What Happened And Why (Maybe)

There was a great op-ed by Fareed Zakaria with his autopsy of the election here.  In it, he echoes the collective mea culpa coming from many journalists and pollsters who got their predictions so spectacularly wrong (many of the same journalists who enabled Trump).  He admits that the great sin of the Left has been elitism.  He cites an op-ed from the satirical website Cracked by David Wong, who grew up in rural Illinois.  I know it is partly satire, but Zakaria was right to quote it at length in his own op-ed, because it is key to understanding Trump’s surprising victory.  Wong writes: “The whole g***amned world revolves around [America’s cities].”  Zakaria writes “The vast majority of the country’s pop culture is all about city dwellers. Most new movies, shows, songs and games are about New York or Los Angeles or Chicago or some fantasy version of them. Nearly every trend comes from a metropolis. All the hot new industries are in hip cities.”  Back to Wong: “If you live in [rural America], that f*cking sucks…To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites. ‘Are you a**holes listening now?’”

That last line is key.  “Are you a**holes listening now?”  To me, that explains Trump’s election more than any data could show.  I continue to think that most (many?) of the people who voted for Trump did so in spite of his rhetoric regarding women, immigrants and various minorities, not because of it.  Or maybe because of it, but not for the reason you might think.

Look at the electoral map.  The Democrat blue is on each of the coasts (and in some urban centers all over the country), and in between is a vast ocean of red.  “Flyover country” as the traditional media often unwittingly dismisses most of the rest of the country (traditional media being centered in New York and Los Angeles).  Well, there are a lot of people who live in that vast region between the coasts.  A lot of people who have seen wages stagnate or their jobs go to other countries.  A lot of people who have been pushed to the background amidst admirable but news-dominating struggles for minority rights and issues.

People from all walks of life have gotten angrier and more disgusted with disconnected and dysfunctional politics.  People are equally angry at both major parties.  Bernie Sanders’ success was the populist Left flipside of the Trump coin.  Same root anger.  As another op-ed I read put it, lots of voters wanted to throw a Molotov cocktail at Washington.  No matter that the Molotov cocktail says mean things about women or minorities.  He is a blunt weapon whose purpose is to bust things up.  Which is also a variation on the primal, resentful, desperate plea of “Are you a**holes listening now?”  As Zakaria admitted, “yes, I am listening now.”

Yes, Trump got the Klan vote.  There are plenty of people who are old fashioned racists and nativists who voted for Trump.  But I don’t think that is why most people voted for him.  Many others are the forgotten voters in Kansas who barely make ends meet yet who are still patriotic Americans (or who may even be veterans or have a close friend or loved one who is a veteran) and are tired of turning on Sunday night football and watching a whiny back-up quarterback who makes a million dollars a year refuse to stand for the national anthem.  That explains the Trump vote too.  Believe me. It is more complicated than simple racism. An aggressive and at times haughty, elitist Left creating "safe places" at universities. A protest movement that at times cares less about the actual facts of certain cases than the color of the skin of those involved in an altercation and that demonizes the country's police officers wholesale. A welfare system that had admirably been reformed in the 1990's (under a Democratic president and Republican Congress) that has slipped back to making it more profitable to collect government payments than to work in many cases. All of these things have contributed to the backlash that manifested itself in a Trump win.

How did the pollsters get it so wrong? As the elitist mainstream media often does, they probably concentrated too much on the urban vote. Where all the action is. Also, as a friend of mine who voted for Trump told me the other day:

"if a pollster had called me and asked me who I was going to vote for, I probably would not have told them. I would have confirmed that I'm a registered Republican, but I probably would have said 'undecided.' Same goes for some of my family members. To avoid the arguments and agitation, I wouldn't have, and haven't, told certain family members that I was going to vote for Trump. He wasn't my first choice, I don't like him. He's crude and rude and an egomaniac. But given the choices, I had to vote for him. Plus, I was pissed at the direction this country was going."

I think that summarizes it for many. Also, do not overlook just how flawed and weak Trump's opponent was. I think this country would be ready to elect a woman. Just not Hillary Clinton (yes, I know she won the popular vote. I reluctantly voted for her myself).

On to what we have to look forward to for at least the next four years (barring impeachment).  I don’t think Trump is as radical or reactionary as he campaigned.  If you look at many of his positions prior to the campaign, he was very moderate, and had as many left positions as right.  You also hear many testimonials that in person, behind closed doors when it is time to get down to business, he is a very different man.  A more sober and reflective man.  I have also heard that Trump actually does take counsel and listen to advice.  Not that they have much in common, but like George Washington, I can see Trump leaving the details to key underlings and he makes the final decisions after being briefed.

Herein lies another problem.  Who will be advising and briefing him?  George Washington had the dueling visions of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton advising him and giving him options from which to choose.  "Reince Priebus, Steve Bannon and a vindictive young son in law" doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.  I was heartened to see Trump choose Priebus for Chief of Staff, about as establishment as you can get.  But then Bannon.  There’s your Molotov cocktail, the Alt-Right now in the Oval Office with the president’s ear.  It is like Trump is trying to please establishment, mainstream Republicans (by choosing Priebus) and also the radical Right Wing (Bannon) by pitting these two figures against each other in his administration.  There is something to be said for establishing competing centers of power within an administration from which to take advice (again, see Jefferson and Hamilton for Washington; or Lincoln’s cabinet).  But then it requires a wise arbiter as “the Decider” (in George W.’s words).

I didn’t vote for him.  But I am willing to give him a chance.  He is, after all, my next president.  And yours too, like it or not.  I understand the fear and disbelief, especially if you are amongst the many groups whom Trump insulted and marginalized and dehumanized during the campaign (yes, I know it is easier for me as a white male to sit back and say ‘give the guy a chance’).  But I also think we all need to at least wait for him to mess up before we get too angry with him.  What choice do we have, really?  These marchers in the streets eventually need to get back to their jobs, if they have any. Or maybe Trump will create real jobs for them, as he promised. Who knows.

One of my main concerns is his lack of preparedness and how influenced he can be by those around him.  Contrary to him not listening to people, he actually listens too much at times.  Since he is not actually prepared to be president and because he shows no real desire or ability to dive deep into policy, he depends on others to give him all of the information and perspective.  His partial reversal on Obamacare this last week is a case in point.  During the campaign he blustered that he would repeal Obamacare wholesale “the first day in office” and replace it with “something better.”  But after meeting with Obama for an hour and a half and actually reading a bit about Obamacare (apparently for the first time), he now thinks we should keep part of it and change other parts.  (Or has he reverted back to getting rid of it wholesale?  Hard to keep track.)  Put Trump in a room with Vladimir Putin for a couple of hours and who knows?  Maybe he will emerge supporting a new Iron Curtain.  That is the problem with being willfully out of your depth on almost every issue.  Others will pick and choose how to explain things to him, and he will not know enough about it to call BS when warrented, but be more influenced by whoever flattered him the most, or who had the most charismatic personality, or maybe even whoever talked to him most recently. That is my fear.

GNABB Reluctantly Endorses Hillary Clinton

In the almost eight and a half years that GNABB has been helping to shape American culture and thought, the editorial board here has never endorsed a Democrat. We espouse a center-right ideology around these parts. But we at GNABB must now break from party for the good of country. This is less an endorsement of Hillary Clinton than a complete rejection of Donald J. Trump. But in order to reject Trump and save our country, that necessitates a default endorsement of Clinton. (Stein and the Green Party are silly, and Gary 'Aleppo' Johnson had a shot at a protest endorsement, until he proved himself less informed than my six year old).

Oh where to begin. I actually don't think Trump, at heart, is a racist. He's almost as bad, though, in the sense that he uses racism as an opportunist does. He carelessly courts a dangerous and until recently mostly dormant (other than in dark corners of the internet) racism amongst frustrated working class whites and those who pander to them. This racism was slowly fading, or at least had been kept around dinner tables and in chatrooms. Trump has brought this ugliness into the mainstream culture. But I also blame the Left. I blame them for creating an intolerable and intolerant politically correct environment in higher education, for supporting a vitriol-laced attack on law enforcement, for a weak and feckless foreign policy for eight years...the time had come for a strong, conservative resurgence. But instead of finding the next Ronald Reagan, the Republicans found Donald f*cking Trump. A crude, sexist, bloviating, attention-seeking, delusional (remember this one from the convention: "I alone can fix it"), insecure/pompous reality TV star with a frightfully short attention span. Trump is not stupid. Far from it. He is a master manipulator. But he cannot seem to focus long enough on any one topic to really deal with serious issues. Watch his interviews. The guy is all over the place without saying anything.

