Tag: Politics

Election Analysis

Shortly after January 6th of 2021, the day that Trump’s followers stormed Congress, I made a bet with my friend, John Grahm, who was worried that Trump would win the 2024 election.  Thinking Trump was quite a long shot to win, I gave him 10 to 1 odds, $100 to $1000, that Trump would not win the election; both of us hoped that I would win the bet.  We agreed that even if Trump did not run as a candidate for president, I would still win the bet.  At the time and even later on in the mid-term elections, in 2022, when all of the candidates that Trump backed lost, I thought for sure that the Republicans would pick another candidate.  So much for predicting the future.

Although there has been a myriad of reasons put forth as to why Trump won the election, I will offer my own take on Trump’s victory.   Many years ago, my father told me that liberals can be extremely intolerable.   Inasmuch as he had been a lifelong Democrat, hearing this from him surprised me.  Moreover, I am proud to say that my father’s clothing business in Elizabeth, New Jersey, prior to the vast civil rights legislation enacted in the ‘60’s, was the first of its kind to hire Blacks as employees.  I found that liberals/progressives, that is those that veer to the left on political issues, often believe that their view is the right one and are unwilling to listen to those that may harbor different opinions. 

The reflexive reaction for many of those on the left is that Harris lost the election because of the inherent racism and sexism of America.  In my opinion, this argument carries little weight when not that long ago our country elected Barack Obama, the first Black president, not only once but twice.  A reminder to all is that America was the first country on record to have a white majority elect a Black as its president.  At the end of the day when the votes were tabulated, Trump’s support by the Black and Hispanic populace surged as he won a greater proportion of their vote than in his earlier elections. Furthermore, Trump received more female voters in this election than in the election he previously lost in 2020.  Attacking the other side with this kind of argument is simply poor sportsmanlike behavior and only will serve in strengthening the Republican hold on the slim majority they had in the present election.  Unlike earlier elections, minority groups showed a disposition toward individual rather than group identity.  It can be no longer taken as a priori that Blacks or other minorities will automatically vote Democratic.  Although these voters chose to vote for Trump, a person whose leadership qualities I seriously question, I believe this trend of no longer voting for one party by people of color is a step in the right direction.

The underlying cause of Harris’ defeat wrapped itself in the left’s denial of anything wrong with the country, excluding Mr. Trump.  This denial became obvious when President Biden faced off with Mr. Trump in the first presidential debate where Biden’s performance was considered by all a disaster.  He eventually ceded his place in the election campaign to his Vice-President, Ms. Harris, who became the Democratic Party’s candidate without having to face the normal rivalry necessary in winning the nomination through the primary process.  To her credit, she was able to amass a great amount of money, over 2 billion dollars, toward her campaign, quite a bit more than Trump spent.  So, in this case, the old saw money can buy anything, including political power, did not hold.  Furthermore, she had the support of a number of stars, such as Taylor Swift, Mark Cuban, and Oprah Winfrey who assisted her run for the presidency.  In addition, she had the press and the news stations on television, with the exception of Fox, on her side.  All this but to no avail.

Her message of joy to the voters was quite a few chords off.  The inflation that liberals appeared to forgo in their message to the American public was not addressed.  This may have been due to the fact that the Democratic Party had become more interested in the identity politics of special interest groups such as L.G.B.T.Q., gender transitions and the spread of DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) in the workplace and on college campuses.  Rather than focusing on the issues   deemed foremost to many voters such as illegal immigration and inflation, the Democrats exerted their energy on a legal battle against Trump.  In a recent Op-Ed article appearing in the New York Times, Samuel Moyn, a professor of law and history at Yale, points out that “for decades, liberals have made the mistake of prioritizing legal victories over popular ones.”  He goes on to say that liberals (apparently, of which he is one) in their self-righteous attitude, failed to realize that this legalistic strategy may be seen by many others as a political weapon with the intent of doing Trump in.  Suddenly, Trump had become a symbolic David fighting the evils of the Goliath, on the side of Harris, represented by the massive government bureaucracy.

