Category Archives: Causes of the Revolution

Discussion of what might have contributed to the revolution. Includes information about current events and some historical events.

#389. Where Do We Go from Here? (#11 in Series)

27 Monday Jul 2020

Posted by in Causes of the Revolution, Economics, Lessons of Revolution, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: some of the dialogue in this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Entries addressing events in the The future assume there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, ENTRY #387.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

Prelude to the current series of entries: I’ve concluded Trump is a lunatic and the administration filled with lapdogs save a couple of people at CDC.  Instead of wasting time commenting on actions by Trump, I thought it more productive to begin discussing what happens in the US once the coronavirus is more under control.  #378 began the series. At this point not sure how many entries.  Comments and suggestions welcome.

ENTRY #389: We are approaching the end of July 2020. Fewer than 100 days until the presidential election.  What’s happening? Just a bit.

  1. Coronavirus remains unchecked in many locations
  2. No clear strategy from the White House yet addressing the Coronavirus
  3. Growing effort to ban the Confederate flag and to remove statues honoring generals who fought against the US
  4. Growing effort to rename buildings, sports teams, schools, organizations and brand-name products that some group might consider offensive
  5. Sending non-uniformed federal troops to various cities to arrest often peaceful protestors.  Trump ordered the troops “to protect the cities from destruction.”  Of course, troops were sent only to cities with Democratic mayors.  None of the mayors asked for the troops.
  6. Sputtering economy that may beginning to backslide.  Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are so divided they cannot come to agreement on a stimulus package.
  7. Cancelling the Republican Convention in Jacksonville, Florida that Trump insisted on moving from Charlotte, NC because the NC governor had mandated rules for wearing masks and limiting the number of people who could gather in public places.
  8. Icing on the cake is both humorous and tragic.  Last week Trump was bragging to Fox News about how he “aced” a test designed to detect likely onset of Alzheimer’s.  His remarks were pathetic but memorable.  Trump claimed remembering five words, “Person, woman, man, camera and TV,” qualified him as an incredibly smart person.  Donald, I hate to tell you, a 5-year old can do the same thing, and the 5-year old can also identify an elephant.

Widespread uncertainty in any environment tends to lead to widespread chaos. No one in the White House, no one in Congress and certainly no one in the public, knows what’s next. Nor does anybody in the Trump administration seem to know how to fix the current problems, or even care about fixing current problems.

The most clear-cut answer to reduce the risk of contracting and to reduce the number of cases of the coronavirus comes from an epidemiologist who merely states facts – wear a mask and stay 6’ away from others.  However, even such a simple gesture from a highly trained professional has been met with strong resistance, starting with the Trump administration.  Finally, this past week, Trump suggested wearing a mask might be OK, although not for him.

In a series of earlier entries, I noted that many Trump supporters seem to be brainwashed. If there were ever a concrete example of brainwashing, the refusal to wear a mask is it.  One does not need an epidemiological degree to understand a face covering will slow penetration of inbound/outbound particles.

I wonder if any of these Republicans have ever watched the movie, “Lawrence of Arabia”.   Trumpsters, why do you think the guys riding in the desert on horseback and on camels covered their face with scarves? Without a scarf, blowing sand tends to get in the mouth and nose, and really doesn’t taste great.

Wearing a mask reduces the dispersion of particles when you breathe, cough or sneeze, thereby reducing the likelihood of contaminating others.  But since Trump has implied and even stated masks are for wimps, or at least he did so until only a day or so ago, no self-respecting brainwashed Republican wants to be seen wearing a mask.

In their brainwashed state, Republicans don’t need a mask because they are immune from the coronavirus. Only liberals need masks, and who cares if liberals are infected because of some Republican?

The two ends of “should-I-wear-a-mask?” spectrum were highlighted in a couple of recent Facebook posts. One post equated forcing people to wear masks in public locations as similar to Nazi’s forcing Jews to wear a yellow star. Not even remotely a legitimate comparison. But the guy who posted the entry is a hardcore Trumpster.

The other extreme regarding wearing a mask was lighthearted. The post was a quote, “Walmart is only asking you to wear a mask. You can still wear your pajamas and still leave your bra and your teeth at home.”

While Trump politicizing wearing a mask is baffling, even more baffling is the effort by the Trump administration to reduce funds allocated for testing the public for infection. Using Trump’s logic, if there are no tests, then the number of reported infections will decline. The decline in infections will prove that Trump has done a great job addressing the issue. Welcome to logic in Trump World.

Let’s put the brainwashed Trumpsters aside, and address the economy post coronavirus and post Revenge Revolution. The Coronavirus has been the catalyst for accelerating the shift to a new economic model.

In the post-coronavirus world, wealth will still be created the way wealth has always been created – integrating and/or processing individual components so the end product is more valuable than the individual components – aka, manufacturing. Manufacturing categories include a wide range of industries — farming, mining, automotive, software development, construction, etc.

The GDP also includes non-manufacturing categories, or “services.” Services include such industries as travel-and-entertainment – hotels, casinos, air travel, cruise ships – food service, retail, banking, professional services, including medical, and a host of other occupations. Think of services as “transferring money from one pocket to another.”  While many services are essential and generate many jobs, no societal wealth is created with the transfer of money between pockets.  However, services can result in individuals or companies becoming wealthy.

Like all past major shifts in the economy – agrarian to industrial, e.g. – some individuals and some companies will benefit. Other individuals and companies will be left behind and lose wealth. The shift often can be swift and brutal.  An example is the shift from steam-powered locomotives to diesel locomotives in the 1930’s.  Within a few years of introduction, diesel locomotives dominated and production of steam locomotives stopped.

Unfortunately, when these economic shifts occur, some in society will be hard hit.  If we use the experience of workers during the coronavirus shutdown as a proxy, then workers most at risk might be those in the middle – jobs above entry level that require some level of advanced education but not jobs that require skills for critical thinking.

During the coronavirus shutdown, many people in the United States got a surprise.  Critical workers included grocery-store clerks, sanitation workers, emergency-response teams, transit workers and other seemingly out of the limelight, lower-paid employees. While society was surprised about which jobs were “critical,” organizations discovered that many employees were in fact, “non-critical.”  Such workers included certain clerical staff, middle managers, sales staff, and other support personnel.

