Why the Speech didn't matter

Last night we heard the President give his first speech before a joint session of congress. It is an important time for any administration. It helps set the tone for the work they are going to do and it helps to outline the agenda of not only the first hundred days, but the full legislative calendar.

President Trump stayed on script and on message throughout the speech, a notable exception for him. He read from a teleprompter, which he had criticized President Obama for doing religiously, and his critics wondered if he had the discipline to do.

The speech held to many solidly Republican themes and emphasized the campaign promises that we have come to love or loathe. He was graded above average, and below average. He was graded on a curve, he was graded tabula rosa. Everyone is trying to make sense of it, myself included. I took notes, and I have compared them to notes I have taken at similar speeches. I noticed that my engagement level might have been a little lesser than some previous speeches I had watched.

Therein lies the problem. As the masses and the pundits try to make sense of it all there is one thing that is missing. This speech didn't matter.

The President does not communicate this way. The public does not receive information this way. This is not the way this administration operates, its as if we tried to play a CD on a phonograph. There was a time, seriously not that long ago, when the President of the United States needed to stand before congress to outline their agenda. The gravity of having all of the branches of government sitting together in the same room would bring the viewers to not only turn on their TV sets but to give pause. No matter what the ratings for the event were, the people were not engaged the same way.

Had the whole thing been live tweeted by the President's Id while his human shell spoke the party line the world would have been enraptured. Instead, we got the speech he was supposed to give. It may have been a relief, or a victory, or a sign of things to come. But it didn't really matter.

I should be pointing out that this is a degradation of our public discourse. A destructive and corrosive progression that allowed a reality TV star and not a professional trained in the operation of good government win the the presidency. This is an argument that should be made, but is only noted here to demonstrate just how far downstream we are from being able to have that discussion.

The policy agenda is proposed by this White House through the President's twitter, then it is clarified and reiterated through the official channels and surrogates. This is usually when some heat is taken off the original pronouncement. That phase is followed by a period of uncertainty. Do we trust what we know the president's own hand put out to the internet, or do we trust those who might actually need to be putting in the work to draft orders and research the next day's talking points? Its a hard call to make, and ad hoc reasoning is often needed, taking context clues and a winnowing of the possible, to make a definitive call.

After, or more accurately during, that process we view the whole big mess through the lens of each individual's truth teller. Be it MSNBC, or Fox News, or the Times, or infowars, or what have you. We don't just need the raw tweets we need the context. A personal favorite is “The Atlantic”'s Trump tweet tracker. Once we have the context we need the “take.”

The speech didn't matter because it lacks, by definition, the type of “authenticity” that President Trump is known for. He has made it part of his brand. Even if authenticity needs to remain in quotes, it remains a potent brand. It didn't matter because we are unable to use these context creators, ones that check facts or dial up the entertainment value.

Either way this speech could be a turning point for presidential addresses. If years from now the State of the Union is no longer seen as a pivotal piece of the the president's legislative roll out, and sales pitch to the nation, this will be the speech it is traced back to. And in that way it will matter very much.

Stop Being Surprised

                We need to end the sense of shock some people are experiencing as President Trump enacts his agenda. He was clear about his desires to ban Muslims, dispose of trade deals, wield the power of a “strong leader,” and push forward a classic Republican agenda. As the Republican war against the LGBT community has now landed in a directive that the Trans students are not going to be provided with the ability to use the bathroom associated with their gender. We need to remove our sense of shock. The trope of whether we were taking the President seriously or literally should now be answered. Take him both ways. Nothing was campaign puffery. Nothing was just for the rallies. Nothing will be toned down.

                This thought is furthered by the fact that Stephen Bannon has just noted at CPAC that all of Mr. Trump’s whole platform was in the rally speeches. He was not dialing up or dialing back, he has no filter and no desire to acquire one.

                When President Trump says something, we should expect that he will try to do it at some point. Whether he is talking about torturing detainees, or convincing Robert Patinson to get over Kristen Stewart, he says what he means, literally and seriously.

How to "Get Over It"

Note: This piece was written about a week prior to President Donald Trump's inauguration as president. At the time "The Polaris Revolution" was not live yet. While not timely we believe this piece still has value, and is presented now.

                Donald Trump has told us all to get over it. He doesn’t want to answer questions about whether the Russians have hacked the election. He wants to get on with his presidency. He does not want you to dwell on anything that will ruin his already razor thin victory and deeply murky mandate. Instead he wants us all to just get over it. The thing is, we should, we need to.

                The way we “get over it” is we must begin to understand that we are at the opening of a new administration that is bringing to us a world view that is vastly different than that of the typical American. That this world view could threaten our democratic values and getting ourselves stuck on the injustices that have brought us to this moment will only weaken us. This world view, Trump’s world view, is one that must be prepared for so we can catch its abuses.

