Anything is impeachable if Congress will Impeach over it.

But here's my thought- Congress is going for the Impeachment because they think that is the only weapon they have to contain the President.  

Investigations don't stop Trump.  Congress cannot or will not pass legislation to stop his agenda.  They could always threaten to cut the funding- but that shuts down the government.

In the mind of Congress, Impeachment is the only tool they have.  And following Maslow's saying, when Impeachment is your only tool, everything you don't like becomes impeachable.

The problem is- this won't end with when Donald Trump leaves the Presidency.  Congress has become more and more impotent over the past generations, no matter which party controls the House or Senate.  When Congress is in the control of the same Party as the President, they rubber-stamp the President's agenda.  When Congress is controlled by the other party, they... don't do anything.  They never pass their own agenda, and the President merrily chugs along, running things through the executive branch.  

I don't think this is a party problem- it happens when the Democrats or when the Republicans win elections.  But if it doesn't change- if Congress doesn't start regaining some of the power and control they've lost over the past century- we're going to see Impeachments every time the House is a different party than the President.

This isn't healthy for the country.

Fixing the parties

Memo from a former member of the Vast-Right Wing Conspiracy...

To:  Reince Priebus, chairman of the RNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the DNC

Hi,

In a few weeks, the 2016 Presidential election will be over, and most likely, one of your two candidates will win.  The loser will gnash their teeth and the winner will feel they were justified in every action they took.

Wrong.  You both suck.

Forget that I don't agree with either of your policy decisions- the parties botched it.  You both somehow managed to nominate the one candidate that could lose to the other.  Really, you both should be ashamed that it came to this.

But I'm an engineer.  I look for solutions.  And here's my plan that I am offering to both of you to help you both out.  Because the day after the 2016 election, people will start jaunting for the 2020 election. And if you lay out the new rules now, you'll be prepared to prevent another debacle.

Here's the plan:

1)  Anyone running for the Presidential nomination under your party's banner- and any Vice-Presidential nominee- must release their tax returns of the last five years.  

Legally, no one is required to.  But legally, you're not required to let anyone run under the banner of your party.  So the tradeoff is, if they want the infrastructure you provide, they have to prove there's no hidden skeletons.

2)  Anyone running for the Presidential nomination under your party's banner- and any Vice-Presidential nominee- must release their health records from a qualified doctor.

3)  Part of me thinks that anyone who wants to run should be a registered member for at least five years.  On this one, I'm open to negotiation- parties need new ideas.  We'll mark this one down as a "maybe"

One alternative- anyone running must first help raise at least $X dollars for other party candidates.  This would eliminate anyone running just to raise their name recognition and only leave serious candidates to run.  Against, this one is negotiable.

4)  Debates.  Ideally, no debate should have more than 6 people at any one time.  Hopefully, with the first rules, we can reduce the total number of candidates.  6 candidates offer options.  17 candidates leads to confusion.

5)  Caucuses and Primaries.  I'm not that worried about caucuses vs. primaries, or open vs. closed.  Instead, bunch them up.  Put together groups of 6-8 states and have one group have all of their votes every two weeks.  So group 1 might be Iowa, New Hampshire, Oregon, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Florida.  Two weeks later, Illinois, Alabama, Montana, Utah, New Jersey, DC, and Maine all vote.

This rewards nominees who put together major organizations.  They are running for the office of the Presidency- it IS a major undertaking.  It should reward people who can put together offices that can handle multiple goals.

I think if you implemented these rules now, for 2020, you'd avoid a repeat of 2016

You're welcome.

The 2016 Presidency

This is a bit of navel-gazing as to who I am supporting for the US Presdidency as of February 7th, 2016.  Feel free to ignore if you don't care.  

I determine who to vote for based on four criteria:

1)  Their policies and philosophy
2)  Are they trustworthy and respectful (the character factor)
3)  How well can they actually govern?
4)  Can they win?

The first factor is important- I'm a Conservative politically, and think the government would do better if it pared down what the size of scope of what it tries to control.  Someone like Bernie Sanders, who wants to vastly increase the amount of government influence in our lives, doesn't appeal to me.  It's the reason I'm most likely voting for a Republican this November.