An open question in the post-coronavirus economy is what happens to central cities or other areas where offices are clustered? If people continue to work from home, and only need an office part-time, and if support staffs are reduced, what happens to all the office buildings in say Manhattan, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.? What happens to the infrastructure – subways and light rail – restaurants and other jobs dependent upon office workers?

People still need space to work and food to eat. However, will those working at home look for a somewhat larger house? Will those working from home begin to order in more meals rather than going to nearby restaurants?

While the future of the economy and future size and style of homes are uncertain, one certainty is the United States and other developed countries are going to face huge dislocations and changes to the norm. Covid-19 accelerated the arrival and intensity of the technology tsunami. The next decade is going to be a wild ride. (More about coming technology tsunami, Tech Tsunami Booklet with Supplement.)

One variable sitting on top of the economic and social changes post coronavirus is action required to mitigate the impact of climate change.  The argument is moot whether climate change is natural or man-made.  Climate change is here and is not going away.

Next blog entry we’ll discuss how some proposed actions to address climate change might cause further economic and social dislocations.  Stay tuned.

#384 1967 Detroit Riots: Lessons for Cities and Trump Administration

02 Tuesday Jun 2020

Posted by in Causes of the Revolution, Gov't Policy, Lessons of Revolution, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

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, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

Prelude: I’ve concluded Trump is a lunatic and the administration filled with lapdogs save a couple of people at CDC.  Instead of wasting time commenting on actions by Trump, I thought it more productive to begin discussing what happens in the US once the coronavirus is more under control.  #378 began the series. At this point not sure how many entries.  Comments and suggestions welcome.

The topic of ENTRY #384 was not anticipated.  The civil unrest this past week may become more prevalent than anyone would like. Unfortunately, the unrest likely will continue well past COVID-19, and thus a topic for this series.

ENTRY #384 BEGINS:  The past week there have been rallies in numerous cities protesting the treatment of Mr. George Floyd by Minneapolis Police. More and more of these rallies have evolved into riots with extensive looting and burning of public and private property.  With Trump’s proclamation Monday evening, June 1, that maximum force, including US military personnel, could be used to quell all protests, the number and intensity may increase and the tactics more warlike.

Apparently the Donald forgot to read his history books and skipped classes as well on military strategy.  Using traditional brute force in a guerilla war, which is what is likely to evolve after the proclamation, rarely works, if ever.  The list is long of examples of brute force failing to stop guerilla warfare, including Vietnam.

Watching these riots has been painful. I can tell you from personal experience, it is quite scary to be caught in the middle of the violence itself.

In summer 1967, we were living in a suburb immediately north of Detroit. I was just months into my job at Cadillac Division of General Motors.

One Sunday afternoon our neighbor, a manager of a credit agency housed in Detroit, said he’d heard there was some disturbance downtown and wanted to go check on his office. I offered to accompany him and off we went.

What we got was a whole lot more than anticipated. When we arrived in front of the office, housed in the Fox Theater building, there were people everywhere. A liquor store next to the theater was being looted as was a TV shop next door to that.

We looked to be some of the first “outsiders” to arrive at this location because while we were still in the car, a number of police cars pulled in behind us. No, we weren’t stupid. It was time to get out of Dodge and we left.

Overnight there were more riots in selected parts of Detroit but there was no declaration of an emergency. So, Monday morning I headed to work. The main Cadillac plant was on the west side and several miles from downtown Detroit. Rioting continued as did the fires. Midday Monday a number of us stood on an enclosed walkway between the fourth floors of two different buildings. We could see parts of the city clearly burning.

Cadillac closed the offices and the assembly plant that afternoon and I headed back to the apartment using an alternate route that was even farther west and away from the activity. I returned without incident but was left with the nagging question, “Are we really safe?”

The apartment complex was just on the other side of the dividing line between Detroit and Southfield – 8-Mile Road. The apartment complex was not gated so there was nothing to stop rioters from entering. Fortunately, the rioting did not spread to our immediate area.

Rioting did continue to spread within the City of Detroit. Rioting became so extensive, Governor George Romney (Mitt’s father) asked for Federal assistance and members of the US Army’s 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions were deployed to Detroit. In addition to light-infantry weapons, the units were supported by heavily armored tanks.

If you’ve never witnessed in real time the firepower of a .50-caliber machine gun mounted on a tank, visualize this. The machine gun is aimed at a sniper holed up in say the 5th floor of a brick building. The first few rounds from the machine gun literally blow away the brick facade and then subsequent rounds penetrate the interior of the building. That scene was fairly common in Detroit as the military attempted to control sniper fire.

Thus, in the span of a few days, much of Detroit became a war zone. The devastation is hard to describe and imagine. Some areas of Detroit have not yet recovered, more than 50+ years later. Yes, Detroit had some other problems as well but I think what tipped over the City was the 1967 riots.

What caused the riots? Was there an incident like George Floyd in Minneapolis or Rodney King in Los Angeles? On the surface, the riots were precipitated by a seemingly innocuous single incident. In the early hours of Sunday morning, the Detroit police raided and closed a blind pig in a black neighborhood (illegal bar often with some gambling as well).

While black residents were frustrated by the raid on the blind pig, residents housed a long-standing frustration with treatment by the Detroit Police Department, then mostly white. Economics was a contributing factor, but much less so than most people think. In the 1960’s, the US economy and especially Detroit’s economy were strong. Many black residents were employed at one of the many new-car/truck assembly plants or component plants in and around Detroit.

Further, all hourly employees in those plants were members of the UAW with extensive health benefits, multi-week vacation and a base wage that was sufficient for full-time workers to be classified as “middle class.” Detroit also had a relatively strong black-owned business community.

What happened to Detroit following the riots? Many whites fled the City for the suburbs. Auto companies gradually closed many of the assembly and component plants, although there were other reasons for that as well. Detroit became a shell of its former self. Only in the last decade, roughly 50 years after the riots, has Detroit started to rebound. New businesses are moving in. Housing is being rebuilt and population is gradually expanding.

