Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1. Most entries are formatted as conversations. Characters appear in a number of entries, with many entries building on previous conversations.
Occasionally I break from the normal formatting and do a “sense check.” Auditing one’s own work is problematic but I try to be objective. Your thoughts are welcomed and appreciated. Thanks for your time and interest…and comments, please.
During the Independence Day weekend, I tried to assess in Entry #300 whether a 5th US revolution was likely sometime in the next few years. While one should always be careful about claiming objective analysis of one’s own writing, I concluded “Yes, a revolution is likely.”
Well, this past two weeks seemed to add an exclamation point or two to that conclusion. Over the years in this blog I’ve tried to avoid commenting on daily or weekly events. Many such events are merely “noise” over the long-term…and there are many talking heads in the various media offering their analysis.
However, Trump’s behavior recently has been jaw-droppingly bizarre, even by Trump standards. Consider his behavior at the NATO meeting when he trashed the US’ most loyal allies. The apparent effort to dismantle NATO was a pure gift to Putin. The NATO alliance was established by the US post WWII as a counter to the Soviet Union’s efforts to invade other European countries. The history of and reason for NATO seem to be unknown to Trump.
One can argue what percent of GDP NATO countries should spend on defense. The target for countries is 2.0% of GDP and participating countries have been moving toward the 2.0% target. Rather than complimenting these efforts and then taking credit for their increased spending, Trump berated them by offhandedly claiming the countries should increase spending to be more in line with the US, or 4.0% of GDP.
Legitimate arguments have two sides. The other side of demanding more spending on defense is the reminder than the US and western European allies fought a very heavily armed Germany in WWI and WWII. Be careful about encouraging countries to build a very strong defense system when one or more could become your adversary. Remember, it’s better to have a potential adversary inside the tent pissing out than outside ppissing in.
Following the NATO meeting Trump visited England and managed to humiliate publicly Prime Minister May. And for what gain? The US has no skin in the Brexit game. Regardless of the deal Britain negotiates with the European Union, the US can continue to trade with both. So why trash the Prime Minister? Why be rude to THE most reliable European ally? What was there to gain?
The only rationale seems to be Trump wanted to gain approval from Putin. But why court Putin? Putin doesn’t play golf, at least as far as we know. Putin doesn’t appear to be a particularly affable guy. I mean would you really want to sit down and have a beer and cigar with the guy? So why try to gain his approval? Why would you want to be Putin’s puppet?
Let’s start by following the money. Based on what I know about his finances, Trump seems to be in considerable debt to Putin’s cronies (and maybe Putin) — probably hundreds of millions of dollars. With all that debt Trump seems more worried about protecting his own skin that protecting the welfare of the United States. Think about taking a loan from the Russians as taking a loan from the 
mafia. The Russians, like the mafia, play serious hardball when it comes to collecting debts. Trump and Manafort seem to be aware of the dirt bath they might get if they don’t cooperate with the Russians.
If it’s not the money, then Trump must be so mentally unhinged that he belongs on the funny farm. Likely the cause is both the money and unstable mentally but let’s stick with the money.
Which brings the discussion back to a like 5th US revolution – the Revenge Revolution. While as of this writing Trump’s approval ratings among Republicans remains remarkably high, the very high ratings might be best viewed like a bubble in the stock market or housing market. The bubbles seem to last well beyond what is logical, then suddenly burst and all the air gets sucked out.
What might precipitate the Trump support-bubble bursting? When the scope of the corruption begins to touch those closest to Trump – immediate family. What happens to support when Robert Muller goes before the grand jury and gets indictments for Junior, Ivanka and Jared Kushner? Will Republicans begin to wake up to the extent of the corruption?
What about the public testimony from the US translator during discussions with Putin in Helsinki. What about the transcript the Russians release of the meeting? Republicans, surely you’re not so naïve to believe the Russians didn’t record the meeting.