Frank Bruni, a contributing Opinion writer to the New York Times, recently stated that after 2004, over 50% of Americans were not satisfied with the government.  Since that time, this lack of confidence in the institutions that form our government has clearly not improved and has been evident for some time.  As it turns out, the Democratic focus on trying to eliminate Trump through the legal system, missed the pulse of a large segment of the American populace that Bruni mentioned. 

The hope is that the Democrats will reorient themselves to the reality of where their fellow Americans are at, change tactics, with the effort of regaining the support of lower income workers that have gone over to Mr. Trump and the Republican party.  I am quite sure that identity politics will not accomplish this goal.  A better way would be to look at social class as the determining factor of their political agenda with the goal to perform better in the midterm elections in two years. 

One of the reasons I had hoped that Trump would lose the election was because he would no longer be the butt of late-night comedy featuring Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel and Steve Colbert.  Unfortunately, this did not happen, and so we will be awarded for the next four years with their ad nauseum denigrating comments about soon to be President Trump.  They say the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  The inimitable Johnny Carson, in my opinion, exceeded the comedic talent of the above three by far.  Of course, the counterpart of these jokes will be the monotonous cheers for Trump that, I’m sure, Fox News will air.

A Breath of Fresh Air

Since I wrote my last blog on the possible reasons why President Biden appeared to resist his own party’s desire for him to not represent the Democratic party in the upcoming presidential election, he has withdrawn from the race.  Biden fought the idea that he was not capable of governing the country another year, but finally gave in to political pressure, a decision most commentators believe was a wise one.  Given his strong desire to stay in the game, and serve the country another four years, I am quite sure President Biden agonized over his decision to abandon his candidacy.  But to his credit he withdrew and, his departure from the presidential race provided many of us, especially those that are Democrats, with a breath of fresh air.

The bravery displayed by Cory Comperature, when he shielded both his wife and daughter from the gunshots fired at a Trump rally, deserves an even greater breath of fresh air.  Sadly, this courageous act by Mr. Comperature resulted in his death.   Comperature had been a former fire chief and was described by those who knew him as a local leader and a veteran.  Cory’s wife told Pennsylvania’s governor, Josh Shapiro, to publicly share that her husband “died a hero” in protecting her and his daughter from very possibly being the victims of shots that were fired at Trump.

Mr. Comperature’s death need remind us that there is no place for hatred that leads to causeless deaths of good people.  Let both the Democratic and Republican parties sheathe their hate and, at least, accept those of us who are not in agreement about which presidential candidate they support.  In contrast, in the past Mr. Trump has acted as a catalyst in supporting what became an uprising on January 6th, 2024.   Trump’s reaction to Biden stepping down from his presidential bid did not serve him nor the American people well when he said: “Crooked Joe Biden was not fit to run for President and is certainly not fit to serve—and never was.”  Trump continued by going on a typical rant by declaring that Biden had only attained the position of President by lies and Fake News.

Those who knew Cory Comperature described him as a caring man who very much loved his family.  Let us keep that in mind with people we either know or don’t know that think differently than we do.  We need not condemn them for their political positions but, at least, listen to what they have to offer.  This kind of temperament would allow for opinions opposite of ours and reduce the likelihood of extremism fostered by hate, the real weapon that murdered Cory Comperature.

The First Presidential Debate of 2024

A while back I wrote a blog titled:  The Muhammad Ali Syndrome.  In that essay, I pointed out that Muhammad Ali made the mistake, like many athletes and other professionals, of not knowing when was the best time for him to exit his boxing career.  Many commentators thought it was best for him to quit boxing after his upset win in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) over George Foreman in the 8th round.  But he persisted to fight way beyond what his body could endure resulting in permanent debilitating brain damage.

Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, recently wrote an article in the New York Times called:  The Reason It’s So Hard for Powerful People to Walk Away.  Grant maintains that rather than walk away from a losing proposition people often double down on their decisions because it feels better to be a fighter than a quitter.  He has labeled this phenomenon “escalation of commitment to a losing course of action.”  Subsequent to President Biden’s poor performance in his debate with Donald Trump last week, Biden has appeared to fall into this very same trap insofar as he has refused to throw in the towel by terminating his presidential campaign for the Democratic party.  His perseverance has held steady despite several of his past supporters stating that they would like him to withdraw his candidacy from the coming election in November.