What’s the lesson, or the caution, for other cities experiencing riots? While there is no simple answer, at a minimum, city leaders, public and private, need to work closely with citizens and be alert to problems with city services, whether garbage pickup, water quality (as in Flint), or unsavory or unethical actions by law enforcement. Understanding these problems, and making an effort to resolve the problems before getting out of control, will help mitigate the potential for disturbance.

An example of such an effort is the sheriff of Genesee County Michigan, north of Detroit and home to Flint, MI.  The sheriff has been working closely with residents throughout the county.  So far, there have been no unruly protests in Flint and other cities in the county.

Another issue that seems important, and one that does not get discussed enough publicly, is encouraging local residents to become business owners in their community. Maybe more black-owned businesses would prevent some of the insidious looting that occurred during recent protests. Why would you loot a store in your neighborhood that is providing critical services, and owned by one of your neighbors?

Those who loot or encourage looting neighborhood stores should not complain because few, if any, national chains open neighborhood stores. Why should these companies risk capital, if the stores are targeted for looting?

Finally, I think any honest conversation about unfair treatment, discrimination, and associated issues needs to ask the following questions. “How did other ethnic groups overcome what was often overt and brutal discrimination? What did these ethnic groups do, sometimes over several generations, to reduce discrimination and make better lives for themselves?”  The answers could provide some guidance for all sides.  Answers will also indicate solutions are never easy and never one sided.

#381: Religious Institutions Next Big Box Stores? (We Gotta…Part 4)

09 Saturday May 2020

Posted by in Causes of the Revolution, Economics, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

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, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

Prelude: I’ve concluded Trump is a lunatic and the administration filled with lapdogs save a couple of people at CDC.  Instead of wasting time commenting on actions by Trump, I thought it more productive to begin discussing what happens in the US once the coronavirus is more under control.  #378 began the series. At this point not sure how many entries.  Comments and suggestions welcome.

ENTRY #381: The future of religious institutions is being influenced by three factors over which the institutions have no control. These exogenous variables directly affect the near and long-term financial viability of many such institutions:

  1. Changing membership demographics, especially less favorable attitudes by younger generations toward religion
  2. Downward pressure on family discretionary income from multiple sources
  3. Migration to more electronic communication, in part because of sustained concern about large gatherings post coronavirus

The pressures will intensify in the coming years. Without some fundamental strategies to address the effects of these pressures, many religious institutions could become financially insolvent and forced to dissolve. Further the pressures are not specific to one or two religions. All religions are likely to be affected.

Demographic Pressure. There are numerous articles and studies (Pew Research, e.g.) indicating younger generations are less attracted to religions of all types. The younger generations also attend services less than previous generations at the same age.

When viewing the data, some believe that as younger generations age they will act more like their parents and grandparents, thus “adopting” much of the behavior of previous generations. By adopting attitudes and behavior of previous generations, these younger cohorts, therefore will become more favorable to religion and more supportive of religious institutions.

The clergy and the “Board of Directors” of a religious institution should not make the assumption re “adopting behavior.” One only needs to track age cohorts over time to realize younger age cohorts do not adopt the attitudes of their parents’ generation when they reach the same age.

Rather than adopting behavior, empirical evidence suggests cohorts “retain” attitudes and behaviors established in their early twenties. Some examples of “retaining” values range from attitudes of different generations toward such social issues as use of drugs, casual sex, age for marriage to preferred brands of vehicles to preferred style of house and furniture. One only has to ask “What happened to the appeal of darker-wood furniture as well as fine china and crystal with the generations under age 40″ to realize tastes and preferences are different?[1]

Pressure on the Revenue Stream.  Since roughly the mid-1960’s each succeeding age cohort has been faced with increased pressure on discretionary income[2]. Every religious institution should assume one or more of these pressures on discretionary income will continue, thereby making it more difficult for families to provide financial support. Pressures are:

  1. Medical costs increasing faster than income
  2. Housing prices (and rents) increasing faster than income
  3. College tuition increasing at a rate much faster than inflation and income
  4. Retirement savings burden being transferred to employees as employer-funded defined-benefit retirement programs have been eliminated

The economic pressures caused by each one of these factors probably could be managed by most families. However, when the increases in all factors are combined – each one has a similar pattern of costs outpacing income – the result is a significant erosion in discretionary income.  

A real-world example of the impact of these pressures was evident during a recent PBS News Hour broadcast. An ER- vehicle technician in New York City described the mental and economic pressures associated with the coronavirus. The interviewer asked the ER technician about salary – about $40,000 per year. As anyone familiar with the cost of living in any of the NY boroughs, $40k for a family is tight. Worse for the technician was that his employer, apparently a contractor to the City of New York, did not provide health insurance.

Here’s the guy taking people to the hospital to get treated for coronavirus (or some other emergency) but who does not have employer-paid health insurance. Even worse the technician can’t afford private health insurance because the Trump administration eliminated many features of Obamacare and eliminated insurance exchanges.

Housing Prices/Monthly Rental. The chart is for price increases of houses and rent compared to growth in median income, adjusted for inflation. While the data are national, people living in some metro areas have faced the problem of housing prices-HOA dues/rents and insurance rising even faster than noted on the chart.

Real estate taxes are also increasing. Although relatively low compared to NY/NJ/CT, housing costs and taxes in many areas are still high and a further erosion of discretionary income.  These costs result is less money available for contributions to a given institution.

College Costs. Since the 1960’s, early 1970’s tuition at public and private colleges has more than doubled as a percent of family income in inflation-adjusted dollars. Costs for elite universities have increased even faster. Even with some assistance, overall costs for higher education are likely twice as high as a percent of family income over the past couple of generations. The impact of the coronavirus may make the disparity worse. Tax revenue in virtually every state has fallen dramatically. To balance future budgets states may need to cut support for higher education.

End of this entry. More next week about the impact on contributions of: (i) technology replacing jobs; (ii) retirement savings shortfall; (iii) electronic “competition” from other religious institutions.

[1] For more analysis of “adoption” and “retention” please download paper I wrote at University of Michigan in 1987 titled “A Nation in Transition.” The paper addressed how differences in attitudes between pre-Boomer and Boomer cohorts could affect how America would view its role internationally. The paper included a comparison of a variety of attitudes. (87 12 08 Nation in Transition) 

[2] Discretionary income is the amount of an individual’s income left for spending after paying taxes and paying for personal necessities, such as food, shelter and clothing. Discretionary income includes money spent or allocated to luxury items, vacations and non-essential good/services, including contributions.