Will Republicans begin to realize Trump’s relationship with Putin could qualify as treason? Yes, despite the White House flip-flops and wildly funny explanations, the Russians are continuing to try influencing elections in the US. Such efforts could rightfully be considered an attack on the US and therefore any effort to aid and abet the enemy (Russia) would be considered treasonous.
Republicans go look in the mirror and ask yourself, “Why would I support a president whose behavior is not in the best interests of the United States?” “Why would I support a president who shows more support for Russia than our closest allies?”
OK, so you don’t like the French…or even the Germans. And yes, English food is a bit bland. But why should…and no it wasn’t shouldn’t…you support a president who states publicly his distrust for the US intelligence agencies?
Why support a president who refused to allow anyone to sit in on the meeting with Putin in Helsinki? Why support a president who refuses to have someone transcribe dialogue at the meeting? Who refuses (as of this date) to share any information from the meeting with the head of the intelligence agencies or the military? Republicans – doesn’t this behavior give you reason to pause and ask “What is going on here?”
Why would a president want to keep secret dialogue with an arch enemy? Would you still be as supportive if such behavior had been exhibited by president Obama or if Hillary Clinton were president? I’ll just bet you might not be as silent and sanguine.
If you’re a Republican, how can you justify and support Trump’s behavior as president? Your rationale is not only flimsy, but filled with holes. Have you no shame?
While you might ignore all the shenanigans and secrecy with the Russians, claiming the “Trump haters” just don’t understand and are overreacting as usual, I’ll bet you begin to pause when Trump’s so-called “economic policies” hit your pocketbook hard. Without getting into a wonkish discussion about economics, several of Trump’s so-called economic policies – tariffs, even on countries even where we have a trade surplus, massive tax cuts for business and the wealthy, promoting a weak dollar, promoting low interest rates and a couple of others – are at cross purposes. First and maybe most important is the tariffs will raise prices and reduce employment – and your pocketbook will be affected.
If Trump wants to make the US more competitive in specific industries, which everyone supports, then two critical items are necessary – increased investment in those industries and a better education for more people. Trump’s economic polices do neither.
There’s more to discuss but enough for now. The final thought of this “sense check” entry. When all the lower-income Trump supporters finally realize they’ve been had, we will see the tipping point for the revolution. Remember, hell hath no fury like a (former Trump supporter) scorned. So Republicans, be prepared and make sure to enjoy the ride to the Revenge Revolution.
Since today is part of a long weekend celebrating July 4 and the nation’s declaration of independence, what better time to step back and assess the premise of this blog. I’ve been writing the blog for about five (5) years with a few months between starting writing and publishing the initial entry. What has surprised me the most the past five years is not that a revolution seems likely…but the path to the 5th revolution.
Five years ago (2013), Barack Obama was in the second term of this presidency. Some key points of that time: (i) the economy was slowly but steadily recovering from the Great Recession of 2008; (ii) even with the economic recovery median household income was flat (not unexpected given the depth of the recession); (iii) the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, was just beginning to be fully implemented; (iv) Republicans were making every effort to thwart legislation of nearly any action proposed by president Obama. Recall Mitch McConnell declared about two years into Obama’s term that his job and the job of Republicans in Congress 
was to make Obama a one-term president. In addition to attempting to thwart any legislative action, Republicans were holding what became endless hearings on Benghazi. The pattern of these type hearings continued throughout Obama’s presidency. None of the hearings produced any substantive evidence of intentional wrongdoing.
As noted in 
The unexpected catalyst for the 5th revolution, at least what seems to be so far, was the unexpected and unlikely 2016 Republican presidential nominee – Donald Trump. Trump ran a very unconventional campaign, capitalizing on what seems to be his major strength – being a highly effective bully. But a bully not in the tradition of the presidency, which is often referred to as having a “bully pulpit,” but a bully that one might have experienced in say grammar school or middle school.