Currently, no one knows exactly what President Biden will decide to do in the future.  But as Adam Grant mentioned, if Biden listens to the people closest to him such as family and top aides, he is receiving advice that is hardly objective but rather tinted with those susceptible to confirmation bias.  Regardless, I would recommend that whoever debates Mr. Trump in the future, be it Mr. Biden or another candidate, that that person focuses on Trump’s pattern of lying.  In the debate for presidency between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter on October 28th, 1980, in responding to Carter’s attack on Reagan vis-à-vis his position on Medicare, the latter said: There you go again.”  That comment received much laughter from the audience then allowing Reagan to explain where Carter was misconstruing what, in fact, he really believed about Medicare.  So then, why not have whoever does debate Trump, assuming there will be a debate, focus on Trump’s lies by mentioning something like the following: “Mr. Trump every time you make a false statement, I’m going to respond to it by using that famous line of the great communicator, Ronald Reagan, and say:  There you go again.”  This may appeal to the Americans who remember and loved Reagan, many of whom, of course were Republicans.  The motive here for Biden, of course, would be for him to expand his base with the potential pool of voters that are undecided as to how they will vote.

The format of the first debate was such that the commentators that presented each candidate with the questions were not going to fact check each of their statements.  That chore was to be left to the two participants in the debate.  Unfortunately, President Biden failed to call Mr. Trump on many of the falsehoods he made during the debate.  One very blatant lie Trump made was when he asserted that some Democratic states are allowing abortions after the 8th month of a woman’s pregnancy right up to the birth of the child.  When I heard this, I was surprised that Biden did not react to this obvious “Trumped” up statement.  Ironically, one of the few comments Trump made that had a ring of truth to it was when Biden was having difficulty expressing himself, Trump said: “I really don’t know what he said at the end of his sentence and, I don’t think he did either.”  I’m quite sure Trump’s followers appreciated that rejoinder.

In a Wall Street Journal article, Peggy Noonan declared Trump’s behavior as characterological whereas she believed Biden’s evident lack of coherence was neurological.  What a shame that our country is being represented by two leaders, one an individual with sociopathic tendencies, and the other one showing clear signs of aging.  These two are being backed by their parties with the belief that they are the best of all candidates to defeat their rival from the other party.  I hope this political game does not result in deleterious consequences to us, the citizens of America.

Trump Craze

It is hard to understand how a good percentage of Americans continue to retain their belief in Trump as the best candidate for president.  This, despite the fact that he recently was convicted on 34 felony counts in a New York City court of law.  It may be argued that he was convicted in a city that is dominantly democratic but in accordance with the law, the jury is to be selected in the location of the crime, which indeed was in New York.  Furthermore, he was neither convicted by President Biden nor the sitting judge on his case, but rather by twelve independently selected jurors.

I had thought that January 6th, 2017 was Trump’s final call.  With an effort to overthrow constitutional law and to reject the election results determining Biden’s victory, chaos ensued.  Trump may not have told his followers to become violent but his words acted as a catalyst for the uprising on Capitol Hill that day.  Many of his firmest supporters, such as Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell, were taken aback and quite astonished at his actions.  Subsequently, the candidates he backed for congress in the 2022 all lost.   I was saddened by the fact that Nikki Haley, Trump’s recent opponent in the primaries, now is promoting him.   Why would Republicans support a man whose choices had produced nothing but losers?  I for one thought the Republicans would come to their senses and abandon a candidate whose morals were at best questionable, but at worst toxic and dangerous.  How little I knew, along with so many others, that Trump over the course of the next few years would see his candidacy as a contender for the American presidency become resurrected.

Cognitive dissonance is a theory first put forth by Leon Festinger stating that people whose attitudes and beliefs are not congruent with their behavior will feel discomfort.  This discomfort will move these people to realign their behavior with their underlying beliefs. A corollary to dissonance theory is that the greater one’s investment in a company or project the more committed that person will be to the project.  This makes it much harder to give up even if, subsequently, that same project becomes less lucrative over time.  The strong commitment to their political future may make it harder for many Republicans to stand up for their true underlying beliefs.  This commitment may bridge the gap between their beliefs and their behavior in which they voice their support for Mr. Trump.

