Douthat & Cassidy: Decadence and No-Growth--Preliminary thoughts

NYTIMES.COM

Opinion | The Age of Decadence

Cut the drama. The real story of the West in the 21st century is one of stalemate and stagnation.

For those wanting to take a deep dive. This longer article (essentially an excerpt from his forthcoming book), Ross Douthat wrestles with the protean concept of decadence. I used to think this term, decadence, the purview only of cranky conservative-types who thought contemporary America (and I'm thinking back to the 50s and 60s) was beginning to embody the decadence of Roman decline or fin-de-siecle France--languid debauchery. But Douthat, following the lead of Jacques Barzun, looks at decadence through a wider lens, political and economic as well as cultural. Perhaps, given my age, I've come under Saturnine influences, but I find that Douthat provides some compelling insights. Are we stuck in neither the best of times nor the worst of times? And if we don't like where we are as a nation, as a global civilization, how might we proceed? More to come! (See the following.)

I offer this article (a bit longer than the usual newspaper column) from John Cassidy of the New Yorker. I find that it compliments the Ross Douthat article that I posted immediately before this one. In this article, Cassidy asks what has seems to me (for a very long time running) the question of whether economic growth can continue indefinitely. My admittedly rudimentary sense of biology tells me that Nature doesn't allow unlimited growth to continue, that at some point, constraints will appear, either internal (structural ability to incorporate new growth) or external (inadequate resources to allow further growth). Indeed, the fall from growth, whether it's in a Petrie dish or an entire civilization, often occurs quite abruptly and--if humans are involved--catastrophically.

Does this mean that we're doomed? Does this mean that we'll inevitably suffer a decline in standards of living? No, to both questions. Of course, a level of material prosperity is necessary for a good life. Squalor and poverty don't make for a good life, But then after meeting the basics of material prosperity in Maslow's hierarchy, money, our measure--imprecise as it is--of economic well-being, doesn't matter all that much. (That some have a seemingly infinite lust for more money is a pathology, not a virtue, as our society often seems to believe it is.) In fact, the challenge is to have a comfortable, secure material life with the potential for intangible well-being that need not be constrained by material circumstances. Possible? Why not? Change--big change--is coming because of the imperatives of Mother Nature, but we can guide that change to our collective ill or our collective betterment. A great challenge by which we can escape our decadence (read the Douthat article).

The critique of economic growth, once a fringe position, is gaining widespread attention in the face of the climate crisis.

NEWYORKER.COM

Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?

The critique of economic growth, once a fringe position, is gaining widespread attention in the face of the climate crisis.

Pete Buttigieg: First to the Post in Iowa & the BIG WINNER

Big winner

On one hand, a candidate and his (in this case) supporters declaring a victory in the Iowa caucus is like saying that your horse won a race by nosing-out the closest contender at the first pole. Nice, but the race has a long way to go, and the other horses are still running hard and expect to close the gap.

Bernie Sanders claims that he received the most votes (I've seen no press reports to confirm that), but this is the thinking that brought us President Al Gore and President Hillary Clinton--oh, wait, that's not how the system works (disliked it as one may). Neither does the Iowa caucus work as a candidate plebiscite (although that's the way its portrayed). Iowa Democrats and Republicans choose delegates to go on to county conventions and then to the state convention, which then selects delegates to the national convention. Indeed, the horse race isn't even over yet in Iowa! (But the media hates to have to deal with subtlety.)

The "winner" by the official count is Pete Buttigieg, by a whisker over Sanders. But in the larger sense, this outcome (for all the fuss about the speed of learning the results) proves a huge win for Buttigieg and a real political earthquake. He just beat (to the post, as I said) three sitting Senators and a former Vice-President. Sanders, his closest rival, has been in Congress since 1991 and campaigning for the nomination since 2015. Sanders has a lifetime--a long lifetime at 78 years of age--in politics and a committed core of supporters. Indeed, Sanders is more a prophet (of democratic socialism) than he is a politician. (On this distinction, see this post that channels Garry Wills on the topic.) One even discerns that Sanders has more faithful than he does supporters. And, of course, Biden, too, at 77 years of age and decades in the Senate (1977-2009) and eight years as vice-president, has the greatest name recognition, and he's still the leader in national polls (which count for nothing in this process except as another form of bragging rights). Yet, Biden finished a distant fourth. Senator Klobuchar from neighboring Minnesota finished a distant fifth. And Elizebeth Warren, from Massachusetts, which Dems seem to love (Kerry, Dukakis, and--a winner by a whisker--JFK (thank you, Mayor Daley)) finished about 8 percentage points (with less than half the delegates) behind the leaders Buttigieg and Sanders (who essentially tied in delegates).