But within the GOP, the differences are relatively minor.  I don't like Trump for a lot of reasons, but his love of Eminent Domain is a big factor.  But Marco Rubio vs. Ted Cruz vs. Jeb Bush vs. Chris Christie vs. Carly Fiorina... there are differences, but compared to what they agree upon, it's small potatoes.  Every time I take one of those "Who do you side with?" tests, I get a group of about 6 people all around 75-80%  So the policies are an important factor- but it still leaves a wide selection of candidates.

The character factor?  The only two candidates I don't trust are Trump and Clinton- Trump because he's a bully, Clinton because she's secretive and paranoid to the point of breaking the law.  I wasn't supporting either of them anyways.  Ted Cruz is arrogant, and I think his arrogance will hurt him running the country- but that arrogance by itself isn't something that is a bridge too far for me.

How well can they actually govern?  This is a big one, and the problem is, we can only make educated guesses.  I think Obama's biggest problem wasn't his philosophy (though I disagreed with that), but that he never had any executive authority.  He treated every problem like it was a PR problem, and wasn't able to do half of what he wanted to- because he didn't really understand the tasks involved in running the country.

The people who had the best track record in this- Governors Walker, Perry, and Jindal- all quit the race before I could vote for them in the primary.  By the time Ohio votes, there's a good chance Bush and Christie will also bow out.  I like Rubio and Cruz, but I admit being worried about electing a first-term Senator to the White House.  OTOH, Bush has been out of the Governor's office since 2007.  And Christie has been a good governor of New Jersey, but I haven't agreed with his all of his stances.  Then again, I wouldn't agree with all of the stances of any Governor. 

It would be nice to have a longer track record of accomplishments to see how Rubio and Cruz would do.  But the people who could best make that argument are already off the ballot.

That leads to the last factor- can they win?  I know people who won't vote for any candidate unless they agree with them completely, refusing to vote for the 'lesser evil'.  I understand that- not sure I agree.  I don't need 100%, but I'm not sure where that line is.

Right now, there's three candidates who appear to be in position to win the GOP nomination- Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and Marco Rubio.  I don't like Trump- really, for every reason listed above.  I agree more with Cruz and Rubio, and I think Rubio has a better chance to win.  I don't know which one would do a better job governing the country- my gut is saying Rubio, but would like a better track record.  If one of the other GOP candidates get into position to crack the top tier, I will have to reassess this.

On the Democratic side, it's down to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.  I don't agree with Sanders at all.  I also think Clinton would do a better job at the actual task of running the country; whatever her faults, she is very hardworking and wonkish.  But I also think she (like her husband) cuts too many corners, and while I agree with her more than Bernie Sanders, I tend to disagree with her on most positions.  

Ask me who I'd support today, and the answer is Rubio.  But the Ohio Primary isn't until March 15th- we'll see what happens by then.

Economics- a blinding flash of the obivous

I hate to just cut and paste what someone else wrote, but Kevin D. Williamson's comment about the deficit and taxes is so spot-on that I want everyone to see it:

Every Republican tax-reform plan should be rooted in this reality: If you are going to have federal spending that is 21 percent of GDP, then you can have a.) taxes that are 21 percent of GDP; b.) deficits. There is no c. 

If, on the other hand, you have a credible program for reducing spending to 17 or 18 percent of GDP, which is where taxes have been coming in, please do share it.  

The problem with the Growth Fairy model of balancing budgets is that while economic growth would certainly reduce federal spending as a share of GDP if spending were kept constant, there is zero evidence that the government of these United States has the will or the inclination to enact serious spending controls when times are good (Uncork the champagne!) or when times are bad (Wicked austerity! We must have stimulus!). So even if we buy Jeb Bush’s happy talk about growth, or Donald Trump’s, the idea that spending is just going to magically sit there, inert, while the economy zips forward and the tax coffers fill up, is delusional.  

There are no tax cuts when the government is running deficits, only tax deferrals. 

This applies to both parties and everyone's economic plan.