#378. US Societal Quagmire: “We Gotta Get Out of This Place” (Part 1)

19 Sunday Apr 2020

Posted by in Causes of the Revolution, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

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, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

Prelude: in a couple of preceding entries I tried to address the seemingly endless number of inconsistencies in information from the Trump administration about the spread of the coronavirus and/or actions to mitigate the spread. After some reflection, I decided that was futile.  Trump is a lunatic and the administration filled with lapdogs save a couple of people at CDC.  Instead of wasting time on Trump, I thought it more productive to begin discussing what happens in the US once the coronavirus is more under control.  At this point not sure how many entries.  The first one is a bit long.  

ENTRY #378 BEGINS: In the 1960s, there was a song by The Animals that included the lyrics, “We gotta get out of this place if it’s the last thing we ever do.”   While not written as a protest against the Vietnam War, the song was often used as a protest against the US participation in Vietnam.

Even though the song is more than 50 years old, the title seems appropriate today. The place we have to get out of is the economic and social quagmire in this country. The economic and social quagmire has been gradually getting worse with each decade. And while the Trump Administration has not been the sole cause, decisions by Trump with the support of the Republican Party have made the quagmire far worse.

Another perspective on the same situation is the US is sitting on an economic and social time bomb with the timer clock getting close to zero hour and ready to explode. What’s creating the time bomb is pressure from multiple sectors:

  1. Decades of limited earnings growth for middle and lower-income workers. The result has been greater income inequality.
  2. More medical risk. Fewer employers are providing company-paid medical insurance, thus leaving families to fund their insurance.
  3. Less job certainty. The uncertainty has been growing for some time as more organizations hire workers as contractors. Organizations are also automating an ever increasing number of functions of blue-collar and white-collar workers.
  4. More societal polarization with focus on one’s political party rather than with focus on solving problems. The shift began with the Reagan administration, when Reagan repeatedly declared, “Government is the problem, not the solution.” Trump’s public animosity toward anyone who does not support his views, however controversial, convoluted and even unconstitutional, has taken party loyalty over policy to an unprecedented level.

The four forces squeezing the US population are like hands squeezing a balloon. The coronavirus has intensified the squeeze, leaving little time before the balloon bursts. Reactions to state governors’ actions to control the spread of the coronavirus generally have been positive although some on the far right have protested. Apparently far-right Republicans think they have immunity to the virus.

The stay-at-home directives, closing of businesses and social distancing seem to have allowed the nation to pause and begin rethinking previously held assumptions. For example, prior to the coronavirus, certain jobs were considered relatively unimportant and, therefore, not worthy of much compensation. Such jobs included non-degreed healthcare workers, grocery store staff, transit workers and workers at food-processing plants.

Interestingly, the coronavirus changed those assumptions. People began to realize how important these jobs were to a functioning society. During the coronavirus those working in healthcare, grocery store and food-processing, among others, were categorized as “essential.” At the same time, many college-degreed, higher-paid white-collar jobs, including many executives, were categorized as “non-essential” and mandated to work from home.

Further, many “non-essential” businesses were ordered to close. The result was a huge spike in unemployment. Over a four-week period ending mid-April 2020, more than 22,000,000 workers in the US filed for state unemployment benefits. Over the next few weeks, the total will likely increase significantly since many unemployment offices were overwhelmed and furloughed workers unable to file.

How many of those currently furloughed will be re-employed post-coronavirus is uncertain. At a minimum, there likely will be a major disruption to the pre-virus job-status hierarchy. Many lower-paid “essential” workers could receive a pay increase and many white-collar workers deemed “non-essential” could be reclassified to lower-paid positions or jobs eliminated.

The COVID-19-related shutdown of the US economy has brought to the forefront social and economic inequities. Prior to COVID-19 these inequities often were discussed in the abstract since most of the people discussing the inequities were not affected directly. COVID-19 has reframed the conversation. Most of the public now realizes how fragile their jobs are and how the safety net for furloughed workers has a huge hole, starting with unemployment benefits and medical coverage.

Now that this “hole” in the safety net has been discovered, what steps will elected officials take to make repairs? The task of repairing the hole may be more complicated than policymakers realize. While anyone losing a job or being furloughed without pay suffers economically, the impact of that loss may be markedly different for different age groups.

Historically, as workers aged their families had been able to accumulate financial resources that could help cushion economic downturns. Thus, older workers furloughed because of COVID-19 should be in a better position economically than younger workers. But are workers today, older and younger, able to weather an economic downturn?

How do economic resources of today’s workers compare to workers at the same age say 25 years ago? Do today’s workers age 45 have the same relative assets as workers who were age 45 in 1995? What about assets of workers say age 25 in 2020 compared to those age 25 in 1995? Are workers today, older and younger, at a disadvantage economically compared to previous age cohorts? The answer is, “yes.” And that disadvantage has grown with each generation.

Over the last 50-60 years, there has a fundamental deterioration in affordability of key factors that help a family accumulate assets. Since roughly the mid-1960’s each succeeding age cohort has been faced with:

  1. Housing prices (and rents) increasing faster than income
  2. Medical costs increasing faster than income
  3. College tuition increasing at a rate much faster than inflation and income
  4. Retirement savings burden transferred to employees as employer-funded defined-benefit retirement programs have been eliminated

The economic pressures caused by each one of these factors probably could be managed by most families. For example, since 1960, when adjusted for inflation, housing prices have increased about 125%, rent about 75% and income only 25%.  However, when the increases in all factors are combined – each one has a similar curve – the result in a significant erosion in disposable personal income.

A story that hit me like a 2×4 to the forehead was an interview with a family trying to survive under the crush of these economic pressures. The interview was during the recent PBS News Hour. The subject was an ER- vehicle technician in New York.

The technician was describing the mental and economic pressures associated with the coronavirus. The ER technician earned about $40,000. As anyone familiar with cost of living in any of the NY boroughs, $40k for a family is tight. He also had a second job. What really struck me was the ER technician’s employer, apparently a contractor to the City of New York, did not provide health insurance.