And this is not to mention those who either didn't get out of the gate or who scratched from the race completely. How in the heck did Buttigieg, whom almost no Iowans had ever heard of before 2019 (or even 2020) get to the top over such well-known and well-funded rivals? Name recognition, piles of cash, and long-standing connections usually carry the day.

Let me quote from Storm Lake Times (Iowa) newspaper editor Art Cullen, who wrote in the Washington Post about Buttigieg's perhaps not-so-surprising success in Iowa:

Pete Buttigieg surged from nowhere to the top of Iowa’s caucus race, fair and square, by working places most candidates forgot or wrote off.
In late January, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., took his rural Rust Belt revival message to places like Orange City, Iowa, a place where books about homosexuality had been burned. He drew a crowd of more than 200 in that deep-red town of 6,000 in a county that voted 6 to 1 for Donald Trump. They had seldom so much as seen a Democrat before. 

Mayor Pete stumped Storm Lake, my town of about 10,500, four times. He twice called me for interviews, in which he candidly discussed his views on race and owned the actions of South Bend’s police department. He talked about how immigrants had revitalized both his Indiana town and Storm Lake. About how agriculture could lead the way out of our climate crisis by capturing carbon. About how we can treat each other with decency. 

That’s how you win Iowa. You show up. You understand the issues and you press the flesh in 99 counties. You meet real people and hear about real concerns (not that much about impeachment). And then you organize.

The horse race is far from over, but this 38-year-old from South Bend may yet pull off an upset over his more established rivals. The Iowa Democrat Caucus gave us the first woman to receive a major party nomination (and winner of the popular votes for president, the participant's trophy) and it gave us our first African-American nominee and president. It may prove to have been the first marker for our youngest president (among his many other potential firsts). Wow!

Why Students Dislike History: R.G. Collingwood Understands

R. G. Collingwood, philosopher & historian

As someone who became infatuated with "history" as a kid, I was often puzzled about why so many of my classmates found the subject--and history classes in particular--boring. The following quote, by one of the most profound persons to have ever written about history as a discipline and as a subject, provides a concise statement that I believe identifies the source of the problem. We (and often history teachers) don't know what history is "about" and what (rightly done) it attempts to accomplish. Professor Collingwood:

A man [sic] who was taught history badly when he was at school, and has never worked at it since, may think there is nothing in it except events and dates and places: so that wherever he can find events and dates and places, he will fancy himself in the presence of history. But anyone who has ever worked intelligently at history knows that it is never about mere events, but about actions that express the thoughts of their agents; and that the framework of dates and places is of value to the historian only because, helping to place each action in its context, it helps him to realize what the thoughts of an agent operating in that context must have been like. 

R. G. Collingwood. The Principles of History: And Other Writings in Philosophy of History (pp. 61-62). Kindle Edition.

N.B. Any lawyer who prepares a case for trial engages in a quest similar to that of the historian.

Two Modest Propositions About Caucuses & Elections (and Iowa)

Iowans participating directly in politics. Messy, but that's sometimes how democracy works

In light of the Iowa Democrat Caucus last night--the results of which we don’t know as I write this--let me make a couple of observations that should prove less radical than Jonathan Swift’s “modest proposal” but that may upset you. I only ask that you forebear judgment until I make my case. 