During the campaign for the Republican nomination Trump was relentless in taunting fellow Republican candidates. After earning the nomination, he was relentless in taunting the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. While in “normal times” one would expect such school-yard tactics to result in a resounding defeat,” Trump won the Electoral College vote even though losing the popular vote by more than three (3) million votes.
Why expect the hard-core right to revolt? Aren’t they Trump’s biggest supporters? Yes, but the hard right will be the most negatively affected by Trump’s policies. Believe what you will but the coal industry is never coming back. Use of other fossil fuels is going to drop sharply. Two of Trump’s favorite industries – steel and aluminum – are highly automated and don’t need many more workers to increase output.
The other group likely to revolt is farmers, who also were big Trump supporters. Exports have become a huge money-maker for family and corporate farms. Retaliatory tariffs on farm products by China and other nations will decrease demand for soybeans, corn and wheat. The US produces far more foodstuff than it can possibly consume. A decrease in farm production translates into a decrease in farm income.
One day in the next five years or so, the hard-core Trumpsters will wake up and realize not only are the promised jobs not coming back but Trump and Congressional Republicans are on a determined path to cut Social Security and Medicare. Why? Because the Federal deficit is too high. Why is the deficit too high? Because the Trump tax cuts benefitted the rich and the promised “trickle-down” effect never occurred. Raising taxes on the rich is out of the question, of course, so these “entitlement” programs must be cut.
theory “voodoo economics.” Trump’s tax cuts were pure voodoo economics.
As noted in the early entries to this blog, the scorned (hard right Trumpsters) begin to exact revenge on the more affluent. How widespread is such an armed revolt? Hard to predict. But what I do know is there are not enough police and not enough military personnel to stop geographically dispersed guerilla raids on single homes and/or neighborhoods, especially if invaders are armed with AR15’s and the like.
JC: “Look, I like the idea of ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself’ as the standard for behavior. But let’s not be naïve. What do we do about those people who don’t follow the rules?”
Greenie: “Until Trump. Then he and his gang basically gave the finger to everyone. He even trashed people in his cabinet who supported him from the get go. Some display of appreciation and loyalty, huh?”
Greenie: “A start would be to reinstate the 60-vote rule in the Senate for approving appointments, whether for the agencies or the courts. A 60-vote rule would force the White House to offer nominees toward the middle politically…not the extremes.”
Jordan: “On the Judicial side, even with the 60-vote rule, what about limiting tenure of Senate-approved judges? Right now these judges have lifetime appointments.”
Jordan: “Re-upping.”
Greenie: “I don’t know if the limit should be at the court level or in total. For now, let’s assume the limit applies to a specific level. Otherwise someone might get to SCOTUS with only 6-7 years left out of the 30-year limit. That doesn’t seem fair.”
Greenie: “OK, Jordan, any ideas how to stop such behavior? And what about all the obvious ethics violations by Trump, the Trump family and some cabinet officials? How do we stop that going forward?”
JC: “More teeth and more transparency. I realize there’s some information cannot be disclosed. But, and this should be a big but…no comments, please about personal appearance…the baseline should be to make the public as aware as possible of the shenanigans and unethical behavior by people inside the government, especially members of Congress and high-ranking agency personnel. The disclosures might force some people to stop.”
Greenie: “Make it in addition to impeachment. Some of the behavior will be illegal. Why shouldn’t that behavior get punished like the rest of us are subject to?”
Greenie: “I agree the president and cabinet need to pass the same end-of-year test given to 8th graders. Let me add another, ‘Duh, are you serious?’ idea.”
JC: “You mean the idea of treating your neighbor the same way you want to be treated?”
Greenie: “I don’t know if Sessions had kids or grandkids but do you think he’d want his kids or grandkids separated from their parents?”
JC: “Maybe there would a cabinet officer or some high-ranking staffer whose job it is to go around and ask ‘Would you want this whatever-idea-is-being-discussed to happen to your family?’ The person could be titled the ‘sanity-check maven.’”