Furthermore, cognitive dissonance may help to explain why so many people of high moral standards, such as devout Christians, remain tied to Trump.  One would think that their belief systems would contradict their behavior in supporting a man who cheated on his current wife a number of times along with slandering so many of those that get on his wrong side.  But the longer they stick with Mr. Trump their investment in him strengthens making it that much more difficult to change their behavior.  To reduce their underlying dissonance, they may experience about Trump, their belief system shifts toward their behavior allowing them to ignore any of his faults.

Amazingly, after being impeached on two occasions, being convicted on 34 felony counts, and having to face the likelihood of three other prosecutions in the future, Trump’s base remains steadfast.  Furthermore, twenty-four hours after his recent conviction in New York, his supporters raised 53 million dollars for is campaign.  The outcome of this behavior is to increase the commitment of those individuals, whose value system may be in opposition to what Trump personifies.  It is hard for me to surmise what despicable act Trump might perform in the future that would lead to the erosion of his base.  Trump understood this and was prescient in 2016, during his campaign to be reelected, when he said: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”

Karl Rove, a staunch Republican, wrote a column, months ago, in the Wall Street Journal where he believed if Trump were convicted of any of the charges filed against him, it would not help his chances to win the presidency.  Rove maintained he would retain his base of supporters, but may in fact lose some voters, who are on the fence vis-à-vis the coming election.  A recent poll conducted by the New York Times did indicate that Trump’s criminal convictions may affect a sliver of voters who are not as invested in him than is his base.  These voters could represent the difference in a tight race possibly providing Biden with an election win.  However, it is far too soon to predict in which direction these voters will go. 

The hope for Democrats is that Biden’s gaffes will not equal those of Trump and, that the latter will hoist himself by his own petard.  This, however, remains unpredictable, a fact that will make this election year one of the most interesting and perhaps most scary we will have experienced in the history of this great country.  Election results determine a definite winner.  More than ever, in part due to the ramification of social media and its algorithms fostering hate, there is a vehement loathing that each party holds toward the other.  Let us hope and pray that that emotion does not get in the way when one party is declared the winner over the other.   

 The Bet

My friend of 40 years, John Grahm, a man of the left, told me how upsetting it was that the Democrats lost the election for governor of Virginia, and, in general, did not do well at the polls this past November.  And then he uttered that unspeakable thought: “What if Trump runs and wins the election and once more becomes president in 2024.  “Aren’t you scared that this might happen,” he asked in a nervous tone.  With an air of confidence, I replied I had little concern inasmuch as a Trump Presidency is not a high likelihood.  I backed up this statement by posing a bet giving John 10 to 1 odds that Trump would not be our president in 2024:  I would pay John $1000 if Trump becomes president in 2024, but if he is not, John would have to pay me $100.  Surprised at my offer, he thought for a few moments and replied that he liked my proposition because he could hedge his bet.  That is, because he really did not want to win the bet, losing a $100 wouldn’t hurt that much. 

Before we made the bet, I wanted to make sure he understood its terms.  I made it clear that it didn’t matter whether Trump runs or not for president in 2024.  The bet simply is whether or not he will be the next president.  If he is not around to run in 2024, I automatically win the bet.  He agreed to these conditions, and we both stated our hope that he would lose the bet.

Unfortunately, for many of those that want to see Mr. Trump as a mere vestige of the past, Mr. Biden does not appear to get the message.  He is acting as if he won the election in a landslide and is attempting to follow in the footsteps of LBJ rather than the more modest and compromising Bill Clinton.  Mr. Biden apparently has forgotten that he was elected to unify the country with the hope that he could bring both Republicans and Democrats to the negotiating table.  To date, he has chosen to side with the more progressive element of his party that has been pleading to pass a huge fiscal stimulus package at a time when the country is already experiencing the highest rate of inflation (6.2 %) in the past 30 years.  Larry Summers, a registered Democrat, who was the Secretary of Treasury under President Clinton, has pointed out that too much governmental stimulus would inevitably produce further inflation.  He recently told Judy Woodruff on the PBS NewsHour he thought the infrastructure stimulus that Biden finally got through both the Senate and the House, as a signature win for his Presidency, would not cause inflation because it would be paid for over 10 years. Moreover, most people like myself, believe this particular act is extremely important inasmuch as much of the country’s thoroughfares are in need of mending.