But first, the elephant in the room: the lack of a final result last night and into Tuesday as I write this in the early afternoon. To this situation, I must say, “So what?” I know, I know.  I, too watched last night in anticipation of results, but I went to bed without a result. I slept soundly. I learned in the first election that I recall, Nixon-Kennedy in 1960, that despite my parents sending me to bed with the result still in doubt, the result would come without me and I’d find out soon enough to go to school and carry on with life. So, now, too. The glitch or glitches are unfortunate, but not very important. Yes, I thought Wolff Blitzer was going to have a meltdown, he kept murmuring “in 2016 we had the results by now.” The reporters and politicos used the opportunity to bad-mouth the caucuses for various reasons (more on that below). All the candidates declared victory and moved on. Their supporters will get on with their campaigns and going about their lives. We have every reason to believe that life, the campaign, and the news cycle (“all hail the News Cycle!”) will go on. We’ll get the results and will have every reason to believe that (in part) because of the time and delay that the reported results are accurate. (If not, then a whole lot more than the Iowa Caucus has big problems.) The whole episode has been a reminder of the American infatuation with instant gratification and how the demands of news organizations have come increasingly to dictate the conduct of our electoral system. Now to my modest propositions. 

1. We should expand the caucus and delegate system of party candidate selection. 
2. Voting is the least important--albeit essential--element of a democratic system. 

Let me explain these heretical propositions before your hair catches on fire. 

 First, about voting. In a democratic system going back to the ancient Greeks, the essence of a democratic system is decision-making by means of speech in which all stakeholders have a right to express their opinions should they choose to do so. As problems arise in a polity, responses are considered by collections of individuals who express their knowledge of relevant facts and share their opinions based upon those facts. In a perfect environment, all of the relevant facts are available to the stakeholder-decisionmakers, and they can express their opinions freely and fully; i.e., subject to neither necessity or coercion. Persuasion is the order of the day. But persuasion isn’t a one-way street; the mode of persuasion occurs with the dialectic of dialogue--or perhaps more accurately, multi-logue. Only after all perspectives and options have received a fair hearing that will winnow-out undesirable options and merge related options, will the decision-makers reach a decision about any action to undertake. And, the best (rational and fair) way to reach a decision is via a vote. This serves to ratify a decision, to make it conclusive, rational (at least in some measure), and legitimate (all will accept it as based on the perception of fairness and rationality). 

Let me hasten to note that I realize that the description of the decision-making system that I set forth above is at once both eutopian and utopian--both good and yet ideal beyond the reach of mortal humans. But the goal should be to approach the ideal. In modern mass democracies, we tend to be satisfied by providing the mass of the decision-makers, the electorate of eligible voters, with candidates and decisions that have been framed by elites (normally working through established institutions). These decisions (in the U.S.) tend to present voters with a binary choice. The key ingredient of democracy is reduced to a simple mark on a ballot for Candidate A or Candidate B. Sometimes, as in a primary election, there may be more than two candidates (or only one), but the principle of minimizing the expression of a decision-making choice reduces speech to the simplest possible expression. All of this may be necessary at the national and state-wide level, but why do we always want to push the system to the lowest common denominator? Why do we keep pushing towards plebiscites? Also, as you consider this, you realize what hooey any talk of a “mandate” is in a presidential election, which is most often a simple binary choice with occasional noteworthy third-party distractions from time-to-time; e.g., Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, George Wallace.  

So what does any of this about the limited (but essential) role of voting have to do with keeping, let alone expanding, the caucus system? Here I must admit that I’m an NRI (non-resident Iowan), having spent about 55 of my 66 years growing up and then raising our family in Iowa. I’ve participated in both Republican and Democratic caucuses and conventions. (I’ll save my confession of a misspent youth for another time.) Not having resided in Iowa full-time since 2012 and now in Brooklyn, I also have some outsider perspective also. In my experience (reinforced by press reporting this year), Iowans take the caucus system and their place in the nominating system very seriously. It’s like voluntary jury duty--it’s a pain in the rear for most folks, but if you’re going to do your civic duty, you’re going to try to do it right. (My experience with about 30 jury trials over more than three decades has informed my respect for most jurors.) Especially this year, with the abdication by the (Republican) Senate of its role in defending the Constitutional order in the face of an autocratic president, Democrats in Iowa have been especially concerned to select a winning, qualified presidential nominee. We don’t know who will prove the most popular choice yet, and opinions varied greatly, but make no mistake that the responsibility was taken very seriously by Iowa Democrats. And make no mistake, while Iowa isn’t the closest match to the national demographic picture, its track record in selecting Democratic nominees is exceptional. In 2000, Iowans preferred Al Gore, winner of the popular vote in 2000. They preferred the first woman nominated for president by a major party and the winner of the popular vote in 2016, Hillary Clinton. (Yes, yes, we know that winning the popular vote isn’t worth a warm buck of spit, but for that’s not the fault of Iowa Democrats.) They preferred John Kerry, the eventual nominee in 2004, and they preferred (and provided lift-off horsepower) to the first African-American nominee and president, Barack Obama, in 2008 and 2012. So remind me again why you believe the Iowa Democrat caucus is so off-kilter? 