Trump's economic plan, such as it is, would add trillions to our debt.

I can't even discern a coherent foreign policy. At different times, he has said the following: he would crush ISIS, let the Russians handle ISIS and we should stay out of it, we should go take Iraq's oil, we should encourage nuclear proliferation in Asia, we should rethink NATO (just as Putin has visions of a new Russian Empire), Vladimir Putin is a great guy, Mexico will pay for a Wall that it does not want to exist, Brexit was a great idea. I know it's a campaign line, but what Clinton says is true. Trump is a man who can be provoked with a tweet or a well placed insult. Just look at this week. Clinton masterfully distracted him and drew him into a feud with a former Ms. Universe who put on some pounds. Imagine how Putin could toy with Trump for the next four years?

I could go on and on, but I don't really need to. I have proudly been a Never Trump conservative from the beginning. Trump has highjacked the Republican Party. Both parties have masses of people that have voted for them, but have been kept out of the decisionmaking. The Democrats contained their kooks when they were able to shut the Bernie Sanders movement down; unfortunately the Republican Party has been taken over by its most ignorant, unthinking, reactionary constituencies. Trump is not a conservative. He has no ideology at all, in fact. I stand with Mitt Romney and George H.W. Bush in their resistence and criticisms of Trump.

Finally, I oppose Donald Trump because I have two young daughters who I have been raising to respect themselves. Do I want their president to be a man who engages in public vendettas with almost any woman who publicly criticizes him? A man who has very publicly called certain women "pigs" and "dogs," even if they were just Rosie O'Donnell.

Perhaps one of the scariest things about Trump is that he is easily baited and cannot let criticisms go. Look at how viciously George W. Bush was attacked during his presidency, and how visciously Barack Obama has been attacked during his. Can you imagine Donald Trump being able to focus on the tasks of the presidency while being constantly criticized by his opponents and the media? He simply cannot let things go. He would spend most of his days in twitter wars and responding to every journalist who wrote a negative op-ed piece. In fact, he has openly discussed making it easier to sue journalists for defamation of public figures (translation: curtail freedom of speech and press).

I don't really have positive arguments for Hillary Clinton. She is capable, knowledgeable. She will continue the damaging policies of the Obama years, but we can recover from that. I think she is less ideological than Obama, and once elected, she will probably tack back more towards the center like her husband eventually did. At least that is my hope. She's got to keep the silly Bernie supporters in line until after the election. Then she can be reasonable again. By many accounts, she actually was a fairly effective Senator, and even many of her former Republican colleagues will quietly admit that she worked well across the aisle and listened to opposing views with a relatively open mind. Again, I hope that is the case and that she would be that kind of president.

But I do know that we cannot have Donald Trump as president. OK. So I just endorsed Hillary Clinton. I need to go take a shower now.

It Is OK To Change Your Mind

Interesting op-ed piece from a former climate change skeptic and meteorologist. What I like about it is that he tries to de-politicize the issue as much as he can and stick to science. It is here.

Opportunity Lost

This is what I've been saying for years, especially in relation to the Hispanic vote. It is one of many tragedies of the Trump nomination for true conservatives. Great article. Here is the link.

There Aren't Enough of Us

I have held off from discussing the election here at GNABB. Too many musical obituaries to do. But I have been following it very closely. I just haven’t been able to bring myself to write anything, though. Partly because I have so many thoughts and feelings about it, I haven’t had the energy to sit down and sort them out. But here goes…

Trump vs. Hillary. An historical election, in part because we have never had the two major candidates both have such high negative polling. Polls indicate that over 50% of Americans dislike them both, so…???? Anyway, they are our candidates. No amount of wishing them away will change that.

As someone who generally leans middle/right, the Trump phenomenon/fiasco has been especially interesting/infuriating. I was onboard the Never Trump train early on, but at the same time I always held out a little hope that he could convince me otherwise. That he would fulfill his promise that the primary season was just an act, a carnival sideshow, and that he would magically become “presidential” when it mattered.

Trump: “I’ll be so presidential it’ll make your head spin.”

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan just handed Trump an opportunity to be exactly that, presidential. In an unprecedented move, the Speaker of the House refused to endorse the presidential candidate of his own party. Or at least, said he was “not ready” to do so. Trump could have taken up the challenge, said something like “Speaker Ryan is correct, I need to bring this party together and I am determined to do just that. I invite Speaker Ryan and other party leaders to meet with me and we can come together and discuss a host of issues, and then together we can lead this party to victory in November.” But it just isn’t in his DNA to collaborate. Instead, Trump responds in the only way he knows how, confrontationally. He said that he wasn’t ready to support Ryan’s agenda. So there, the trenches on the battlefield are dug.

Trump just doesn’t care. The very idea of a political party has very little use to him unless it is simply an apparatus to get him what he personally wants. Paul Ryan was talking about the great responsibility to live up to the best of the GOP legacy, to live up to the principles and leadership of Lincoln and Reagan. To Trump that hardly registers, and that is one of the many problems here.

What is Ryan doing? Is he giving cover to vulnerable Republicans up for re-election in Congress this year, so they can also distance themselves from a Trump scorched-earth candidacy? Is he trying to preserve true conservativism (which is a religion to Ryan, and a matter of convenience to Trump), where Ryan and others might actually be willing to throw this election in order to preserve the Republican Party for the long run? All are possibilities.

Paul Ryan: Losing the battle on purpose to win the war?

The greatest damage that Trump has done to the Republican cause is demographically. By 2050, many experts believe that the United States will be “majority-minority,” meaning that there will be no ethnic group that is a majority in this country. The fastest growing demographic is Hispanic. During the 1990’s, the Hispanic population passed up the African-American. I have argued for years that in many ways, the Hispanic population and the GOP are a good fit (social issues, economically). It is a matter of messaging and perhaps some movement on a few issues. The Republican establishment, like Paul Ryan, had realized this and were trying to work on this long term issue. Trump has blown that effort out of the water (tweeting a picture of The Donald enjoying a taco bowl on Cinco de Mayo saying “I love Hispanics!,” notwithstanding).

ABOVE: Apparently, all you have to do is eat a taco bowl and proclaim "I love Hispanics!" on Cinco de Mayo, and all will be forgiven

If the Republican Party does not figure out a long term plan to expand its base, it will become a party perpetually in the wilderness. So Trump calls Hispanic immigrants rapists, he calls for a blanket ban on Muslim immigration, and shows an anachronistic, dismissive attitude towards roughly half of our population (women). As a father of two daughters, I would punch someone in the face if they spoke to one of them in the way that Trump has addressed women in public. For that reason alone, it is hard to stomach supporting him and having him be an example to my girls. Trump has managed to alienate most anyone who is not non-Hispanic white from the Republican cause. Perhaps Paul Ryan and others see the long game, and the need to sacrifice this election.

What explains Trump’s popularity (beyond just obvious bigots, because there are a lot more people than that supporting him)? As has been much discussed in the media, it is the same anger fueling Bernie Sanders’ movement on the other side. People fed up with comfortable establishment figures who maintain their power while things seem to be getting more unstable and out of control internationally, and at least stagnating domestically. People want change. But The Bern’s socialism and Trump’s demagoguery and narcissism are not the answers.

Trump has tapped into a fear and frustration that has been there for awhile amongst working class whites. Which is one reason he still could win this thing. Frankly, there are quite a few northern, working class whites who normally vote Democrat who are flocking to Trump (what we called in the 80’s “Reagan Democrats.”) Can they make up for the Never Trump Republicans? Maybe. Add to that Hillary is a very weak and vulnerable candidate who has serious issues of her own.

I can’t support Trump for several reasons. His wall and his plan to round up millions of illegal immigrants and send them back are absurd (but “the good ones” can come right back. How does he know who is “good”? Will he interview them all personally? Can you just see the Gestapo-like images of people being rounded up, separated from family members and shipped back to foreign lands?) So what is his point? Is he just that cynical, stirring up nativist sentiments, knowing he can’t really deliver? Or does he really think he can do these things? Either way, it is ridiculous and dangerous.