Here’s the guy taking you to the hospital to get treated for coronavirus (or some other emergency) but the ER technician does not have employer-paid health insurance. Even worse he can’t afford private health insurance because the Trump administration eliminated many features of Obamacare and eliminated insurance exchanges. So, Trump and Republicans, the guy taking you to the hospital to save your life is risking his life and risking financial ruin if he contracts the virus from you. Does that seem fair?

Longer term, the impact of the coronavirus on the United States will likely end up changing permanently a number of aspects of society. The post-coronavirus United States will likely be forced to address the medical and economic inequities that have been building for the past 50-60 years. In addition, the US might begin to address the need retrain workers as more technology is integrated into the workplace.

The likely result of the coming technology tsunami? Many blue-collar and white-collar workers of all ages are going to be faced with possibly accepting a lower standard of living. (See booklet titled Technology Tsunami for more discussion and possible solutions.)

Will workers of different age cohorts be affected differently? Workers currently age 50 and older, even though they should have more resources, may be hit harder by the technology tsunami since many are less familiar with advanced technology and they have fewer years before retirement to try and recoup lost earnings.

But the technology tsunami is only one tsunami facing current workers. Another tsunami headed toward US shores is the retirement tsunami. What we as a society don’t talk about and certainly what has not been addressed at the Federal level is how unprepared for retirement workers are.

The retirement tsunami has been caused by the elimination of employer-funded health and retirement programs. The potential impact of the tsunami has been made worse by erosion of personal income from the accelerating cost of housing, medical and college tuition. Workers have nothing left over to save for retirement.

In a recent poll by Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, 75%, or 3 out of 4 people age 50-62 had jobs that fell into a “non-traditional” category — meaning, those without employer-provided retirement plans and health insurance. According to the report, workers in non-traditional jobs can expect their retirement income to be as much as 26% lower than that of people who spent their 50’s and early 60’s in positions with full benefit packages, according to the center’s findings.  (Update: NYTimes article about older workers without adequate retirement savings moving in with children, 20 05 03 NYT Underfunded Retirement Parents Moving in with Children) 

What about the impact of higher costs and the technology tsunami on younger workers? Don’t they have 30-35 years to recoup lost earnings from a coronavirus economic slowdown and the technology tsunami? Unfortunately, a greater percentage of younger age cohorts are likely to be even less prepared for retirement than those currently age 50-62.

If costs for housing, medical, education and retirement continue to exceed gains in income, the cumulative effect will further erode disposal personal income. Unless there is a fundamental change in how health care costs, retirement programs and advanced education are funded, more and more people will be underfunded for retirement.

What will make a bad situation worse is a prolonged economic slump associated with the coronavirus shutdowns. The rate at which people have been furloughed is unprecedented – 22,000,000 in four weeks and likely another 10,000,000 in the next four weeks.

Few people in business, few economists and much of the general public does not expect the economy to bounce back once the restrictions associated with the coronavirus are lifted. Even if employment in the manufacturing increases over the next 24-30 months as companies begin bringing jobs back to the US, overall economic growth will be very slow.

Some portions of the service sector employment seem likely to experience a permanent loss of jobs. After “stay-at-home” restrictions are lifted, how many consumers will immediately return to restaurants, attend sporting events, go to shopping centers or travel by plane – and especially take cruises? Consumers are likely to remain cautious until an effective vaccine has become widely available – probably as long as 18-24 months. Even with the vaccine will the public’s behavior be changed permanently?

During the next 18-24 months and maybe forever, how much of structure of service sector will change? Many formerly employed in the service sector have no employer-funded health insurance and even fewer have an employer-funded retirement program. Where do these former employees turn for help? Their jobs are gone, or at least not coming back for some time. Finding another job will be extremely difficult since the economy is growing slowly at best.

Now you see why the theme of this entry is “We gotta get out of this place if it’s the last thing we ever do.” This place is a dead end. We’ve got to find something new. The pressure to “get out of this place” seems like the spark for the Revenge Revolution.

The hardships associated with coronavirus seems to be awakening the middle class to realize how long they have been screwed by Republican policies of tax cuts for the wealthy and denying affordable medical care for all. Workers over 50 are realizing the need to return to employer-funded retirement programs and/or increased Social Security retirement benefits. Such programs are widespread in other developed countries so there is no excuse for not implementing.

When will the Revenge Revolution start? I think we’ve started. The coronavirus seems like an event that could trigger a revolution. The pace and magnitude of the job losses are unprecedented. The Revenge Revolution could spread as quickly as the coronavirus.

As more and more people realize “we gotta get out of this place” the more pressure on Washington to address the social and economic inequities. People are not going to be satisfied with Trump blaming China, the WHO or someone else for the coronavirus. People want concrete steps to fix the hole in the safety net, help train people for the coming technology tsunami, make healthcare affordable for everyone and make sure people have adequate resources for retirement. (Next few entries will offer some solutions.

#375 Leadership in a Crisis: Chaos or Confidence?

21 Saturday Mar 2020

Posted by in Causes of the Revolution, Economics, Federal Budget, Gov't Policy, Stupid Is as Stupid Does, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

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, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

Prelude: there is an endless number of inconsistencies in information from the Trump administration about the spread of the coronavirus and/or actions to mitigate the spread. Rather than beat a dead horse, I’ve chosen a few that are representative but not necessarily the most egregious.

ENTRY #375 BEGINS: During the Great Depression FDR understood that instilling hope in people would help bring the country together and help reduce the likelihood of societal chaos. FDR started his first term by stating, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

FDR followed his inaugural address with a series of “fireside chats,” during which he outlined problems and proposed solutions. (If you’ve never heard any of the “fireside chats,” they’re available on the internet.) The fireside chats helped build confidence in the capabilities of the Roosevelt administration and a foundation of hope in a time of great uncertainty.

The umbrella for recovery from the Great Depression was called the “New Deal.” The New Deal included a series of programs to provide work and income (and self-respect) for all types of unemployed workers. The New Deal work programs – WPA, CCC, and many others – included significantly expanding infrastructure in the United States, which laid the groundwork for economic growth for many decades to come.