Ah, yes, the caucus is not an election, and so the participation rate is much lower than would expect if we asked Democrats to only fill out a ballot at some point in the nominating process. This assertion is undoubtedly accurate. This way, perhaps via a regional primary, we could by-pass all the neighborhood discussions and maximize TV advertising (such an effective medium of one-way communication) and rely on the totally reliable--but for Russian bots and doctored tapes and conspiracy theories--social media platforms. In other words, Iowa (along with New Hampshire) emphasizes retail politics. Think how much better democracy would be if we all candidates would hold only Trumpeque “rallies” consisting only of the faithful. No messy questions (and, yes, candidates receive some really whacky questions in the coffee and handshakes systems of Iowa and New Hampshire). An only primary election system would be so much easier and lucrative for campaign professionals and media consultants. People (let’s not call them citizens) wouldn’t have to waste their precious time talking directly to candidates and neighbors. They could simply sit at home and have only the most wholesome, honest, and accurate information fed to them by their televisions and computers. That many--perhaps most--people would prefer this does not negate my point. The encouragement of political laziness should not be the goal of a republican democracy.

And in selecting the nominees for office, why shouldn’t the faithful of the political parties have the greatest say? That interlopers, like Trump among the Republicans and Sanders among Democrats, have done quite well in party contests doesn’t negate this argument. (Trump most definitely; the Sanders effect yielded a mixed record in 2016 and remains an open question in the present election.) Some argue that the party faithful tend to be more extreme in their views, toward the left (Democrats) and the right (Republicans), but this largely because of the political polarization that we’re currently experiencing. And even in Iowa this year, the final results, as well as ancillary polling, will reveal that defeating Trump is more important than the candidacy of any particular individual. When newcomers or minorities gain control of presidential nominations, the results have proven disastrous: Goldwater (GOP 1964), McGovern (Dem 1972), and Trump (GOP 2016). (The admitted exception is Mondale (Dem 1984), who had the misfortune of encountering the popular Reagan with the economy in an upswing while Democrats were continuing to wander in the wilderness seeking their identity.) While I’m not advocating a return to the smoke-filled rooms, I am arguing that the initial decisions be left to those committed to the party and what it stands for. This is an ever-changing and relatively self-selecting elite that should be perfectly consistent with democratic equality. And, returning to my point about the relative unimportance of voting (necessary but not sufficient for a democratic system), the more self-selective caucus system promotes speech, the political conversations that are the taproot of a realized democracy. Any change we make in our electoral system should emphasize real political communication at the grassroots level. 

So two cheers for the Iowa caucus system! It’s far from perfect, but I don’t see a better alternative. 

A Teachable Moment: A Lesson in Rhetoric, Proof, & Jurisprudence Arising from the Impeachment of Trump, by an Old Lawyer

The Senate trial of Donald John Trump for two articles of impeachment brought by the House of Representatives

Let's use all of the hullabaloos for a "teachable moment." I've taken a quote from a Facebook comment that relates to the current impeachment trial. Let's dissect it and see what we can learn. Here's what the person says:

"[W]ere there a truly constitutionally established impeachable offense committed by a POTUS, the timing should be immaterial. The problem here is that this impeachment is purely politically motivated and at best based on a difference of opinion or views which should be handled in the traditional manner of an election."

I believe that this paragraph is representative of what Trump supporters have been saying for some time now, although it's a bit behind the curve, as I'll discuss later below.