Even worse is his foreign policy. He casually talks of dismantling NATO, of promoting nuclear proliferation in Asia…he discusses reversing American foreign policy that has been in place since the end World War II with as much thought as you or I would dedicate to ordering take-out. I swear, it looks like he says these things the moment they pop into his head. His Middle Eastern policy? Which Trump do you believe? We should pull out and let them fight out their own problems? Give the Russians a free hand to do with Syria what they see fit? Go carpet-bomb ISIS into oblivion? It seems to change with each week that passes. Again, whatever pops into his head at the moment. One thing that he said is true. The U.S. would be “unpredictable” under a Trump administration. The problem with that is that for close to a century, global stability has depended on a predictable American foreign policy. Our allies depend on it, and our enemies are kept in check by it. Trump: “I’ll make great deals.” Meaning everything is now negotiable? The majority of conservative foreign policy experts agree that Trump’s foreign policy would be a disaster. Not everyone has such dire feelings about it, though. Vladimir Putin is a noted Trump fan.

So no, I can’t vote for the Donald. Country over party. And actually, not voting for Donald, in the long run, is probably best for the party too. Perhaps the Republicans will need to go into the wilderness for awhile and reinvent themselves. Like after The New Deal, and it required a Barry Goldwater to plant the seeds that only came to fruition 15 years later with Reagan (or as I describe him to my students,

“Goldwater with a personality”). It might take more years of horrendous policies like Obama’s to finally convince Americans that another way is necessary. But it is not Trump’s way.

There are just not enough of us out there right now. Reasonable, thoughtful, Libertarian-leaning conservatives who are concerned about the deficit and debt and fiscal future of this country. Who recognize that the American character and work ethic is worth preserving, at least the best aspects of it. Who understand that America has a leadership role to play in the world that needs to be predictable and steadfast for our allies (which Trump doesn’t seem to understand), and that also must project strength and be able to strike a certain fear in the hearts of those who would oppose us or try to do the world harm (Obama doesn’t seem to understand, or at least agree with, this part). Reasonable conservatives who understand that we need to cut government spending, reform entitlements (including the difficult ones like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), but also that not all taxes are automatically bad. Republican icon Ronald Reagan understood this. He once said that if you get 80% of what you want, then that is a success. He understood that you had to work with the opposition, that it did no good to demonize your domestic political opponents.

We have ourselves (on the Right) to blame for Trump. It started with talk radio, I think. I listen to a lot of conservative talk radio on my drives to and from work. And I agree with much of what they say. Many critics of the genre haven’t actually listened to much of it, and it provided an outlet for a point of view that had been blocked out of the mainstream media. But they hold on to and expand their listenership through demonizing the Left, there is no doubt. Most every issue that comes up is proof that Obama and others are out to destroy America. Not that they have different opinions on solutions, but that they just hate America. Ratings equal stirring up anger and resentment. Some are more reasonable than others (I loved Bill Bennett when he was on, I enjoy and respect Dennis Prager and Michael Medved quite a bit, not coincidently two who have come out and said that Trump is wrong for this country), but then you also have the Michael Savage’s of the airwaves. It is an industry built on resentment and intransience, on the belief that if you compromise with the Left then you are a traitor. Reagan, in this environment, would have been excoriated. Talk radio created the Tea Party. Tea Party resentment paved the way for Trump.

ABOVE: With these people becoming a vocal part of Republican politics, was Trump far behind?

The funny thing is, Trump is not even a conservative. And he will actually run to the left of Hillary on some issues. But this pitchfork and torches contingent of the Right is so angry and emboldened now, they don’t even notice that Trump is a carnival barker opportunist who will bend and change with the populist tides and his own whim on any given day. Add to that the Reagan Democrats that he has courted. Trump has no core ideology at all.

So, what to do? Hillary is not a good candidate, nor an honest leader. I think at heart Hillary is pretty moderate. Bernie has pushed her left. Can she tack back center once the children (Bernie supporters) are put to bed and the adults in the Democrat household take control again? I don’t know. But she is not dangerous like Trump is. At least not in the same way he is. I could see Trump doing damage that will be much harder to repair than Hillary. I either vote for her or I don’t vote, I guess. Or cast a 3rd party protest vote if the Never Trump crowd can get something together.

Ryan/Rubio ’20.

RIP Scalia, 1936-2016

Couldn't you have hung on until next January? That would have been much better. None of us get to choose the time of our departure, I guess. My wife and I were at a yoga class (the second one I have ever attended - the things we do to please our spouse for Valentine's Day), and just before we started I glanced at my phone and saw that Antonin Scalia had died. I have to admit I was rocked pretty hard by this one.

For one, Scalia made law school bearable. Whether you agreed with him or not (and I often did), his decisions were a joy to read. You don't hear that much when referring to the writing in Supreme Court decisions. But Scalia possessed both a razor mind and a razor pen. And he was by far the most powerful Justice on the Supreme Court for decades, because Scalia got two votes whereas the other Justices just got one vote. (I am, of course, referring to Clarence Thomas, who almost always voted with Scalia and would often just sign on to Scalia's decisions vs. writing his own).

ABOVE: What is Clarence "yeah, what he said" Thomas going to do now that Scalia is gone? Think for himself?

On a more serious note, I'm not sure what to think of the Republican Senate standoff with Obama on appointing Scalia's replacement. This rhetoric of "let the people decide" (as in, wait until after the election so the people can weigh in on the direction of the replacement) is crap. That is not in the Constitution, as Scalia himself would probably point out. And the people did weigh in. Obama was re-elected.

I think what should happen is that Obama fulfills his Constitutional duty and nominates someone, and the Republicans in the Senate give him or her their due hearing and then most likely vote them down. Drag it out until the election, and then let the next president pick someone. That seems better than refusing to even hold a hearing without even having a nominee yet. At least go through the motions. This holdout could be worse for the Republicans in an election year than just having some contentious hearings and then voting "no."

Do I think the Democrats would do the same thing if it were reversed? Of course. In fact, both Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have statements exactly to that effect from back in the waning days of George W. Bush's presidency. I wouldn't agree with them doing it either (and you know if this were the democrats doing this, talk radio-world would be raising a sh*tstorm about the dems circumventing the Constitution, etc.)

Our Founders certainly intended for the president to nominate someone and then for the Senate to advise the president on that nominee and then consent or not. I don't think they meant "advise and consent" to mean "No. It doesn't matter who you nominate. We'll just leave the seat vacant for a year."

Anyway, Scalia was quite simply one of the greatest minds we have ever had on the Court. A giant. I leave you with the ever quotable Antonin Scalia...

“Never compromise your principles, unless of course your principles are Adolf Hitler’s, in which case you would be well advised to compromise them as much as you can.”

“More important than your obligation to follow your conscience, or at least prior to it, is your obligation to form your conscience correctly.”

“A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change.”

“This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”

“A man who has made no enemies is probably not a very good man.”

"A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless."

"That’s the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things."

"You’re looking at me as though I’m weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the devil! It’s in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the devil! Most of mankind has believed in the devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the devil."

"To pursue the concept of racial entitlement–even for the most admirable and benign of purposes–is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred. In the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is American."

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

"Bear in mind that brains and learning, like muscle and physical skill, are articles of commerce. They are bought and sold. You can hire them by the year or by the hour. The only thing in the world not for sale is character."

"God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools…and He has not been disappointed. Devout Christians are destined to be regarded as fools in modern society. We are fools for Christ’s sake. We must pray for courage to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world. If I have brought any message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world."

"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Thoughts On Trump (and the other candidates)

One of my last lectures/class discussions in my AP US History class last year was looking ahead to the 2016 election. I tried to fit pictures of all of the declared and likely Republican candidates on one PowerPoint slide, kind of pyramid style, with the "important" ones on top with bigger pictures and the less important ones at the bottom. As an afterthought I put a silly little picture of Donald Trump at the very bottom. My students and I had a quick laugh and we moved on to a more serious discussion. No Republican is laughing now. (By the way, I also had to explain who the hell Bernie Sanders was and the students had a laugh at his disheveled photo and then we discussed Hillary's democratic coronation. That conversation would go differently now as well).