The lesson of FDR’s understanding of creating hope and maintaining self-respect seems to have been lost on the Trump Administration. Whereas the cause of society’s uncertainty today is different than during the 1930’s, the importance of instilling hope in society and avoiding instilling fear remains the same.

Unfortunately, since day #1 in office, Trump has promoted chaos and fear. Even cabinet members who were selected because of a relationship with Trump, have been cast aside for daring to disagree with Trump. As noted in several previous entries (#374 is an example), the result of Trump‘s management style has been a cabinet that is filled with incompetents.

Trump has also consistently displayed incompetence on substantive issues. The combination has reduced people’s confidence in the ability of government to manage crises. What about the public’s confidence in the competence of the White House in dealing with the coronavirus? Did Trump take the approach of FDR and layout problems and proposed solutions?

In a press conference March 20, 2020, a reporter asked Trump and Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, when the administration first learned of the extent of the coronavirus problem in China. Pompeo asked the Homeland Security director to answer – the reply was “January 3.”

Did the Trump administration convey such information to the public? Did the administration take any action to ensure critical medical supplies would be on hand should the virus spread to the US? No, not even outside the public purview. As recently as March 3rd – two months after learning about the major problems in China – Trump declared publicly the coronavirus was a hoax.

When cases started appearing in the US, Trump claimed there were only 15 cases (there were at least 60). And of the 15 cases, Trump claimed only one or two were serious. A few days thereafter, Trump declared the virus would magically disappear, like some miracle. According to Trump, the US, unlike other countries, had the coronavirus under control.

On March 19 information became available that the Senate Committee on Intelligence had been briefed on the severity of the problem in February. The chairman of the committee, Richard Burr (R-NC), used the information to sell stock in industries that might be affected and to warn a small group of high-dollar donors about the growing problem. Did Burr inform the public? No. (Gee, I wonder what the outcry would be from Fox News, Lindsey Graham and other Trump lapdogs if Burr were a Democrat?)

Despite declarations from King Trump, the number of people infected in the US kept increasing exponentially. Then after several governors and mayors had implemented severe restrictions on travel and gatherings, King Trump declared, “I always knew this would lead to a pandemic.” Right Donald – liar, liar, pants on fire.”

Aside from the bonehead declarations by the president, the performance of the Trump administration this past week or so has been better, but remains mixed. Public confidence in the Center for Disease Control (CDC) seems to have improved as doctors have begun telling the truth about the intensity of the coronavirus and how citizens should behave. Comments from CDC personnel often have directly conflicted with claims made by Trump, even when Trump is standing next to the CDC spokesperson.

In addition, state and local officials have continued to provide guidance. Examples include governors of Michigan and Washington as well as governors/mayors in the New York tristate area. There are still some bumps in these declarations and differences of opinion but action is being taken.

As far as calming fear, Trump might have convinced the hardcore supporters he’s competent, but no one else seems convinced that he or key White House staff/cabinet officials knows what to do. Once the public began to understand more about they could be affected by the virus and then began to understand proposed government programs to respond, mild panic set in.

People rushed to buy food and staples. Stocks of toilet paper were depleted because people were concerned the material used to make facemasks would stop production of toilet paper. A simple explanation of manufacturing capacity for TP, and lead times from factory to food stores would have mitigated most concerns. A similar explanation for many food products would have helped. But as of this date, nary a word from the White House about supply chains.

The uncertainty also spooked investors, who hate uncertainty. The result has been a frenzy with huge daily swings in the market, mostly down. The major indexes, Trump’s personal barometer of job performance, have declined to a point where all the gains realized since inauguration have been wiped out. In less than two months the major indexes have fallen 25-30%.

The near freefall of the stock market has affected consumer confidence as has the projection of a double-digit drop in GDP in 2020:Q2, and double-digit unemployment. The trifecta hit on confidence will exaggerate the virus-related slowdown in purchases of durable goods as well as home sales and construction.

The run-up in the stock market proceeding the recent crash also left the public with another headache – an additional $1,000,000,000,000 Federal debt. The 2017 tax cut was essentially a wealth transfer program to the rich, making them even richer. Think of it as socialism for the rich. Little, if any of the tax cut actually filtered down to the middle and lower-income categories.

The end result was the rich got considerably richer and everyone else got stuck with the bill — $2,700+ for every man, woman and child in the US. For a family of four, they should think of the tax cut as their gift of more than $10,000 to the very wealthy. (For more about the fallacy of trickle-down economics, which was used to justify the wealth transfer, see blog entry xxx.)

While an economic stimulus will help some people pay bills in the short-term, the real issue is mitigating the effects of the virus. Because currently there is no vaccine (forget Trump’s claim) and no known cause, there is no way to stop infections. The government’s plan is to “flatten the curve” of the rate of infection so the number of people needing hospitalization stays within the capacity of the hospital system.

Actions to “flatten the curve of infection” include restricting the number of people who can gather together. In some areas, the restriction is 100 people, some areas it is 50 people and some areas 10 people. Surprisingly, as of 03/18, about 10 states had no restrictions, including Texas.

The flip side of restrictions on crowd control is the negative impact on commerce. Restaurants, bars, hotels, gyms, movie theaters, theme parks and even religious institutions have been ordered to close. Sporting events have been canceled or delayed. Airlines have cut back flights by 50% or more.

Even such mundane tasks as garbage pickup have been affected. In our neighborhood, the sanitation department also picks up twigs, leaves and other yard waste. This week the yard-waste truck was about an hour late because, according to a man on the truck, they could not take off because of the 50-person restriction and had to wait for the sanitation workers to leave the building. (Yard waste pickup has now been suspended.)

The effect of these restrictions will be a significant increase in unemployment and decline in GDP. Although some believe the jump in unemployment will be temporary, my belief is that any rebound in employment will leave many unemployed as organizations realize how to operate with fewer employees by implementing more technology. The depressing effect on employment could last for a number of years. (For more information about the effects of technology on potential unemployment, see ”Tech Tsunami Booklet with Supplement” )

While both economic and medical programs are needed, most proposed actions by the White House seem more focused on the economy and less on ensuring medical care is available for those affected. An example is the proposed payment of $1,000-$2,000 per family for some period. The intent seems worthwhile, helping to address income shortfalls for many service workers.