                To be clear, Donald Trump may not actual realize that he has a coherent “world view,” as best as anyone can tell his twitter account is a stream of consciousness look in to all of his thoughts. Instead we must glean from those tweets, and his actions that surround them, an underlying theory and methodology. To this I attribute a sense that the president-elect believes that the United States of America is a business that he has been appointed CEO of rather than a government that he has been democratically elected to. He believes that the main actors in his world are corporations. Those will be the entities he is most concerned with interacting with. He views states as secondary actors in the realm of international relations. Often times states are even more impediments than actors.

                His clear views on all relations in his life revolve around an “us” versus “them” mentality. One that his supporters will tell you will serve the American people because he will be fighting for “us.” He also sees the world as a world of deals, by his own statements many times; those deals have winners and losers. He wants to always be the winner, and when he hasn’t won by enough he changes the rules. This can work in the “low-context” world of business, but international relations are oftentimes considered a “high-context” type of interaction. This is borrowing terms of art from international relations focusing on the individual interaction versus seeing each interaction as a part of a series which constitutes the entire relationship. Those are low and high, respectively.

                To make sure that we are winners he will destroy any relationship or norm that the US has participated in, no matter its worthy history. He will focus on business and businesses bottom lines. Again his advocates say that this will be a boon for the country, until one realizes that focusing on bottom lines is the leading cause of worker mistreatment. His selection for Secretary of State suggests that the focus will be on business, and making deals that benefit those business interests.

                A major side effect of this world view may be that he will view conflict through the lens of business. Economic activity tends to pick up around the time of war. When a leader decides not to take in to account the significant implications for the real human impact of war, they are much more ready to jump in to conflict. The added benefit to the economic view is that all things destroyed during war must be rebuilt, a principle that will excite the business man, but should give pause to the public servant. We may only have the former, not the latter deciding.

An Unusual Gift to Black History Month

            This week Donald Trump made news for referring to Fredrick Douglass in the present tense. Sean Spicer, the president’s press secretary, made less news by similarly not seeming to know that Douglass had died or even what he was talking about. The Democrat and Chronicle the one remaining newspaper in the city of Rochester, where Douglass published The North Star from 1847-51, went to Mount Hope Cemetery to get a comment.

            Side stepping the laughter and the mockery, President Trump has proven a useful object lesson to the cause of how we teach history when it is not about DWM (Dead White Men). Those that are not taught about Eli Whitney and the cotton Gin, Douglass is the first non DWM that is mentioned in most American History Classes, almost a 100 years after the founding of the republic. If Douglass is not recognized, then students will wait another hundred before they are taught about an individual African-American, Martin Luther King Jr. The first woman is often another newspaper publisher out of Rochester, NY, Susan B. Anthony.

            We don’t give credit to the work that African-Americans did to build this country, we don’t give credit to the work that women did to either. We focus so much attention on white men. Granted we often study those in power, which by rule were those DWM, but we should also study those who wield power, those who can empower all of us. We have benefited in this country and every other from the contributions of people from all walks of life. So while we are all enjoying this gaff, we should be taking a slightly more serious stock that our President is a reflection on our people. He has reflected that we don’t learn enough about all of our citizens, we should find a way to better ourselves from his example.

            So, thank you, Mr. President. I may not get to say that often, so I’ll enjoy it while I can. 

Betsy Devos, and a new perspective on education

                There is a type of staggering long game that is appearing when you view the new Education secretary, Betsy Devos. She has long been a proponent of charter schools. Which on the whole do not measure up to the controlled way public education produces more consistent and legislatively controllable results for the tax payer dollar. Ms. Devos refers to the great notion of choice, but there is a deception in that. There are some things we should have choices about, and some we probably shouldn’t. Deciding whether to rob public schools should not be the choice of parents with children that are able to get selected to go to other schools. It is akin to being on a boat, giving everyone a plugged hole they can decide to pull to let water in. Of course we should complain when one person pulls the plug and then puts their kid in a lifeboat.

                There have been attempts to undermine public education for years. Some have never really liked the concept that the state should regulate what children learn, for religious or political reasons, or often for reasons that lack sense and only visually seem to be about the first two like not understanding evolution. Perhaps because we, the public, tend to want our children taught science, and comprehensive sex education, but I think that doesn’t see the whole picture. Ms. Devos has never attended a public school, neither have any of her children. She wanted them to get the best education available and she made sure to do it outside of a state sponsored educational curriculum. She has advocated for pulling apart that system, and based on her confirmation hearings has taken few strides to understand it.

                What we do know from demographics is that there are a segment of the rich that want to vote republican, and a large swath of the working poor who vote against their interest to do so. If the former wanted to keep the coalition together their best bet is to ensure the latter population grows. Limiting educational opportunities to families already unable to afford private education can go a long way towards achieving that goal.