For months now media types from all parts of the spectrum (MSNBC to right wing talk radio) have been predicting Trump's demise. This is a joke, right? People are supporting him because he's entertaining, but they wouldn't really vote for him, right? According to the media experts, every misstep is the end of Trump. Out of the gate with his illegal immigrants are rapists ("somebody's doing the raping, Don!") talk. John McCain isn't a hero because he got captured. Stupid statements like these should sink most candidates. Only his poll numbers actually go up after each of these supposed screw ups.

I believe a poll earlier in the week had Trump at 25% in a field of now 17 Republicans, the closest to him was Jeb, behind him by double digits.

Trump is not going away, and I'll tell you why. First, he has a limitless bankroll, and doesn't need to depend on begging for donations to keep his campaign afloat. It can all be self-financed, a la Ross Perot in '92. (In fact, I would not be surprised if Trump starts buying 30 minutes slots in prime time to present his case. Just wait. That is coming.) Secondly, he is a celebrity who knows media. He is the most media savvy candidate on either side. Third, he doesn't have to fight for headlines. He steps on the street and it is a CNN lead. The media is Trump-crazy (not fawning over him like they did Obama, but they can't get enough of him, and that is all he needs). And he is in command when dealing with the press. Did you see the interview he did with Anderson Cooper recently? He mandhandled Cooper. Totally controlled the interview, to the point to where Cooper was trying to point out to Trump where he (Cooper) had in fact been complimentary of Trump in the past. A leading newpaper in Iowa recently editorialized that he should drop from the race, he simply banished any journalist from the paper from any of his events. He doesn't need them like the other candidates do. It matters less that much of what Trump says makes no sense (a wall will be built on the border and Mexico will pay for it!) What matters is when he appears on television he is in command. He has sucked the air out of the Republican race. Rand Paul was reduced to taking a chainsaw to the tax code and Lindsey Graham had to make an SNL-like short getting rid of his cell phone just to get TV time.

Something a little less obvious. Even though I agree more with establishment Republicans, I know how the right wing thinks because I listen to a lot of talk radio. They despise the Boehner/McCain Republicans. They feel like the mainstream media is a Left Wing conspiracy. So the more the establishment Republican Party and the mainstream media tries to dismiss Trump or take him down, the more support he will garner from the right. His "straight talk" style is an aphrodisiac to the angry, politician hating Tea Party/right wing types. And they are loudest in the primaries. Something Trump and Sanders have in common, by the way, is that they have tapped into a Populist anger out there combined with a straight shooter persona when skepticism about politicians is high. Opposite ends of the spectrum, but the populist roots are close to the same. Trump has also mined that old nativist tradition in American politics that has popped up periodically, from the early 1800's, the 1920's, and other periods. The fear that new immigrants ain't like the older immigrants, they will ruin our great nation with their crime, strange beliefs and dangerous political ideologies.

But would Trump get support in the general election? He obviously would have trouble with the Hispanic vote. That is a real issue because it is a crucual demographic for the Republicans in the future. And as I have commented in the past, there are many segments of the Hispanic community that lines up very nicely with Republican values, both social and economic. It is an issue of messaging. Trump has done real damage in that crucual effort. But if Trump were to force his nomination on a cowering Republican establishment, what's their alternative? Vote for Hillary? The hatred for Hillary is so strong that it will bring out much of the Republican base, Tea Party and establishment. (Much like Reagan's 1980 victory was as much an anti-Carter vote as it was for Reagan). The real question is whether Trump could get independent votes, the ones that now determine general elections. His favorables are not strong with independents, but he has time and has exceeded expectations thus far.

This is a fascinating race even without Trump. There are 17 Republican candidates because Hillary is so beatable. I predict that in the end, Biden will jump in and give Hillary a real race on the Democratic side. People don't like Hillary. Polls indicate that over 50% of the American public sees her as untrustworthy. Benghazi and the email scandal are not going away and they shouldn't. She is a terrible campaigner. Her speeches are shrill and dripping with insincerity and poll tested lines. Are you willing to listen to four to eight years of that? Even most Democrats are just lukewarm on her. The alternative to Hillary, until Biden gets in? Socialist Bernie Sanders.

What about the other 16 Republicans? That is sort of the shame here. There are some very good candidates on the Republican side. There is a website with a questionnaire on issues, go here, and there are others out there as well. It matches you up by percentage with all of the candidates based on how your responses match up with their positions. Probably not an exact science, since candidates positions can slip all over the place, but it is fun. I had my students all do it. If you do it, make sure to adjust the priority meter, it makes a difference in the results. Anyway, my results were what I thought they would be. John Kasich was my highest match, followed by Chris Christie. Jeb was fairly high. Hillary was in the middle, by the way, and Ted Cruz was dead last. When I did it in the spring, Trump wasn't an option.

I don't see Kasich or Christie winning the nomination, though. Nor do I see Trump winning it, but the fact that he is in the serious conversation would have been laughable six months ago. Odds on favorites are still Jeb or Scott Walker in the end, and either one should pick Marco Rubio for VP candidate.

However things eventually turn out, the first Republican debate next week is now must see TV, with The Donald front and center.

And one other thing Trump has. He has the nuclear option of running as an independent if the Republican Party "doesn't treat him right". Like Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 and Ross Perot in 1992, that guarantees a Democrat president for the next four years. And the Republicans know it.

Dez Reviews Neil Young + Promise of the Real's 'The Monsanto Years,' 2015

This isn't the first time that Neil Young has become obsessed with some issue and decided to toss off an entire record about it, something I called "record as blog post" when I reviewed his Fork in the Road back in 2009. Recall that I gave that record a **** review. Every song was about his electric car, but it was a brilliantly loose, humorous, passionate, fun ride. His 2006 tirade against the War in Iraq Living With War is the other side of that coin. One of his worst records, it was obvious, simplistic, and below his talents. That is not to say that Neil can't do intelligent political commentary. 1970's "Ohio" (written in the wake of the Kent State shootings) is one of the all time great protest songs. It is angry, but also has a memorable hook and fantastic, less-is-more lyrics that still have interesting turn of phrase. So where does his latest political screed stand in all of this? At the bottom. This sucks.

Neil has been a passionate environmentalist and supporter of farmers for decades, which is fine. He has decided to take on the Monsanto mega-corporation and their production of GMOs, and how they are tied to big money politics, other mega-corporations (he also frequently attacks Wal-Mart and Starbucks by name on this record) and how they screw the farmer. All noble causes, but his execution is piss poor. These are some of the worst lyrics I've ever heard. Monsanto has nothing to worry about from Neil, nobody will be able to get through these songs to hear their message and rise up against the corporate Man.

The shame is that, musically speaking, this is pretty good. It sounds like good, not great, Crazy Horse. The band is Promise of the Real, a group led by Lukas Nelson, son of Willie Nelson. They are joined by another Nelson boy, Micah. The band is very good, actually. Gritty in a Crazy Horse way but a little more polished, which is nice. This came together in typical Neil fashion, he had fun jamming with the Nelson boys at a Farm-Aid event, and so invited them to be his band on his next album. They sound great together, but I wish they had better material to work with. As good as the music is (featuring some great guitar fireworks between Neil and Lukas in spots), you just cannot get past these lyrics.

Cringe-worthy throughout. Check out this doozy from "A Rock Star Bucks a Coffee Shop":

"When the people of Vermont voted to label food with GMOs / So they would know what was in it / Monsanto and Starbucks through the Grocery Manufacturers Alliance / Sued the state of Vermont to overturn the peoples' will"

Yeah! Rock and roll! Oh there's more where that came from. The whole f*cking record is like this. Try this Shakespearean turn of phrase from "Workin' Man":

"This life was good and steady / Clean seeds for cash / Next year farmers were ready / Times were changing fast / Supreme Court in session / Made a new law / GMO seeds and patents / Had a fatal flaw / Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas / Once worked for Monsanto"...woo!! (cigarette lighters in the air). That's a sure way to get the fans excited, talk about Clarence Thomas.