The effect of such programs on confidence is more problematic. The proposed program would link the amount of payment to family size and family income. Thus, the more income one earned (there’s a cap), the bigger the check from the government. Does anyone in the Trump administration or the Republican Senate understand basic economics? People with lower incomes who get laid off have no savings. At least give everyone the same amount.

Doubtless the irony of the proposed economic program has been lost on the White House and the Republican Senators. Isn’t giving away money directly to families socialism? Only a couple of weeks ago Republicans were characterizing as socialism any Democratic proposal for income support or student-loan forgiveness. Or, as often stated by Trumpsters, maybe such programs were really like communism. Well, aren’t socialism and communism the same?

Okay, the idea of supplementing income in the short-term makes economic sense. But there’s no need for a tax cut for corporations. In case Trump and Republicans don’t understand, taxes first require revenue and then a profit. If the public is not working there’s no demand and no revenue – and duh, no profit or tax due.

The proposed programs also have a flip side. #1, the proposed program would increase the federal debt in FY2020 at least another $1,000,000,000,000 and closer to $2,000,000,000,000. Thus, by the time Trump completes four years in office, the Federal debt will have increased more than $3,000,000,000,000…and likely more. The increase is remarkably high given that unlike Obama, Trump inherited a very strong economy that should have resulted in a smaller annual deficit and possibly annual surplus. Like I asked earlier, does anyone in the White House, Trump’s cabinet or the Republican Senate understand basic economics?

So where have all the Republican fiscal conservatives been while Trump ran up the federal debt? Apparently in hiding and waiting for a Democratic president so they can begin screaming about the level of federal debt. The scream will be the Federal debt needs to be reduced with cuts to payments for Social Security and Medicare.

Another area that can contribute to the thinking-public’s lack of confidence is the Trump administration’s effort to eliminate Obamacare. During the 2016 presidential campaign and then during three years in office, Trump has made every effort to kill Obamacare. Any Obamacare-like program was bad — oops until the coronavirus. Now many programs being proposed by the Trump administration are absolutely consistent with the purpose of Obamacare and suggest that the US would be better off with a national healthcare system. Such change in policy will only increase frustration among the populace as well as increase the lack of confidence in government.

Adding fuel to the “no-confidence” fire was Trump’s claim at a oppress conference Friday, 03/20/2020 that his administration inherited a broken healthcare system from the Obama administration but that he (Trump) had fixed it. Obviously, not everyone agreed. The lead doctor at CDC put his head in his hand as Trump spoke.

Where does all the inconsistency and uncertainty lead? Uncertainty, as discussed in a number of previous blog entries, is often a precursor to a revolution. The US might get lucky and avoid a 5th revolution by voting out Trump and most of the Senate in the November 2020 election.

As of today, even though the coronavirus crisis is still in the early stages, the public seems more than willing to accept Depression-era types of programs to help stimulate the economy and begin to help reduce the income inequities that currently exist. Such programs are more consistent with the Democratic Party and would seem to bode well for the election of Joe Biden.

However, if for whatever reason Trump is re-elected, then the level of chaos and uncertainty experienced during the first term is likely to intensify. While the hard-core Trumpsters might be satisfied, the majority of the population will not be. The extreme discord between the hard-core Trumpster and rational people will increase the probability of a 5th US revolution.

As described throughout the blog, the revolution will be some type of revenge against the elite that Trump continues to support. The revolution – the Revenge Revolution – also will include many of the hard-core who finally wake up to the reality of how much Trump has screwed them.

#374 Trump Incompetent’s Club Squared

08 Sunday Mar 2020

Posted by in Causes of the Revolution, Economics, Societal Issues, Stupid Is as Stupid Does

≈ 1 Comment

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, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

ENTRY #374 BEGINS: The theme of this blog is a revolution of some form in the US seems likely within a few years after 2020. In the various entries, I’ve tried to cite factors that could contribute to a revolution.

Last week’s entry was titled “Where Do We Go from Here?” and attempted to outline some of the public confusion and angst created by actions of the Trump administration in dealing with the coronavirus outbreak. But how could it get any worse?

Well, this past week the ineptness of the Trump administration ratcheted up several notches the public confusion and angst about the virus. Apparently what’s not clear to the Trump administration is no one is blaming Trump for the outbreak. What’s causing great frustration among most sectors of the population is how the Trump administration is handling efforts to diagnose and contain the spread of the virus.

And who’s the primary source of the confusion and inept management? None other than the Donald himself.

In crisis situations, people’s strengths and weaknesses tend to get magnified. One of Trump’s personality flaws is fear of being criticized. To help get around that flaw, Trump became a compulsive liar. The lying was his regular MO in the real estate business and has continued as president. He lies regularly on tv/radio and in public forums. Based on a mountain of examples, Trump seems to make erroneous statements, aka lies, whenever he needs to reinforce his own behavior or deflect potential criticism.

Specific to the coronavirus, within the past week Trump claimed 1,000,000 test kits would be available by the end of the week. He also claimed that a vaccine preventing the coronavirus would be developed and available in a couple of months.

Both those claims were intended to demonstrate to the public how actions by the Trump administration were mitigating the effects of the virus. However, both claims were patently false.

Increasing production and distribution of test kits will take weeks, if not months. Further, testing capabilities in some areas of the US is extremely limited. Arkansas, for example, has lab capacity limited to testing only 6-10 cases per day. Additional tests will need to be sent elsewhere for processing, further delaying results. As of March 6, there was no central location for labs and/or doctors to report the number of cases detected.

As far as the vaccine, a doctor at CDC noted it would be a minimum 18-24 months for development of the vaccine. In addition to development time, additional time would be required for distribution, then inoculation and finally time for the body to incorporate the vaccine. The “normal” flu vaccine, for example, takes about two weeks to become effective.

While some of the population might continue to believe Trump and the Coronavirus Czar VP Mike Pence – “You can fool some of the people all the time…” – an ever-increasing percentage of the population is becoming more concerned about the ineffectual efforts to control spread of the virus. The lying by Trump, Pence et al, further erodes confidence in the government’s capabilities. Loss of confidence in government is a major contributor to revolutions regardless of country.

The lack of honesty by the Trump Administration has created uncertainty among investors. In the past month stock process have gyrated with all major stock indexes having declined at least 10%, and more declines likely.