1. "This impeachment is purely politically motivated." First, let's take away the modifier ["purely"] and consider whether his impeachment is "politically motivated." This statement is undoubtedly true. While the law and a Constitution consist of political questions that have been answered at least for the time being and gain the force of law. The force of law means that someone who acts contrary to this decision may be subject to penalties imposed by the state through the judicial process; that is, the scope of any issue is narrowed when we make a political decision that results in a law. But the law can be changed, and if done legitimately, it's done through the political process. This applies to the Constitution as well as zoning or traffic laws. And like ordinary statutes, the Constitution has been subject to changes by courts and the legislative branch (via the amendment process) throughout its history. And how we interpret the Constitution, as we can see around us even today, remains the subject of intense political discussion. The impeachment of Donald Trump involves the power of the presidency, along with many other issues. Some of these issues must be resolved by the courts, but the legislative branch, as an equal branch of the government under the Constitution, also has the responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution. Under the circumstances of the current impeachment, we see Democrats directing their appeals to the text of the Constitution, legislative precedents about impeachment, and the writings of the Founders--especially Madison and Hamilton--to establish their case for impeachment. Trump supporters (apparently all Republicans) have shown much less concern with precedents and legal procedures. (So much for "conservatism.")

2. Now let's put back in the "purely." To say that the House impeachment is "purely politically motivated" is intended to mean, I assume, that it's been undertaken only to gain partisan advantage in the next election. In other words, the impeachment mimics Trump's desire to coerce Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. The impeachment has no legitimate purpose other than to gain an advantage in the next election. I will stipulate for purposes of argument to the implicit assertion that all of the information gained in the impeachment may (and should) give Democrats an advantage against Trump in the next election. But to agree that impeachment will certainly give Democrats an advantage in the next election isn't (or at least wasn't) a foregone conclusion. Remember that the Republican impeachment of Bill Clinton backfired and cost them dearly in the 1998 election, and it cost Newt Gingerich his speakership. Also, John Bolton might have come forward and offered to exonerate Trump instead of confirming Trump's intention to coerce an investigation of the Bidens. And remember that the Mueller's Report that documented a prima facie (on its face) case of obstruction of justice against Trump went nowhere, contrary to the hopes of most Democrats. So if it was "purely political," it was a hell of a gamble. It could have ended up as a big-nothing sandwich, as did the Benghazi investigations of Hillary Clinton (acknowledging, as one must, that while of no substance, it helped damage her in the eyes of the general public. If evidence, truth, and justification of no consideration, anything goes.)

3. So how do we resolve the "purely?" business? I recommend the thought experiment that I posted on Facebook on 25 January. There, I suggested the following hypothetical oath to be taken (and followed) by all senators before voting on the two articles of impeachment. The text of my hypothetical oath:

"I swear (or affirm) that the decision I make today is the same decision I would make if the president in question would have been Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or any other Democrat. I have not been moved by partisan favor or any motive other than to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, so help me God."

This, I maintain, is the standard by which we should judge each senator's final vote. "It's the standard that I want to be applied to all presidents, Democrat, Republican, Socialist, or Libertarian" each vote is saying. And then we the voters must judge their decision with whether it comports with our understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law.

And in some way, this is what each senator is doing because the precedent set by this decision will affect future presidents and senators. If it's okay for Trump, it's okay for the next Democrat president, too. Since Trump's defense has moved from "I didn't do that" to "Anything that I do is okay, including using my power contrary to the law [he did break the law with his action, but it's not a part of the criminal code]. It's lawful if I deem my reelection to be in the national interest--which of course it is!" (An eerie echo of Nixon's claim that "if the president did it, then it's not against the law.") So, yes, even if Trump stays in office (as we knew he likely would), the repercussions of this vote will echo for years to come. In some ways, impeachment law, especially the standard of "High Crimes and misdemeanors" may be usefully compared to the common law of negligence; the definition (of "negligence" or "High Crimes and misdemeanors") is broad and decision-makers (judges, jurors, or the Senate) must apply the concept on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, a precedent flows from each decision, although it doesn't necessarily bind the next decision-making occasion.

4. The assertion that "this impeachment is purely politically motivated," is a form of the ad hominem argument. Now your rhetoric or composition teacher may have taught you that this is a logical fallacy. It is, but then logic is a formal system, not an infallible guide to discerning human behavior. The ad hominem argument seeks to avoid the facts of the case by concentrating on the teller. In the law, we routinely make ad hominem arguments by impeaching (raising doubts about) the credibility of a witness. Indeed, every plaintiff and defendant in a case is biased and at least implicitly subject to impeachment. Each party maintains that his or her position provides a true account of the facts of the case and comports with the standard of law; therefore, judgment should be rendered in the party's favor. Other witnesses, especially expert witnesses, are impeached by asking who's paying them (most experts are paid for their "time"). The expert will claim that his or her opinions are based on sound science and nothing else. The astute cross-examiner will point out the expert testifies almost exclusively for plaintiffs (or defendants). It's then left to the judge or jury to sort out who's credible. So how should the final decision-maker (the judge or jury) sort out conflicting testimony given the often inherent bias of most witnesses who testify?