At least Neil is a little self-aware here. In one of the only moments of wit on this entire album, Neil sarcastically acknowledges that the fans might not want to hear his political tirades in "People Want To Hear About Love," instead they want simple pop love songs. He warbles "Don't talk about Citizens United has killed democtracy / People want to hear about love / Don't say pesticides cause autistic children / People want to hear about love." No Neil. I am fine with being challenged by politically charged music. Just do it well, that is all I ask. Give me more "Ohio," less "A Rock Star Bucks a Coffee Shop."

These lyrics come across as less songs and more like blog posts or angry "get-off-my-lawn" tirades on Facebook. Which is why I hate Facebook. Like I said, this worked very well with Fork in the Road, which was whimsical and rocking while still addressing some serious issues, not so well on the grating Living With War, and it completely fails here. There is also a Yoko Ono element here. Neil left his decades long marriage a year or two ago and ran off with mediocre actress / annoying activist Daryl Hannah. (In fact, Neil is no longer on speaking terms with longtime musical compadre David Crosby because Crosby spoke up publicly and said some very unflattering things about Hannah). This is the second record he's put out since he started his relationship with her, and it is the second seriously sh*tty record he's put out in a row, after a fairly strong hitting streak. Dump the mermaid and get back to making great music again, Neil.

ABOVE: Yeah Neil. I have the same question as The Croz. What the hell are you doin', buddy?

* out of *****

Faith?

I recently became Lutheran. I mean officially, my family joined a Lutheran church. This is the first church that I have joined in my life, and I'm a little over 40. I wasn't raised very religious. I can't recall my father ever discussing religion in any way (unless directly asked by me), and my mother was Catholic in her younger days but left the Church after a divorce and has only recently returned to the faith. Like many people who join a church later in life (or in my mother's case, return to it), she has dived in wholeheartedly. Which is nice, it seems to make her happy. My mother tried to give me a little religion when I was growing up, she would take me to various Protestant churches at different times. We attended a Baptist church in Nashville for awhile. The main thing I remember is black and white women crying a lot. Crying with joy? I don't know. I remember feeling guilty that I had no desire to cry.

I've always been very interested in religion, though. I've had a strong desire to be religious, but something in my head just hasn't let it happen. Like I told the Lutheran pastor, religion has to get me in the head first, not the heart. Unless you convince my head, my heart really won't follow. I envy those people who can throw themselves into it heart and soul, making it an emotional experience. He was cool with that, seemed to understand my position. That is why I have been agnostic for much of my life. Not atheist, but agnostic leaning slightly more towards belief than non-belief. And honestly, that may be where I am intellectually still. In some ways, agnosticism seems the only logical choice. I find atheists to be as foolish in their certainty as some devout religious people seem to be foolish in theirs. I've got some friends that are atheist and they have that sneering, condescending attitude towards religious faith that I find to be ignorant. How can you presume to think that human understanding can eventually encompass/grasp the cosmos and all there is.

I guess as far as I have gotten is Deism, or the clockmaker theory. A belief in a creative, higher Power (call it God), but a distant force that is not involved in our day to day lives, one who does not care whether I score this next touchdown or not. And one who did not "let" the Holocaust happen. One who created the world and set it in motion with what we call natural laws (both scientific and political a la John Locke) and wound it up like a clock and lets it unwind as it will. We have the free will to determine our destiny. I'm in good company, Franklin and Jefferson were Deist. Deism was born of Enlightenment thinking, and I like that. But I'm open to more and open to Christianity if I can accept it logically.

By the way, one of the best books I have ever read is a religions survey book by Huston Smith called The World's Religions. First published in 1958 and revised several times since, it is the best overview I have ever come across of the five major world religions. The chapter on Judaism is especially strong, and I really gained an appreciation for the genius of the faith. Read it, all of you.

Why Lutheran? Why now? Because of my five year old daughter. She is a vibrant, sharp, stubborn, rebellious, curious little girl. I say that with pride and trepidation, because she has great potential to be a leader and successful, but could also go in other directions. Anyway, she was at a day care/Preschool that just was not working out. Getting into trouble, and the turnover of teachers was almost constant. And this was one of the more expensive ones in our city with a great reputation. I can't imagine how bad the crappy ones are. We finally had enough and decided she needed a new start somewhere else. (I could write a whole other post about this day care). This big Lutheran church close to us has a school with a stellar reputation (preschool through 8th grade) and so we enrolled her there. What an immediate difference. Hardly any reports of misbehavior at all and a huge change in her.

Part of it is the structure and staff. Unlike the revolving door of young girls teaching at the former day care, here her teachers have been there an average of 10 years or more. But honestly a big part of the difference for her was the Christ-centered curriculum. She has really bought into this whole Jesus thing. (Well, she is five, so believes mostly what people tell her. I could convince her that unicorns rule the solar system if I wanted to). But her behavior has changed in many ways. It just clicks with her that there is a deeper foundation to morality and right living than "we just need to be nice to our friends." Why? would be her next question. With a biblical foundation, the "why" is much easier to explain and she buys it.

So, we were impressed with the effect on our child. (Now our younger daughter is there as well). We decided to go ahead and see what this community was really like, so we started attending some services. I immediately connected with the head pastor and his sermons. He is fantastic. So we started talking about joining the church proper. My wife was raised with some moderate and inconsistent religion like I was. Although, I think she is more agnostic than I am at this point. We attended the class required to join the church. I am unbaptized (as are my children), and we were told that was necessary. We'll do that this summer. My wife has been baptized. At the class we were given a complimentary copy of Luther's Catechism, which I read cover to cover with its commentaries. I like it quite a bit and could come to believe its message, I think.

Honestly, as a family we have different motivations for joining the church. Part of it is cynical. The school is an expensive private school, and church members get a discount. To be honest, that may be my wife's primary motivation. It is a strong one for me too. But we also value the community aspect. It is a large church, and we have attended some of their functions and met some great people. So there is the social/community aspect as well. We also love the effect the place has on our daughter. She talks about God quite a bit, and will ask me great, probing questions. Like "Daddy, why did God make skunks?" Good question. What purpose do they really serve? I gave her some vague Circle of Life crap explanation. But really, why are they here? But I have also more genuine, spiritual motivation to do this. Or at least open curiosity. And that is where it often starts, right? We'll see.

Finally, I don't know if you saw this Pew Research Poll conducted that was in the news a couple of months ago about the changing (and declining) religious landscape of America. It is here. Fascinating. Being somewhat contrarian, the results of this remarkable study make me want to be more religious, not less.

Since I have more time over the summer, I have volunteered to work at the Church's Vacation Bible School this week. There are about 1500 kids of all ages attending this extravaganza, and it is not all Bible stuff. A lot of it is summer camp. I got assigned to help with Bible stories. At first I was disappointed. I would rather be outside playing soccer or something. But it has been a great week. One, I am working under a remarkable woman who is in her 60's and has a fantastic view on life. She has taught Bible stories for 30 years, and knows this stuff cold. We get kindergarteners primarily. I told her I can take the lead if she needs Alexander Hamilton's financial plans explained at the AP level, but she is in charge as far as Bible stories to 5 or 6 years olds go. Just tell me what to do. It's been great, though.

Today I will be playing a soldier (Namaan?) So I will get the 5 and 6 year olds to stand at attention and march around the room. Showing them soldiering, you see. I think I will be very strict and really show them what boot camp is like. Get in their face like Louis Gossett Jr. in "An Officer and a Gentleman" or something. Make them do 50 push-ups. Appropriate for 5 or 6 year olds? My daughter is in one of the groups who comes through, and it does warm my heart seeing her get excited and bursting with pride that her Daddy is leading class. Don't know how she will feel if she is in 11th grade and I happen to be her AP U.S. History teacher, though. But I can enjoy this while it lasts.

BELOW: This will be me showing the 5 year olds how to be a soldier

A Remarkable Evening With Wyclef Jean

Last night, my wife and I saw Wyclef Jean perform at the new Tobin Center in San Antonio. She won the tickets on the radio. It was an intimate show in one of their smaller theaters, maybe 200-300 people.

It was one of the most unique shows that I have ever seen. People aware of 90’s music probably remember Wyclef as the yin to Lauryn Hill’s yang in The Fugees. A renaissance man and iconoclast, Wyclef put on a show that was a strange combination of concert, street poetry, block party and Q & A.

