Dan Erwin

Harris, Warren and Biden Are Going to Get Eaten Alive by Trump

Most Democrats assume that Harris or Biden--and perhaps Warren--can beat Trump in a debate. The fact of the matter is that in a debate there's a high potential that all three of these lawyers will get eaten alive by Trump. The successful prosecution of both Barr and Biden by Harris, many also think, is illustrative of what she can do with Trump. That's profoundly flawed thinking. The problem with all four of them (Barr included) is that they work on the basis of lawyerly assumptions. What do I mean by that? I'll explain--and also reveal why Harris, who did so well with Biden and Barr, cannot work her magic with Trump.

It's all about assumptions. Lawyers inevitably come to the party with rational assumptions and act like a judge is watching. The fundamental assumption that all three of them bring is that by asking questions you can expose the weaknesses of the opposition. In other words, the opposition  has to answer a question in some form that can then be analyzed or rejected.

But the big problem these lawyers face in dealing with Trump is...

A Tour de Force On, Of All Things, National Policy

After reading Ganesh Sitaraman's brilliant and highly creative tome on The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution:Why economic inequality threatens our republic, I couldn't wait for his and Anne Alstott's little book, The Public Option: How to expand freedom, increase opportunity and promote equality. Usually, I'd think a book like this might be boring--but that notion is miles away from the truth. It's a real page-turner.

Before I get into the book, let me emphasize that it's immensely readable. Illustrations, examples, caveats, questions, theory, solutions: the whole package. Fact of the matter, I ran a quick test of its literacy level, finding that the book was written at the level of high school seniors and college freshman. I suspect that was exactly what they intended. And although the back page reviews are effusive, as far as I'm concerned they could be still more effusive.

Figuring Out the 2020 Candidates by Counting Words

Back in 2004 Pete Buttigieg, his Harvard Colleague, Ganesh Sitaraman, along with Peter Emerson wrote an intriguing, fun article suggesting that by counting the number of words in the party platform, you could figure out who would win the presidential election. The smaller the page count, the more potential for winning the election.

They surfaced a great deal of examples to support their proposal. They found that since 1960 the average page count of the Democrats' platforms in losing years was 82 pages, but that the average of winning years was 46. The longest platforms at 128 and 124 pages came during the disastrous years of 1980 and 1984. 

They also found that another indicator was what they called the candidate-to-opponent ratio. In the Democrats long 1984 platform they were unable to spell out their platform without mentioning/comparing to the Republicans. That year Ronald Reagan was mentioned 213 times, while Walter Mondale, the Democratic candidate wasn't mentioned once. Reagan won by a complete rout. 

These guys also studied the rhetorical use of words, specifically the use of "crisis." The Republicans used the term "crisis" a dozen times in their 1980 platform, including in the first sentence. Of course, that was the year that Reagan won in a landslide.

I've thought about this article and my own background of rhetoric in the past months by comparing Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren. I've listened to Buttigieg throughout his campaign and compared his positioning to that of Elizabeth Warren. Buttigieg was in no hurry whatsoever to create policy. In fact, he pushed back on media's demands for a lotta policy statements, wanting to keep his approach simple, while Warren made "I've a policy for that" her mantra. All along my rhetoric background suggested that what Pete's doing is very smart and that Elizabeth Warren's inundating us with policy will bring her down, even though right now she's getting all the attention...

Finally. A Highly Astute and Long Overdue Critique of Facebook

Chris Hughes, one of the original founders of Facebook, has an unusually astute analysis and critique of Facebook in today's NYT opinion page. He argues that Mark Zuckerberg is a good guy, but that his company is a threat to our economy and democracy. Facebook, he argues, needs to be broken up. It's an article every techie, techie wannabe and politician needs to imbibe thoroughly.

In an unusual response to the extensive analysis, the editors of the Times also provide 5 takeaways from Hughes' essay:

--Mark Zuckerberg is really powerful. Like cartoonishly, Bond-villain powerful.

--Facebook's founders had no idea of the power of what they were building.

--Facebook's concentration of power and influence is part of a trend that extends beyond Silicon Valley.

--There are no alternatives to Facebook. That's the problem.

--We have the tools to regulate Facebook but not the will. Yet.

A major problem we face is that the old, regular good-guy politicos are utterly clueless. So we really do need Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He's the only one running for the presidency who understands the shit, has the willpower, and can actually execute.

NYT: Chris Hughes: It's time to break up Facebook.  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/sunday/chris-hughes-facebook-zuckerberg.html

NYT: Chris Hughes's call to break up Facebook: 5 Takeaways. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/chris-hughes-facebook.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

 

Best, Most Hilarious, Politico Introduction of Mayor Pete Buttegieg

I couldn't stop laughing when Buttigieg introduced himself this way: "This is the only chance you'll ever get to vote for a Maltese-American, left-handed, Episcopalian, gay, war veteran, mayor millennial." Now that's what I call authenticity.