Here, as an example, is what a judge in a criminal case in Iowa tells a jury about how to address these issues:

100.7 Credibility Of Witnesses.  

Decide the facts from the evidence. Consider the evidence using your observations, common sense and experience. Try to reconcile any conflicts in the evidence; but if you cannot, accept the evidence you find more believable. 

In determining the facts, you may have to decide what testimony you believe. You may believe all, part or none of any witness's testimony. 

Whether the State has met its burden of proof does not depend upon the number of witnesses it has called or upon the number of exhibits it has offered, but instead upon the nature and quality of the evidence presented. 

There are many factors which you may consider in deciding what testimony to believe, for example: 

1. Whether the testimony is reasonable and consistent with other evidence you believe.
2. Whether a witness has made inconsistent statements.
3. The witness's appearance, conduct, age, intelligence, memory and knowledge of the facts.
4. The witness's interest in the trial, their motive, candor, bias and prejudice.

In other words, consider all of the evidence, not just the background of the witnesses. Foolproof? Hardly, we're dealing with humans here, but this typical instruction provides a standard that you and I can use to judge the case of the impeachment of Donald John Trump (for we will ultimately judge this president and these senators when we enter the voting booth).

5. Conclusion

So to say that "this impeachment is purely politically motivated" provides us with no meaningful information and stands naked as an argument against impeachment. This simple assertion has no facts to clothe it. This failure to mount an argument upon facts and the constitutional text and precedents comports with the tactics of the Republicans in Congress, who, as we near the end of the impeachment, have left not even a fig leaf to cover Trump's shame. The defense, in the hands of the famous criminal defense lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, has disposed of any need for a fig leaf of facts that would cover-up Trump's abuse of power. According to Dershowitz, if the president wants to be re-elected, he can deem that purpose as in the national interest and thereby manipulate public funds and seek foreign involvement in our elections as he desires. Well, if standing against this conclusion and the facts (no longer seriously in dispute) that support a finding for removal is "purely political," then sign me on.

sng
31 Jan. 2020

Running Against the Devil: : A Plot to Save America from Trump--and Democrats from Themselves by Rick Wilson

When, as in a John LeCarre novel, an agent from the KGB comes to the West and offers all the goods, one must pause. Members of the CIA or MI6 must ask: "How can we know that we can trust this guy, that what he's the real thing and not a plant for sowing misinformation? Are we being played? Perhaps he's a mole. Why should we trust someone who's done us in so many times in the past?" Democrats should be asking these questions of Rick Wilson, a Republican operative since the 1980s who's been slaying Democrat candidates for almost three decades. "Why should we trust him, the dirty, stinkkin' Republican?" 

Wilson realizes that he needs to prove his bona fides before anyone will heed his plea, and he has done so by publishing a previous book by the title Everything Trump Touches Dies: A Republican Strategist Gets Real About the Worst President Ever (2019 update) and by spending about the first 75 pages of the current book bad-mouthing (even foul-mouthing) Trump. His public recantation of Trump establishes his Never-Trumper credentials. He's proven--at least for the 2020 election--that he wants to see the Democrats vanquish Trump and his ilk. One may suspect that he won't retain this attitude if the Republican Party returns to a vision of center-right normalcy and fidelity to constitutional and democratic norms. But for now, Wilson and those steadfast few who've remained Never-Trumpers have earned their place in the fight against this nefarious foe of constitutional government, the rule of law, and democratic norms. 

Indeed, I became impatient with his recitation of Trump's almost innumerable sins: tell me something I don't know. It's like a KGB agent spending his de-briefing explaining how bad life is inside the Soviet Union. We already know that, let's get to giving us your playbook. When Wilson gets down to giving us his tradecraft and analysis, the message he provides isn't so secret. In some sense, it's already in the open but Democrats don't want to believe it. Here's an executive summary: 

1. The president is elected by the Electoral College and only the Electoral College. To say that Hillary Clinton or Al Gore won the popular vote is like commenting upon how big, bright, and shiny your runner-up trophy is. It means nothing. All power goes to the winner of the Electoral College. 