JC: “Let’s hope going brain-dead is past tense. We have a new opportunity to begin rebuilding American values post Revenge Revolution. Even if it is kindergarten like, using ‘treat thy neighbor’ as a check mark for policies and legislation seems like a good way to keep things from getting too out of control again.”
Greenie: “You mean like when public pressure force king Trump to stop separating children from families at the border?”
JC: “Don’t make me laugh? Not know what an 8th grader know? Still not sure what you’re talking about.”
JC: “Now I think I see where you’re headed. What about Trump implying…or at least asking…if Canada burned down the White House in 1812? No that was the British. Gee, Donald, in case you didn’t know Canada has been a long-time friendly neighbor. Canada is north of the continental US, except for one area near Detroit, and a major trading partner until you tried to ruin the relationship.”
Jordan: “So, Greenie, exactly what are you proposing?”
Greenie: “I don’t know how we’d test for some things but by forcing candidates for Federal office and Cabinet nominees to take 8th-grade end-of-year exams, you can assume that those who pass at least paid some attention to teachers along the way. And anyone who failed…”
Greenie: “Why not be straightforward? No reason to sugarcoat. I think we give some examples of basic information that Trump and the Cabinet members did not know. There are lots of examples where it looked as if they hadn’t graduated from 8th grade and/or should have been wearing dunce caps. It was embarrassing for the country.”
Greenie: “Since neither JC nor I play golf, we have no idea what you’re talking about.”
Greenie: “Are you serious? The individual golfer is supposed to penalize herself or himself for some rules infraction? I agree, that does seem weird.”
JC: “I guess I never appreciated all the hullabaloo about Trump, when he was president, driving his cart on the putting green at Mar-a-Lago and that place in New Jersey he used to play.”
Jordan: “As far as hurting or killing the grass on the green, you’re right. Driving on the green one time is no big deal. But, in terms of golf etiquette, I can’t think of anything more egregious. In the rules of golf etiquette, you’re not supposed to walk on the green in an area where someone else is going to putt…aka, the putting line.”
Jordan: “I’ve tested this theory over many rounds. If you are playing golf with someone you don’t know, by the 4th hole you will have a very good idea of their personality and their ethics.”
Greenie: “Your theory is, if the person readily admits a mistake, or takes the penalty or apologies for breaking some etiquette rule, then that’s a reflection of their true personality. Same if they don’t acknowledge the mistake, right?”
Greenie: “What was the title of that book? ‘All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.’”
Greenie: “I shouldn’t even smile at that one…but it was pretty good. Now, JC, stop the puns and tell us your idea.”
JC: “Two prongs. (i) Reconfigure existing roads into smarter roads. Smarter roads can carry more traffic with a lot less congestion; (ii) rebuild and expand the rail system to handle more passenger trains and freight traffic.”
Jordan: “Commuting by rail in metro areas is easier, more pleasant, less expensive and faster. Plus, you can work on the train.”
Jordan: “High-speed rail needs to be defined given the barriers that exist. High-speed in the Northeast corridor is not going to be like a bullet-train in Japan. Making that happen would be outrageously expensive and disruptive.”
Jordan: “Don’t know exactly but I’ll bet you’re pushing 85-90%.”
JC: “This sounds great but what about resolving the conflict between freight and passenger traffic? The little that I know about rail, the freight railroads seem to keep resisting any efforts to add passenger traffic to certain rail lines…in fact, most rail lines.”
Jordan: “Other than difference in speed between freight trains and passenger trains, I don’t know of a technical reason the two can’t share the tracks.”
Jordan: “The article was in the Harvard Business Review and written by Theodore Levitt. The title was ‘Marketing Myopia.’ An example of the myopia was the railroads viewing themselves as being in railroad business and turning thumbs down to considering being in the transportation business. As a result, the railroads lost a huge share of the logistics business to the trucking industry.”
Greenie: “Before the break, I said I thought at first Jordan’s idea of reinstating conscription was stupid. Then I came around and supported it.”