But the buck does not stop there.  And this is where Mr. Biden might be overstepping his promises insofar as he appears to be appeasing the extreme left that attracts much media attention but not so much the vote of the populace nor that of the Congress.  The money that Mr. Biden is seeking under the rubric of the American Rescue Plan will come on the heels of the 1.9 trillion for Covid-19 economic relief and the 1 trillion Infrastructure Bill.  This money follows all the money the Trump administration injected into the economy to alleviate the consequences of the pandemic.  What might appear a gift to those named in the American Rescue Plan may turn out to have a boomerang effect, if it further worsens the inflation we already are facing.  Inflation eats away at one’s earning power in a like manner as taxes.  And as in most negative consequences vis-à-vis financial impact, the lower classes suffer the most from it.  What the government giveth, the economy may taketh away.

But it is not inflation alone that is Biden and the Democrat’s bugaboo.  Glenn Youngkin won the gubernatorial election in Virginia a few weeks ago becoming the first Republican to win a statewide election in the state since 2009.  Biden won both the electoral and popular vote in Virginia against Trump in the Presidential election by a substantial margin of more than 10%.  Contrary to his Democratic opponent McAuliffe, Youngkin argued that parents had a right to participate and inquire about what their children learned in school.  The fear of Critical Race Theory (CRT) taking over the educational system has become a source of bitter contention.

I am personally not opposed to allowing some of the ideas CRT espouses to be brought into the educational process.  But it should be seen as only one way of looking at and approaching history without eliminating other more traditional ways of viewing history.  Moreover, what CRT exactly means and how it will be taught require thorough analysis and comprehension.  The rapidity of change can create much turmoil and dissent in any society.  Both parties need to look at this process.  Unfortunately, most important matters, such as how America came to be, are hardly being discussed in any rational and balanced manner.

The issue of public safety is also another factor weighing on the American mind.  The rate of homicides has increased in almost all of American cities.  The response by progressives to defund police completely contradicts the statistics of the rising crime rate.  Trump, of course, represented himself as being tough on crime.  Although most Democrats by now have abandoned the idea of defunding police, the Biden administration has yet to adopt a plan for how to combat crime.  Areas where poorer people reside are often the hot spots of much lawlessness with many deaths by violence having occurred in these communities.

Given the above, President Biden’s approval rating has tumbled downward to a current low of 42%.  This, of course, is not a good omen for the Democrats.  Then there is the other factor that makes my bet against John even more undecided:  Republican continued support of Mr. Trump. Because of this support, the Republican party has sunk to its lower depths in many years.  The treatment that Liz Cheney received from her Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives regarding her desire to further investigate the attack on the Capitol–January 6th by Trump’s followers—was nothing less than deplorable (excuse the use of the word, but in this context, I believe it to be appropriate).

It is not a coincidence that many brilliant political analysts that were former Republicans, such as George Will, Max Boot and Bret Stephens, have left the Republican party.  Furthermore, many prominent Republicans put together a political action committee (PAC) in 2019 with the aim of preventing the re-election of Donald Trump.  During his presidency, Mr. Trump’s shambolic gestures made in trashing the unwritten rules of American society has had a deleterious effect in and outside of the United States.  If the Republicans that represent us in Congress continue to pander to their past president, we may be ultimately finding ourselves either stuck with one party or two parties, one of which, the Republicans, is out of control.  Let us hope that neither of these very bad choices become realities in American politics.