2. A corollary of the first point: the election will be won or lost in 15 states that could go either red or blue. The Democrat nominee must kiss California and New York and all the loyal blue states good-bye at the convention and tell them "I'll be back right after the election." After the nomination up to Election Day, the nominee will need to focus--even obsess--on 15 states. 

3. For the record, I list the states Wilson identifies as controlling the outcome of the 2020 election. I list them in their order of Electoral College magnitude. I include the 2016 winner and electoral votes:

• Florida (T-29)
• Pennsylvania (T-20)
• Ohio (T-18)
• Georgia (T-16)
• Michigan (T-16)
• North Carolina (T-15)
• Virginia (C-13)
• Arizona (T-11)
• Minnesota (C-10)
• Wisconsin (T-10)
• Colorado (C-9)
• Iowa (T-6)
• Nevada (C-6)
• Maine (C-4)
• NewHamphsire (C-4)

Of these 15 states, Trump carried nine of them in 2016 for a total of 141 electoral votes. Clinton received only 46 electoral votes from the in-play states. Wow. For the Democrats to beat Trump in 2020, they will need to drastically change this list and hang-on to their other states. But as Wilson notes, most Democrats will crawl over broken glass to vote against Trump, so there's little reason to believe that solid blue states will defect. 

3. Democrats must focus on winning the Electoral College. (This mantra repeats throughout the book.)

4. This upcoming election will not be like Federer-Nadal tennis final with the contestants holding a deep respect for one another and the game of tennis while playing under carefully delineated rules governed by an umpire, line-judges, and infallible re-plays. Oh, no! It will be a  knife-fight with Butch Cassidy rules--it's the only way Trump fights; it's the only method by which he can win.  If the Democrat nominee doesn't come ready for a knife fight, he or she will be gutted before realizing what happened. 

5. Like all presidential elections involving an incumbent, the election will be a referendum on the incumbent. The election will have one issue: Donald Trump. The best thing that the Democrat can do is run against Donald Trump: his corruption, his ineptitude, his ignorance, his cruelty, his lying. Details about issues may play for some in the primaries, not in the general election. No voter reads the party platform and decides how to vote based upon it. Most voters are only marginally informed and are motivated by feelings like trust and fear. Trump feeds on fear, Fox News feeds on fear. The Democrats must neutralize the fear factor by promoting a candidate who disarms fear and instills trust. Wilson sums-up his point:  

This race has absolutely nothing to do with policy. This race is about Trump and a competing candidate’s personality and presentation, not about soon-forgotten policy papers and the administrivia of running a government. . . . Policy is a luxury good in this election because this race is against a man, not a party, a platform, or an ideology. Democrats are fighting a cult and a cult leader, until they realize that the referendum against Trump is about Trump, he has the winning hand.

6. Democrats gained control of the House by winning over suburbanites, women, and disaffected Republicans. The Democrat nominee can't afford to alienate these groups. Also, there are Obama-Trump voters out there who can be won back. Farmers, businesses, and wage-earners have all taken economic hits with Trump's trade shenanigans, the stock market and overall favorable economy news notwithstanding. These folks, too, can be won back. But the Democrats need to figure out one big problem. 

7. The Culture Wars. Democrats will have to set aside long-running habits, accentuated by some of late, toward ideological purity. The great temptation is to mirror the Republicans who have exiled (as all revolutionaries do) those who might challenge the most extreme ideological purity, who might taint the revolution by questioning the leadership or confusing the masses. Instead, the Democrats will need to find a way to defuse topics like abortion, immigration, guns, and other like emotional issues. What might this entail? Wilson makes some suggestions that don't seem unreasonable. Democrats must find a way to make anti-abortion, immigration, and "2nd Amendment" voters realize that Democrats won't take radical steps on these issues but will act in ways that are reasoned and sensible. (By the way, such positions of a moderate, reasoned nature will sell well with most folks who self-identify as Democrats.) Wilson suggests that Democrats will need to change some minds and that what sells in Berkeley, Boston, and Bronx-Queens won't sell so well in the heartland areas of the swing states. Dems are going to win in Berkeley, Boston, and Bronx-Queens (AOC's district) in any event. Wilson makes his point: 