It was just him and the original DJ from The Fugees. The DJ was spinning the records while Wyclef sang, rapped, recited what seemed to be spontaneous street poetry about everything from having a late flight to San Antonio to Ferguson and Baltimore, played guitar and piano. A nice rendition of Bob Marley’s “No Woman No Cry” with Wyclef seguing into some original lyrics reflecting on the issues of the day that wasn’t too preachy or too one sided was the standout musical moment of the evening. But this show was about a lot more than mere music.

ABOVE: Wyclef plays some sweet Bob Marley licks

The show went off the rails about half way through, but in a fantastic way. He went back to the DJ table with Fugee’s DJ (I forget the guy’s name) and they decided to “change the format” and host what Wyclef called a “block party.” And that is exactly what it was. He had his roadie move his guitars and keyboard out of the way and invited the audience up to the stage and he just spun records for a dance party. The Jackson 5’s “ABC” to Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and everything in between. People were free to go up and dance with Wyclef, take selfies with him, he was game for whatever people felt like doing. I really don’t think this was planned. Or at least it did not seem to be cleared ahead of time with the Tobin Center security and the radio promo guys. I know many artists work hard to look spontaneous, but I was watching the Tobin Center security and radio people during this whole “block party,” and they looked genuinely confused and concerned. They were huddled together discussing options. Finally one approached Wyclef and whispered something at length in his ear and he sheepishly instructed everyone to return to their seats. But that was one of the more insane 10 minutes or so I have ever experienced at a concert. (NOTE: My wife and I are both former attorneys and we couldn’t help ourselves. After the show on the way home we both went through all of the liability issues with Wyclef’s “block party.” As fun as it was, I sympathized with The Man on this one. Am I getting that old?)

ABOVE: My wife, the blurry one on the left, dances onstage with Wyclef (right)

Then 180 degree shift to a question and answer session, where Wyclef took questions from the audience. You might recall that Wyclef made a serious run for the presidency of Haiti last year or the year before, and there were several Haitian people in the audience. So from rap/reggae/pop show to dance party to Wyclef answering complex questions regarding Haitian domestic policy. And he answered the questions well, too. He is smart. And he knows it. One of the few turnoffs of the evening was Wyclef’s substantial ego. He was actually making a humble point when discussing how difficult it is for an artist of his vintage to be relevant to younger listeners, but when you start the conversation with “When a legendary artist tries to make a comeback…”, the humble facade soon disappears. He referred to himself as a “legendary artist” several times during the evening. Also, after making an admittedly good point about Haitian politics, he felt the need to point out that it was a smart observation, “hey, he can sing and dance, but he’s also really smart!”

Not all questions were that deep. One young lady got the microphone to say “I don’t have a question, I just f**kin' love you. And I’m legal.” Good to know. One guy right behind me used his opportunity to ask a question to make this offer to Wyclef, “hey man, you want a hit of this?,” proffering his joint. Wyclef partook and then continued his dissertation on Haitian politics. The gentleman who offered the weed was promptly escorted from the room by security. He was wearing a law school T-shirt, yet looked very confused as to the nature of his offense. Great stuff. Funny Wyclef was not likewise escorted out, considering he had just broken the same Texas law. I liked what Wyclef had to say about Baltimore: “why are people in Baltimore waiting for someone else to come in and improve their community for them?” He also showed support for the now famous mother who beat her rioting son upside the head on national television. “Every person in this room probably benefited at some time in their life from a good ass-whipping...not that I condone child abuse...but still.” When asked when the last time he spoke with Lauryn Hill was, he had to think for awhile, and replied, “Dave Chappelle’s block party.” I assume that was awhile ago, considering the last time Dave Chappelle was relevant.

ABOVE: Wyclef waxes philosophical about Haitian politics, Baltimore riots, and marijuana use

He also had a great perspective on the American Dream, as many immigrants do. When one audience member asked him about his definition of success, he talked about coming from Haiti as a young boy, working at Burger King for awhile, made fun of his accent in taking orders, and talked about the definition of success being dedicated and doing the best you can at whatever you are doing. It wasn’t just lecturing from a successful celeb, it was genuine. It was an oddly touching moment when he was talking about concentrating, at that time, on being the best Burger King worker he could be.

To top the evening off, he stayed after the show to take pictures with anyone who so desired. My wife and I got a good one with him. I don’t own any of his work other than The Score by The Fugees, and honestly I’m not likely to rush out and buy anything, but he still gave me one of the more memorable concert experiences of my life last night.

Because It's Not Too Early...

First of all, I know things have slowed down considerably here at GNABB. No excuse really.

But here are some thoughts on how the next presidential election is shaping up. So far we have four officially announced candidates: Hillary on the Democrat side and Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio on the Republican. I don’t see any serious Democratic challenger coming in to give Hillary much of a fight, but there will be a few sacrificial lambs so they can at least pretend to go through the primary process vs. the coronation that it actually is. On the Republican side, though, you’ve still got some major candidates likely to enter who just have not officially announced yet. Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and Chris Christie are the three most important, I think.

My main observation thus far is that each of these candidates’ (other than Walker so far, which is why I think he is the most dangerous to Hillary) main challenge is themselves. And that goes for Hillary, too. Especially for Hillary.

Ted Cruz I just don’t get. Because he knows better. Opponents of Cruz dismiss him as a Tea Party idiot. But he’s not an idiot. Far from it, he is an accomplished politician who won a Texas race against the Republican establishment that nobody gave him a chance of winning. He has a compelling life story, and he is a shrewd lawyer who has appeared and won cases in front of the Supreme Court. You do not do that unless you are smarter than the vast majority of your fellow man. Yet, he allies himself with people who show up to rallies dressed as Paul Revere. These people cannot be taken seriously. He led a destructive government shutdown with zero chance of actually accomplishing what he claimed he wanted to do (defund Obamacare), and did nothing other than play into the media narrative of extreme Republican obstructionism. Cruz is a smart man with a wonderful pedigree who has no chance in hell of winning. And I’m glad. He is dangerous based on who he caters to.

Rand Paul is a smart guy also who has some real pluses, but he is haunted by his own more extreme Libertarian past and he has been a disaster at handling the media thus far. On the positive, he can bring in a much needed youth excitement to the Republican side, he is willing and able to reach out more effectively to minority voters than any other major Republican. He sees more than any other candidate the need for the Republican Party to expand its base if it is to survive in the years to come. But Rand, you had to know that the media would ask you about your past positions and whether they jibe with your current stance. And they don’t sometimes. He has reacted like a petulant child, lecturing on proper interview techniques and whining about media bias against conservatives (which is true, but still sounds shrill when voiced). It’s early, so Rand can definitely become more adept at dealing with journalists, but he needs to improve pretty quickly to remain a serious option.

I like Marco Rubio, but he’s young. (Although, I would have dismissed Obama in the same way early in 2008). From reports, he is the one that Hillaryworld fears the most, though, so there is something. He is and will be a force to be reckoned with for some time. He seems to be a moderate on many things and wants to take the Jeb Bush spot as the party uniter between the more conservative and establishment wings. His leadership in the immigration reform fight soured many conservatives on him, though. If he can survive the more partisan primary season, he will be a formidable candidate in the general election, and I can just see the dread from the Hillary camp. Another young, exciting, minority opponent to dampen the “first woman president” vibe she wants to maintain. But I just have the feeling it is not his time, yet. Vice-presidential candidate maybe?

For the unannounced, Jeb is a favorite of the establishment. I like Jeb a lot, but I need to hear more. A downside is, of course, Bush Fatigue. But that is negated somewhat, of course, by Clinton Fatigue. It would be an advantage for the Republicans to put up a fresh face and then the Democrats would be the party of yesterday. There has been a slight rehab of W., but not that much, so the political sins of the brother still might affect Jeb unfairly. Jeb is more of a thinker. I was and still am a big Christie fan, but his name has fallen way down the list. No momentum, no buzz anymore. And you know he will get into some trouble on the trail at some point with his mouth and temper, so he would need some built-up capital to withstand that, and he just doesn’t have it anymore. As for Walker, he is a contender. Favorite of the primary voter for standing up to the unions in Wisconsin, smart and savvy. A survivor (of two recall attempts). A fighter. Obama thinks enough of him to try and take his phantom on in interviews. A Walker/Rubio ticket would be real strong. I need to look at his actual positions more closely, though, to decide whether I would support him.