                The populist movement of Senator Bernie Sanders was obsessed with the hoarding of wealth. We should have been concerned, just as much it would seem, that there is a hoarding of knowledge that could be happening as well. It is one of the methods through which populations are most easily controlled.

                This party has already pushed a post truth world, tried to co-opt the concept of “Fake News” with anything they disagree, and tried to redefine facts so that they would need to meet with the consent of the administration. This is no great leap to believe that they desire a way to protect their children while raising the next generation of slavish voters.

                Or maybe this is some hair-brained conspiracy theory. Time will tell. 

Golden Arches Theory, An Update

                The idea popularized by Thomas Friedman that no two countries that both had a McDonalds would engage in a war. While this theory has been lightly debunked it shed light on how economic ties strengthen diplomacy. The concept of two places realizing they are not so different and don’t belong in conflict because they both love Big Mac’s? It is comforting, particularly to the American pallet.

                There is a dark side to the theory as well. That corporate interests are so strong and have such pull that they will do anything they can to avoid the possible damage to their bottom line that they force otherwise ready nations to avoid war. While that aim is noble, what ignoble aims might they also be capable of?

                The theory needs an update though. The Executive Order from the Trump administration might help light the way. Seven majority Muslim countries are banned for 3 months from immigrating to the US. This may not be war, but an inability to pass between two states is a clear breakdown of diplomatic relations. Could it be that the lack of ties to a Trump Organization property is the new key to international peace?

                In the weeks after his election Mr. Trump showed a very favorable attitude towards Taiwan, and a certain disdain for the One China policy. Could it be because he was a complete neophyte on the international stage? Or was he trying to reward a Taiwan for the positive talks that will likely lead to a new Trump International Hotel?

                Mr. Trump has leveled a great deal of criticism at Europe as well. Typically side stepping the places where he has golf courses or hotels, for example identifying Scotland as a place where the people did the right thing by voting for Brexit(while the referendum passed in the UK, Scotland overwhelmingly voted against).

                So maybe its time to convince countries that don’t want to get bombed by the US, its time to open a Trump property. No word on whether Kim Jong Un is a golfer, but let’s hope for those of us that don’t want to have a nuclear attack he can get in to it.

If America Was Ever Great: A Series, Chapter 2

The 1960’s

                The time when we come of age leaves an important mark on who we become as adults. There is no set calendar age that an individual “comes of age,” but there are general rules. Typically we come of age between puberty, and the selection of our chosen professions. Donald Trump began the 1960’s at the age of 14. The decade covered his high school, his first college, his second college, and wriggling out of the Vietnam War, just prior to the assumption of responsibilities at what would become the Trump Organization.

                The ‘60’s are a much loved period of American history. The economy was good, with the United States a clear leader in post war manufacturing. Americans could leave high school and expect to live a full middle class life while working for one company in a single income household. We were fighting the cold war but had gotten over the worst part of it. You know the part where Joseph McCarthy had people on edge? He passed away in 1957 and the worst part of his scare had subsided three years earlier with his censure. We were freewheeling and free loving nation of producers! The makers were making and there were no takers to do the taking. That’s when we were great!

                The best part was America was in Love with our leaders. Well we seemed to love Kennedy, and LBJ was someone we begrudgingly admit to being a good leader. As a curmudgeon though, Trump likely finds a kindred spirit in the man who succeed JFK.

                There was some racial tension of course. The Civil Rights movement was in full swing, and the KKK had risen to oppose it. South Carolina responded by flying the confederate battle flag in their state capital, a sign that treason looks best if it’s disguised as states’ rights. They are easily explainable as some sort of aberration, a few bad apples, just like we explain them now?

                The best for part for Mike Pence though? No one had heard of Roe v. Wade! That’s right, women were starting to have abortions since they had been outlawed in the previous two centuries and states were starting to let them too. But of course they weren’t being all shove guys face in it talking about their rights. Couples had a right to birth control but not the everyday harlots, they wouldn’t get that until the 70’s.

                We were even stuck in some unwinnable wars, so the landscape looked pretty similar. This could not be when America was Great though. Why? Well first of all the decade was plagued by assassinations. Three major ones in 10 years, far more than any country should have to endure. Not something Mr. Trump would want to return to, nor me for that matter electoral politics is blood sport enough.

                This cannot be when America was great though because we passed the Hart Celler act of 1965 and abolished the quota system for immigration. We were opening our doors to the world and giving them a chance to help make America diverse, inclusive, and thrive. We passed the voting rights act, these days we have a Republican party that is all too happy to try to suppress the votes they think will go against them. We may have had some trouble over the years living up to that goal, but the 60’s were more about giving rights and bringing people to the table than the recent executive action on immigration from Muslim nations.