Here's how Andrew Sullivan compared Buttigieg to Trump:

Trump would be the oldest president in history at 74; Buttigieg would be the youngest at 39. Trump landed in politics via his money and celebrity after years in the limelight; Buttigieg is the mayor of a midsize midwestern town, unknown until a few weeks ago. Trump is a pathological, malevolent narcissist from New York, breaking all sorts of norms. Buttigieg is a modest, reasonable pragmatist, and a near parody of normality. Trump thrives on a retro heterosexual persona; Buttigieg appears to be a rather conservative, married homosexual. Trump is a coward and draft dodger; Buttigieg served his country. Trump does not read; Buttigieg does. Trump’s genius is demonic demagoguery. Buttigieg’s gig is careful reasoning. Trump is a pagan; Buttigieg is a Christian. Trump vandalizes government; Buttigieg nurtures it.

To put it simply, Mayor Pete seems almost designed to expose everything that makes the country tired of Trump.

The Impeachment Process Is Worthwhile--Even If the Senate Refuses to Impeach

Though this historical review of the impeachment process won’t be published until the March edition of the Atlantic, all of its subscribers received a copy of Yoni Applebaum’s intriguing study a full month early. Applebaum, the senior editor for politics at the Atlantic, has all the right credentials—if that matters to you--including Columbia, a Brandeis PhD and teaching at Harvard. Obviously, an attempt to get the public thinking, I noticed a number of reviews of the study just a day after its publishing.

Because of the fiasco with Clinton, many legislators are wary of moving to impeachment. But the real worth of Applebaum’s review is to limit Trump’s power. From the initial pages of the review, Applebaum argues that the most serious charge is the attack upon the “bedrock of American democracy.”

Here then, are the five arguments Applebaum lays out in support of impeachment...

#MeToo, After One Year

The latest issue of The Economist  (9/29/2018) devotes its lead article to the #MeToo movement. A positive and constructive editorial, the authors drop fascinating tidbits of sociological and historical insight along the way. They argue that women's testimony is being taken more seriously--at last.

But they point out a clear possibility: if #MeToo becomes a Democrats only movement, it will be set back. The polling reveals its partisanship: 39% of Republican women think it's a problem  that men get away with. That compares to 66% of Democratic women. The inevitable consequence of these figures, they argue, is that some men will excuse their behavior on the grounds that it's all a Democratic ploy.

The closing paragraph offers the best insight: 

A Heckler's Warning

Balancing free speech with students’ objections to speakers with unpopular views has become a messy task in recent years. With students, the rights of free speech can come into conflict with the need to feel safe and welcome. Although the problem has recently surfaced all across the country, the most public episode was the shouting down of the conservative, Charles Murray, at Dartmouth last year.

Four months later when Murray was to appear at the University of Michigan, the experience was very different than that at Dartmouth. The problem has a long history. My college grappled with the issue back in the 1950s. But with the polarization in our country, the issue has become more front and center.

Part of the problem is that students often come to college having never interacted with someone with a different viewpoint or different lifestyle. Today’s homogeneous residential neighborhoods limit the opportunities for diverse interactions. There are also virtual reality silos where similar views can be curated so that one’s perspectives are always affirmed and never challenged.

Of course, there’s also a bit of imitation going on. The student brain thinks that they did it at Dartmouth so we can do it here in Podunk Center.

The best way to deal with the issue is...

Failing Your Way to Success

Walter Russell Mead, an astute historian and commentator on American history and current events, recently wrote an article on our American history of failing our way to success. His first paragraph is a fun mind game.

As Americans struggle to make sense of a series of uncomfortable economic changes and disturbing political developments, a worrying picture emerges of ineffective politicians, frequent scandals, racial backsliding, polarized and irresponsible news media, populists spouting quack economic remedies, growing suspicion of elites and experts, frightening outbreaks of violence, major job losses, high-profile terrorist attacks, anti-immigrant agitations, declining social mobility, etc. etc. etc.

Sound familiar? Really? Actually, it’s a description of the American Democracy in the years between 1865 and 1900.

Mead then reverts to our world. He’s aware that it will a very long time before it becomes clear what a fully mature information economy might look like. He points out that if people and the 1860s and 1870s had been told that only two percent of the population would earn a living on the farm in the twentieth century, they could never imagine what jobs the displaced farmers could find. The full consequences of the knowledge economy and the information age will only come into view on a very slow time table. The implication, however, is that getting caught in the grip of profound pessimism and giving up on government, business and the nation is highly unrealistic.

But he draws some interesting conclusions about...

Do You Remember My Lai?

Since my typical readers are under age 35, I assume the answer to the question is negative unless you happen to be a Vietnam buff. Are there such people under the age of 35? Seymour Hersh published the story of the My Lai massacre in Harper’s, 1970. At least 109 civilians were killed by an American soldier, Bill Calley. That number may be smaller than the actual number killed. And a lot more soldiers were probably involved.

So why am I bringing this up now?