In conclusion, a lot can happen before the next presidential election in November of 2024.  John and I disagree on a lot of issues.  But we both agree that Trump in the White House in 2024 would not augur well for our country.  Although Biden has made his share of mistakes as president, the jury is still out.  One positive sign is that our President has begun to look more closely at the bottleneck in supplies causing current demand to go unmet, a factor driving prices higher resulting in inflation.  

I can only hope that President Biden makes a greater effort in representing, not the loudest members of his party, but rather the majority of his party, and, I maintain, the majority of the country. That stance, if endorsed by Biden, in conjunction with the Republican sentiment of pulling away from Trump, will secure my bet.  Hopefully, it will go in the direction of a changing Republican party and a consolidated Democratic party.  If nothing else, the next two years indeed will be interesting.

Categories
Supreme Court

Let Women Decide What to Do with Their Bodies

Back in 1963, when I was in my first year at the University of Pennsylvania, a fellow freshman who lived in my suite in the dorms, ran into a problem that he was having difficulty resolving.  A girl he had dated, but that he had no intention of marrying, had become pregnant.  He had enough integrity not to desert her, that would have resulted in her having to deal with an out of wedlock child or an abortion on her own, that at that time, was illegal in the United States.  After much investigation, he found a place in Puerto Rico, where abortions were allowed, that he had been told was reputable.  He bought two round trip tickets to Puerto Rico, paid an exorbitant amount of money to have the abortion carried out, and returned the next day.

Before 1973, when Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion in the United States. what my friend did was probably more common than one would expect with accidental pregnancies.  My friend had the good fortune to come from a family that could afford the cost of the trip to Puerto Rico.  I recently read that 60% of people who seek abortions fall into an income level that defines them as poor.  Given these statistics, it is reasonable to believe that most people in need of abortions before 1973, probably could not afford to have them.

The Republican argument against abortion is that we are giving sanction to ending human life, and that this act is contrary to the Divine Will of God.  They believe that preserving human life, after conception, takes precedence over a woman’s right to choose whether she wishes to have the child or terminate the pregnancy.  With the good Lord on their side, these folks are blinded by their philosophic inconsistencies in which such a view lead.  For example, an underlying theme of conservative politics is to reduce the dependency that poor people have on welfare after having children they can ill afford.  But are we not creating more potential candidates for such services if we prohibit abortions?

As a clinical psychologist, I have counseled many married couples who have told me that such and such child was unplanned, but nevertheless, both inevitably agree not to terminate the pregnancy.  I have found it to be extremely rare when a married couple suddenly discover an unplanned pregnancy and decide not to have the baby.  On the other hand, many of those that choose to have an abortion are generally not married, and, more than likely, do not have the will and resources to bring a newborn into the world.

The other classic conservative position is to keep a tight rein on government spending toward social programs that are geared toward helping the poor.  Trump aside, conservatives have traditionally taken a laissez faire attitude toward the government with their motto being the best government is less government.  This gives rise to the individual spirit that is so much reflected in small businesses and entrepreneurs, in general.  But these same people, who believe in fewer governmental interventions, now back these same powers to be with the authority to tell women what is best for them and society.

There are many factors as to why the crime rate has decreased since Roe vs. Wade became law.  Some commentators have suggested that legalizing abortion, thereby reducing the birth of unwanted children, may have influenced the reduction of criminal behavior.  One way or another, we can safely say the crime rate has not likely worsened due to the termination of children that otherwise may have been born out of wedlock.

Fortunately, recently John Roberts, the current chief justice of the Supreme Court, cast a tie breaking vote in favor of retaining a woman’s right to abortion without any obstacles attached to that right.  Inasmuch as Roberts is considered a conservative regarding constitutional law, his vote, in not limiting the scope of Roe vs. Wade, came as somewhat of a surprise.  And that, I would maintain is the beauty of an independent branch of  government:  The Supreme Court, in not being beholden to any one party, has the duty of focusing on the principles outlined in each case it reviews in an unbiased manner.

Thank God for Justice Roberts!  He has reinforced a decision that can continue to help the next generation of women have access to abortion services without any unnecessary restrictions.  As I pointed out in the beginning of this essay, in the past such procedures, considered safe, only could be afforded by the wealthy.