As for Hillary. She is just not likeable. At all. That is what it comes down to in many ways. A problem that many people have with her (beyond the partisan Clinton haters on the right) is her lack of sincerity. I know it is a problem for most politicians, but the cynical Clinton Entitlement Machine (as in, we as Clintons are entitled to the presidency) is particularly abrasive. I love that much of the commentary on Hillary’s announcement centered on her branding, how she would brand herself this time around to better connect with the voters. Oh, she’s gonna be a populist concerned about middle class prosperity and use her status as grandmother to connect. This was released material from the Clinton campaign. How ridiculous does that sound? To actually release to the public: here’s our strategy and why you should like her now! If you have solid values and principles, the “branding” occurs automatically when you talk about your issues. But Hillary has no real issues she feels strongly about and has no real core values either. Her main policy idea is this one: she should be president. That is what her campaign was about in 2008, and that is at heart what it will be this time around. She just has to tone down the entitlement vibe, but it is still in her DNA.

Also, her record is easy to attack. Both for a lack of ANY accomplishments as Secretary of State (how is that “reset button with Russia” going?) and screw ups. I have to admit that I thought Benghazi would be a dead issue by now, but it is not going away, and although the Republicans have been their usual inartful selves in keeping the Benghazi fires burning, there are real questions that remain to be answered. Under Obama, our leadership role in the world has been diminished. As Secretary of State, she has to take responsibility for that decline in influence, in part. Richard Nixon once said: "If, when the chips are down, the world's most powerful nation, the United States, acts like a pitiful, helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout the world." (1970). The Obama administration's inconsistent, weak, talk but no action responses (remember Obama's red line in the sand to Assad?) to recent world events make Nixon's warnings very relevant today.

Also this e-mail thing is, in some ways, even more serious for Hillary. She can't hide behind the "well, it was Obama's show" card on this one. It plays perfectly into the narrative that the Clintons view themselves above the rules that everyone else must play by. You want to know how serious it is? It isn’t just the Right Wing talk radio section of the country talking about this. Mainstream journalists are taking her to task. There was a recent Time Magazine cover story very critical of the Clinton Machine (entitled “The Clinton Way”). Even mainstream media pundits see something seriously wrong with a Secretary of State making herself the sole arbiter of what documents need to be preserved and what documents can be tossed. I mean, this is historical record stuff...and the ultimate Clinton fantasy. She has decided that she alone knows which documents will be part of the record and which documents “are not relevant.” Just “trust her.” My God.

Hillary is very vulnerable. But the Republicans can easily hand it to her. I don't know who's it is to win at this point, but it is everyone’s election to lose.

Shame and Apocalypse

Two interesting Op-Eds at CNN.com. The first one is Jake Tapper discussing how disappointed he was that there was no high level U.S. official at the momentous 1.5 million person march in Paris after the recent terrorist attacks. Tapper says: "I say this as an American - not as a journalist, not as a representative of CNN - but as an American: I was ashamed." I try and try to give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt, but damn they are so stupid sometimes. Talk about opportunity to be seen as a world leader handed to you on a silver platter. Jon Stewart on the Daily Show also went after the administration. Tapper and Stewart aren't exactly right wing talk radio. As Stewart incredulously said when mentioning that Eric Holder was actually in Paris that day for a meeting but couldn't make it to the march..."what the f*ck?!" The White House made some lame excuse that security concerns would detract from the event. Uh-huh. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu doesn't have security concerns? British PM David Cameron? German president Angela Merkel? Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority? The King of Jordan? All were there. Even Russia sent their equivalent of Secretary of State, Foreign Minister Lavrov. Ashamed is right. Obama, Biden, Kerry, Holder...somebody!? Either cowards or political fools or something else. You think John Kerry would be more at risk than the prime minister of Israel? Netanyahu not only boldly marched, but then gave a speech afterward at Paris' largest synagogue. January of 2017 cannot get here soon enough as far as repairing our global leadership goes.

And it is not just the administration. Perhaps the Republican leadership could have shown what they are supposedly made of (not to mention scoring easy points on Obama). Obama may be too cowardly to show (or not care), but maybe our bold congressional leaders could show some cajones. Boehner? McConnell? Nope. How about some presidential hopefuls for 2016? What kind of strong image would that project, Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush marching in Paris with world leaders. I guess it didn't occur to them. How much do they pay their campaign advisors again? The march was on Sunday. Chris Christie, Scott Walker and Paul Ryan couldn't make it to Paris either. No, instead they were at the Cowboys-Packers game. Jesus.

The other article is about just how screwed we are environmentally. Want to be be scared? Read this. I generally lean conservative or libertarian on most things, but the environment has always been an issue where I tend to agree with my liberal friends. I can't think of an issue more important than the survival of the human race. Seriously, read the article. Yes, I am a conservative/libertarian, but I also believe in science. And whatever outlier scientists those on the right can get to dismiss our impending environmental apocalypse, they are far outweighed by the vast majority of scientific consensus. I don't even see why this should be a political or partisan issue at all. I do know that those on the left have squandered their credibility over the decades by being Chicken Little. They have made it easy for some kooks on the Right to prove them wrong on this exact prediction or that specific prediction. But you know, the sky really is falling.

As much as I love post-apocalyptic cinema, I don't want my kids living in a Mad Max world.

Oh, speaking of, have you seen the trailer for the new Mad Max movie coming out this summer? I love this stuff! Can't wait. Here it is, be sure to watch it full screen...

Boos and Applause

Boo...Spineless Sony and the theater chains (and the malls who put the pressure on the theaters) who do not negotiate with terrorists, instead they simply obey the commands of terrorists and pull "The Interview" from release.

Applause...Alamo Drafthouse theater in Dallas, Plaza Atlanta Theater in Atlanta and Capitol Theater in Cleveland. After not being able to screen "The Interview" as planned due to Sony's spineless retreat, those theaters planned to screen "Team America: World Police" instead (recall the comedy from the creators of "South Park" which lampooned Kim Jong Un's father, Kim Jong Il). Alamo Drafthouse had tweeted: "For the record, we were still going to show ["The Interview"]...But now we'll be showing "Team America" in its place...because AMERICA, F YEAH." On top of that, Alamo Drafthouse was going to hold the initial screenings of "Team America" for free.

Boo...Paramount Pictures, who then spinelessly pulled "Team America: World Police" from release, so these theaters could not screen that film either. Tweets Plaza Atlanta theater: "Team America World Police pulled from all theaters as per Paramount Pictures."

So f*** Sony, Paramount, AMC, Carmike Cinema, Cinemark, Cineplex, Regal and Southern Theaters. Why is it that these smaller, independent theater companies have the stones to ignore threats and stand up for free expression, while these bigger companies do not? Drafthouse would be just as open to lawsuit as Regal or Sony if something happened at a theater, yet Drafthouse and other smaller theater companies still have principles. The ironic thing of course, is now everyone wants to see "The Interview." It actually got some pretty horrible reviews. If it had been released like any other film, it would have faded from memory quickly.

As many have already suggested, since Sony has sunk the money into the film anyway and is not going to screen it at theaters, why not release online? Make it free for download. Get some hackers of our own and ping the damn thing back into North Korea. Mitt Romney suggested that Sony release the film for free online, ask for $5 donations, and then donate it all to the ebola fight. There is so much that Sony could have done to turn this around, and yet they won't. As one Senator tweeted, I would rather decide for myself what movies to see, not have North Korea make that decision for me.

Good opinion piece on CNN.com from Jeff Yang, Hollywood's Complete Moral Surrender.

ABOVE: From now on, whenever possible, I will be having my cinema experiences at Alamo Drafthouse. They have locations here in San Antonio, and I know they are in Houston, Austin and Dallas as well. Regardless of this recent incident, they are a great company. Comfortable seating, they also serve dinner and alcohol. In addition to screening bigger films, they also usually have a good slate of indie films.