JC: “What’s your logic? Something wrong with charter schools?”
JC: “Not that I disagree with you but why do you think charter schools are a band-aide?”
JC: “We need to get more specific about the issues. Besides we know that merely throwing money at schools does not necessarily make schools better.”
JC: “I agree that many were top-notch, especially those teaching math and English. To think we were so motivated we used to diagram sentences for fun!”
Jordan: “What about teacher pay?”
Jordan: “OK, I’ll be the bad guy. Why do we need free public education? What percent of the public thinks education should be privately provided and not publicly provided…forget who pays for it?”
Greenie: “…an educated populous. And how did the US populous become educated? Not just an education for the elite but an education for everyone, including immigrants, many of whom arrived here illiterate. They were educated through a free public education.”
JC: “While we’re throwing out ideas about education, what about banning busing? Busing seems like a waste of time and money.”
Greenie: “Tell me how a politician is going to campaign against free, quality public education for all? That type campaign, especially in this post-Revenge Revolution environment would be suicide.”
eenie: “Ready for another idea how to really make America great again?”
Jordan: “You mean like Trump, Limbaugh, Hannady, and the former right-wing truthsayer, Bill O’Reilly.”
enie: “Jordan, pulleeeze. Be a bit more diplomatic, will you?”
Jordan: “For now, we’ll include both men and women.”
Jordan: “Eligible at 18 but must begin service by say age 26. A person could get a deferment to attend trade school or college but would need to start by age 26.”
Jordan: “Federal agencies that have operations in most parts of the country. Agencies that serve people locally or work with the states to service people locally.”
Jordan: “Same with EPA. There are lots of areas where an ‘EPA corps’ as it were, could help gather data or fix an issue before it becomes difficult and costly to solve. Just like that old commercial, ‘pay me now or pay me later.’ But later is almost always much more expensive.”
JC: “I can hear it now. Some people are going to claim what we’re proposing will be taking away jobs from others. Or worse yet, conscription will interrupt little Johnnie’s or little Susie’s career that mommy and daddy paid so much to prepare them for. How are we going to counter that argument?”
JC: “…Let me try. #4, forced diversity. Exposure to a wide range of people and backgrounds never hurt anyone. Maybe we, that is societal we, could become a bit more civil if we understood others’ perspectives. Brilliant statement, huh?”
JC: “You know, the time might be right to reinstitute conscription. Since the Revenge Revolution people seem more willing to explore old and new ways of trying to solve problems.”
Greenie: “Jordan, that’s quite a list of ideas about how to make America great again. We’ve got to call this project something else but let’s not spend time on that now. Which item on the list seems like a good place to start?”
JC: “Let’s say there’s no major legal issue. Then how should Federal funds be allocated to the candidates?”
Jordan: “Good points. Try this. Presidential elections get the full $10/head funding. Off-year elections get $5/head allocated.”
JC: “Let me try the math. If I remember Ester’s Algebra class, that would be 200X+435X=$1,700,000,000. Using my hand-dandy phone, x equals almost $2.7 million. So Senate races get about $5.4 million and House races about $2.7 million.”
JC: “3rd-party candidates?”
Greenie: “Now, JC, I mean really. What’s a few billion in a trillion-dollar Federal budget – a rounding error? I agree the approach seems expensive until you begin to add up all the hidden costs with today’s approach to funding elections…and all the backroom deals connected to the funding.”
Greenie: “Because funds will be limited, the approach will likely also force candidates to get out on the campaign trail and meet the voters. Maybe we’ll get fewer negative ad blitzes and more time on the campaign trail.”
Greenie: “Oh, you mean like South Carolina’s Mick Mulvaney? What chutzpah. He bragged to a group of bankers that before he became part of the Trump Administration, he only talked to lobbyists who paid him. Wonder if he stopped the practice when he became director of OMB and consumer protection bureau for Trump? Pardon me — that seems like a rhetorical question.”
usrevolution5 