What do you think sells in western Pennsylvania? Mike Rowe, or some stern-faced, super-woke, commissar telling a white working-class guy he’s got to give up eating meat, driving a truck, and hunting? You may want him to, but how well do you think that sells? The guy who used to make $37 an hour in a union auto-parts manufacturer doesn’t give a flip flying f#@k about climate change, genderless bathroom mandates, or paper straws. He does care about getting and keeping a real job that can support his family and--stop me if you’ve heard this one before – his guns and religion. 276

I could go on at length about various other perspectives and recommendations, but this sampling should provide a sense of Wilson's offering. He writes in blunt words that are at times rough and scatological. One non-scatological example: "Trump loves digital advertising. He loves it like a fat kid loves cake." Certainly a vivid image, but perhaps not the best register of discourse in a book about a very serious topic. He describes his recommendations as "tough love," and one has to take it for what it's worth. But I certainly believe that Democrats ignore him at their peril. 

And one final topic before signing off. Wilson doesn't say much about the Democrat field of candidates. He does describe Pete Buttigieg as " a man who is demonstrably smarter than most of the field," an assessment that I agree with. Of Elizebeth Warren, he writes: 

For being a clunky and terrible candidate in a number of areas . . . Warren has gotten closer to a winning message, broaching the ideas that government doing socialist-adjacent things doesn't have to be socialist itself. It's smart politics. My conservative eyebrows are raised. As an ad guy and message strategist, I think she's closing in on something that resonated with Trump base the first time around--that the little guy without an army of lobbyists in Washington, D.C. gets f@#%ed and everyone else gets rich. I hate to admit it, but she's not even wrong. 

 
This is a message window for the Democrats if they can just skip plying "The Internationale" at the convention. 

But Wilson expends the most ink about any candidate (other than Trump) on Bernie Sanders. Because I'm planning on writing a blog to come about the Sanders phenomenon (he's not just a candidate, he's a phenomenon), I'll keep it short. Here's a part of what Wilson writes about Sanders: 

In a year when Democrats had a stark, bright-line ideological contrast before them--sane, stable-to-a fault HRC vs Donald F@#$%^&* Trump--one group stood out in switching their party preferences radically: the Bernie bros. Somewhere between 10 and 15 percent of Sanders voters switched their preferences on Election Day to Trump. These aren't principled progs; they’re arsonists. 

Bernie is Trump re-election insurance.  

If he's the nominee, I say to my Democrat friends, get ready to lose forty-five states. 

Now the first thing to say about this quote is that the only gravity that binds Wilson and Sanders is the Dark Star, Donald Trump. In normal times they are light-years apart in their thinking about political economy and travel in entirely separate orbits. Thus, one can argue for all his tell-it-like-it-is-tough-love, Wilson's judgment is warped by his ideological animus toward Sanders. But because Wilson isn't the first, nor certainly the last, to raise these points, his words to give me pause. After all, what if he's correct? Well, that's a minefield to traverse in a later blog. 

Judging Impeachment: A Third Oath and a Criterion for Judgment--or "What of the Shoe Was on the Other Foot?"

I'm been thinking about how we could set a standard to allow Senators to return an appropriate judgment at the conclusion of the current impeachment trial. To begin, let's start with the oath that each senator takes when beginning their term of office. (See Below)

At the beginning of the current trial, each senator took this oath as well.
(See below)

Now, perhaps before returning a decision, each senator should take another oath. However, the oath would not be the same for each senator. Each senator would take the following oath before announcing the senator's judgment:

"I swear (or affirm) that the decision I make today is the same decision I would make if the president in question would have been Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or any other Democrat. I have not been moved by partisan favor or any motive other than to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, so help me God."

So New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Kristin Gillibrand should take it as well as Senator Chuck Grassley and Senator Joni Ernst. All of them. And then the voters will determine if each one upheld the oath.

Of course, this isn't going to happen, but is it a bad idea? Moreover, isn't this the criteria--regardless of any oath--by which each of the 100 senators should be making her or his decision?

I welcome suggestions or rebuttals.