Reprobate Miscreant

Political Demographics

I have largely avoided politics lately here at GNABB. For years, actually. I follow it closely, of course, and as a teacher of history deal with it, analyze it and break it down daily in my work life with my students. Maybe that’s why I haven’t felt that I needed the further outlet of GNABB to talk politics.

But I read a fantastic editorial today on CNN’s website by LZ Granderson, a frequent contributor to CNN’s Opinion section. Granderson is gay and African-American, so it is not so surprising that his articles generally lean left. Even so, I often find him to be thoughtful and reasonable. In today's piece he talks about the remarkable story of Mia Love, the first ever Republican African-American woman elected to Congress, swept to victory in the Republican electoral tidal wave of last Tuesday. She was elected in Utah, where less than 1% of the population is black.

Granderson says “For if the sexist/racist/anti-immigrant narrative that has long dogged the GOP can, at the very least, be challenged by her presence at a campaign, what will democrats use to fire up low-information liberals? The liberals’ yin to the red’s ‘Obama is the worst president ever’ yang.” He goes on to make an argument that in this last year has become louder and louder from many on the right: “For more than 40 years democratic presidential candidates have enjoyed the support of more than 80% of black voters, and yet the community’s unemployment rate remains twice that of its white counterpart. The wealth gap between whites and blacks has grown…” People on the right who have been pointing this out lately go on to ask, what has this loyalty to the democratic party gotten the black community? Do you like being taken for granted as an automatic vote? Granderson says something that should scare the left quite a bit: “[Rand] Paul has spoken about these concerns with compassion, albeit clumsily at times.”

What Granderson almost gets to but doesn’t quite say, but what Paul, Chris Christie and other leading, thoughtful Republicans have been saying this past year, is that perhaps after 40 years, why not try voting a different way and see whether different policies, a different political philosophy, would make things better for this community and open more opportunities. And if you have noticed, where Republican candidates and strategists had simply written off the black community before as a lost cause for support, that is no longer the case. Especially in some of these governor races, Republican candidates went to the black community and made their pitch, and were received respectfully and listened to. Granderson talks of newly elected Republican governor of Illinois Bruce Rauner, who aggressively went after the black vote, where Rauner pointed out that his democratic opponent takes the black vote for granted. This seemed to resonate a bit within the black community in Chicago.

Granderson notes that soon after Love gave a well received speech at the 2012 Republican Convention, her Wikipedia page was “vandalized,” calling her a “whore,” “sellout” and “house ni****.” Which side has a race problem again?

As Granderson also points out, the tide may be ever so slowly changing. He cheekily notes that “I spoke with membership services and blacks are no longer revoked for voting Republican.” I haven’t seen vitriol that much rivals leftist reactions to certain minorities who choose to go Republican. It is seen as a betrayal. Remember how Condoleeza Rice was treated by liberals? Even Colin Powell years before? The left has more of a problem accepting people as individuals than the right does, as steeped as the left is in identity politics, which thrives on an “us vs. them” mentality. In fact, identity politics cannot exist without drawing those hostile lines, can it? What would people like Al Sharpton do if they couldn’t rush to the next incident that happens to involve protagonists who are of different races and stir up passions? It is an industry. The likes of Sharpton are always desperately searching for the next Ferguson to remain relevant. Again, who really has the race problem here? Think about this: one of the most powerful tools the left has to fire up its base is to keep the racial divide alive. If that divide starts to fade, they have a real problem on their hands.

Demographic trends demand that if the Republican Party is to remain viable, then it must connect better with minority groups. Republican strategists have been saying this for years. Even more important, as far as numbers go, than the black community are Hispanics. I think for the right the message is good, but the messengers and strategies have been terrible. But again, this may be slowly changing. Look at the current national stage. Who are two of the most prominent Hispanics in politics today? Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Both Republicans. The “Hispanic” community is not a monolith, of course. Cuban-Americans, for instance, often vote very differently than Mexican-Americans. But some of the core values within the Hispanic community, I think, line up more with Republican values than Democratic ones. Especially on some of the social issues. Making serious inroads into the Hispanic vote should not be a mission impossible for the Republican Party.

Return to Mia Love, though, and her simple message which must be the message from the right. In that 2012 speech she said “my parents immigrated to the U.S. [from Haiti] with $10 in their pocket…when times got tough, they didn’t look to Washington, they looked within.” Her father worked as a janitor and other jobs to put her through college. Now she is in Congress. This is one of the core messages that the right clings to with almost religious fervor (and to an often admittedly hoaky degree sometimes). But it is real, the American rugged individualism that was born on the American frontier where the ever valuable commodity of land was available to anyone willing to go out there and take and work it. Conservatives, for whatever reason, have held on to that crucial American Individualism much stronger than liberals have. It is one of the primary things that makes this country great and unique, as well as an economic and innovation powerhouse. But simply for sharing this message Mia Love was excoriated as a traitor by many on the left. Or, was it the fact that she dared to deliver this message at the Republican Convention? Who has a race problem again? Which side seems to make assumptions based more on skin color than individual character? Which side takes votes for granted, as a given just based on identity politics? On the other hand, which side will respect you more as an individual? That has got to be the message.

Anyway, for the whole Granderson article, go here.

Should Scotland Vote For Independence?

Should they break up the UK? Bowie says no. Sean Connery says yes. What do you think?

Youth Politics

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25 you have no heart. If you are not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." Attributed to Winston Churchill, but he probably never said it. Sounds good anyway. As a teacher of AP students in U.S. History, I naturally get into politically charged issues all of the time. If you teach history, you've got to get into the muck. One of the things that I do in the first week of class is give them an issues self-diagnostic survey that when scored they can place themselves along the right-left political continuum. I find that even at the end of the year, they still remember the activity and where they ended up.

Throughout the year, they often ask me what I think of various hot button political issues, or even generally where I fall along the spectrum. I pride myself in remaining as neutral as possible, giving fair treatment of all sides of the issues and allowing them to decide for themselves. I tell them I don't really care which side they pick on almost anything, as long as they can back it up with argument. I think I do a good job, because throughout the year they think they have me pegged, and they are all over the map: "you're a Republican," "you're a Democrat," "you're a commie," "you're a fascist." I usually get that last one after giving them a particularly difficult exam.

I do feel like I owe them an honest answer, since they are so open in class about their own beliefs throughout the year. So each year I always make them a deal. On the last day of class, I will answer almost any question they have about my own political ideology, such as it is. (I refuse to answer the abortion or gay marriage question, but I'm pretty open to discussing most anything else). I'm quite touched that that by the end of the year my political beliefs have become a parlor game of sorts for them. Touched because they actually are interested. This year I started the discussion by giving them my voting history in every presidential election since 1992. They can generally figure it out from that.

One of my favorite students is starting a Young Republicans group on campus and he asked me to be the faculty sponsor. I turned him down in order to maintain my veil of neutrality, but I did tell him I could be an unofficial, shadow advisor. I gave him a reading list of Charles Krauthammer, William F. Buckley Jr. (suggesting he make all members sign the Sharon Statement), Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, John Locke, Friedrich Hayek, etc. That should give them a solid foundation.

One of the questions I give them on their final exam is for them to tell me which political party that we studied this year most aligns with their own personal beliefs, and why. As in, they have to recall and explain that political party's ideology accurately in order to get the question completely right. Polling about 130 AP students, here were the results:

Democrat: 42%
Republican: 28%
Libertarian: 2%
Communist: 1%
Socialist: 1%
Green: 1%
Independent: 6%
Undecided: 17%

There were some interesting choices from the past:

Whig: 2%
Democratic-Republican: 1%
Populist: 4%
Nazi: 1%

NOTE: The Nazi student explained that he liked the party, minus Hitler, genocide and the racism. Kind of hard to separate, but he explained that he admired the strong nationalism and top down government control of every aspect of life. I guess more accurately he should have said "fascist," as it could be a less racist version, a la Italian fascism or Spanish fascism.

I know that doesn't add up to exactly 100%, but I rounded the numbers.

If you throw the Libertarians in with the Republicans, you get a surprisingly strong 30% conservative. I find that interesting as it bucks some stereotypes and assumptions, since this is a group of teenagers (generally considered to be heavily liberal) and my students are overwhelmingly minority, mainly Hispanic. Hispanics are also assumed to lean overwhelmingly liberal (unless you are Cuban, but I only had one Cuban student).