So what? Why would activity on Wall Street contribute to the Revenge Revolution? In today’s workforce, few people have defined benefit programs paid for by their employer. As a result, workers must rely on building their own retirement savings. A substantial portion of retirement savings is invested in stocks. When markets decline sharply, as we’ve seen the last few weeks and may see for some time, people become anxious and disenchanted.

In addition to concerns of individual investors, a problem not well understood by the public is lurking on the sidelines. The problem has been caused by the Trump administration’s fiscal policy, specifically the 2017 tax cut, and pressure on the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates low. The ballooning deficit and the already low interest rates have reduced options available to the Federal Reserve to help counter any economic slowdown.

Trump can blame anyone or any group he wants. However, when the economy declines and jobs are lost, and the population has little confidence in the government, the chances increase for some type of revolution.

With some luck, voters will replace Trump in November 2020. What we won’t know, even with a new president, is whether damage to the credibility of the government caused by Trump’s mismanagement of the coronavirus as well as mismanagement of many other situations is too extensive to repair sufficiently before a segment of the populous revolts in some way and we have a revolution – the Revenge Revolution.

#371. Putin Praises Puppet President. Mandates Moscow Mitch Merits Medal.

16 Sunday Feb 2020

Posted by in Causes of the Revolution, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

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, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

ENTRY #371 BEGINS.  During a private, off-the-record meeting that was secretly recorded, Vladimir Putin gushed over how obedient Trump has been at following orders. Putin noted that Trump’s performance in wrecking long-held democratic standards in the United States had far exceeded his expectations.

Putin was heard on the recording stating, “In three years Trump has done more to destroy the fabric of US democracy than Russia has been able to accomplish in 75 years. And he’s got his supporters believing Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election and not us. What more could we ask for?” Putin continued, “The only problem is his paranoia is far worse than we realized.  Who knows what Trump will do next? He’s become like a mad dog.”

An unidentified attendee reminded the group that just last week during a ceremony at the White House honoring service dogs, Trump flew into a rage and actually bit a former service dog when he found out the dog was now owned by the Obamas. When being taken away, the speaker noted, “Trump yelled that Obama’s dog should be impeached and kicked out the service dog corps.”

The comment drew uproarious laughter by the group, after which Putin added the real surprise in the Trump era has been Mitch McConnell. Putin noted, “While Trump has created a lot of noise, McConnell – I like the nickname Moscow Mitch – has wielded a true wrecking ball to the legislative process.

Under any other Senate Majority Leader, Trump would have been impeached. But good ol’ Moscow Mitch managed to bring a vote to the floor without allowing any evidence or witnesses. And only one Republican senator objected. Now that’s how dictators operate. Whatta guy.”

Following an order to the waiter to bring another round of drinks, Putin declared, “I think Trump and Moscow Mitch deserve a medal. They’ve kowtowed to our requests and helped Russia more than we ever expected. And both of them have been so cheap to buy. What does the group think about a medal for each?”

Someone then rather loudly proclaimed, “A toast and a medal to the puppet president and to Moscow Mitch. Since Trump and Moscow Mitch have been so good at kowtowing, let’s give them a medal shaped like a cow’s udder.” In unison, the group was heard moaning, then laughing, which was followed by a loud, “Hear, hear!” End of recording.

 

#368. The Big Bang Theory. Explosion of Political Ethics Inside the Beltway.

27 Monday Jan 2020

Posted by in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Societal Issues, Stupid Is as Stupid Does, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

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, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

If you want to a diversion, easy-to-read booklets for download.  These include:

ENTRY #368 BEGINS.  Normally when someone mentions The Big Bang Theory, the reference is to the formation of the universe. The Big Bang Theory might also be applied to political ethics in Washington.

The impeachment trial of Donald Trump has left me stunned and angry. Stunned not by what Trump has done – for decades Trump has flagrantly violated the law and many social norms – but stunned by the lack of moral character among Republican Senators.  Whether you think Trump should be removed from office or not, everyone should be stunned at how Republican Senators are refusing to even acknowledge publicly that Trump’s behavior was outside the norms for a democratic government.

Excuse me Republicans, since when is it okay to obstruct justice? Since when is it okay to insult publicly people who have put themselves in harm’s way to protect the United States? Since when is it okay to state publicly that you believe the remarks of a leader of a known enemy of the US, Russia, are more credible than the information from the US intelligence community?  When did such behavior become acceptable?

My formative years were spent in Central Illinois. The area then, and now, was definitely what one could call the Land of Lincoln.

While others might consider my remembrance naïve, everyone seemed to know and agree on what was right and what was wrong. Understanding right from wrong seems to be understood by all classes of people from all different religions and ethnic backgrounds.  Yes, there were some issues with gray areas but not many.

I’d like to think those values have stayed with me and my fellow citizens. The area had a social/political attitude that Bush 43 described as “compassionate conservatism.”  If someone or some family needed help, assistance was provided very discreetly. Further, most everyone seemed fiscally conservative. Even those with far more money than their neighbors were conservative in displaying their wealth.

Doubtless, residents of Central Illinois were not alone in being able to understand right from wrong.  Highly likely that many other areas of the country had similar attitudes. How many other “Leave-It-to-Beaver” towns were there across the country?

Given that reference point, what’s been displayed this week in Washington by Republican Senators indicates that the attitude and understanding of right and wrong, which made America great versus many other countries, has exploded.  Exploded just like the Big Bang.

Why have Republican Senators decided they can no longer distinguish right from wrong? What has become so complicated in making this distinction?

If leaders of this country are not willing to state publicly what behavior and actions are right and what behaviors are wrong, then the US is headed for a dictatorship.  In dictatorships, citizens no longer have a say in determining what’s right and what’s wrong.  The dictator decides.

Stating publicly a president’s behavior is wrong does not automatically require supporting a vote to remove the president from office. When a child misbehaves, the punishment is a function of the degree of misbehavior. Same with deciding about the punishment for a president misbehaving.  Not all types of misbehavior demand removal from office.

So once again, why can’t Republican Senators seemingly distinguish right from wrong?  Are these Republican Senators so afraid to stand before their constituents and declare, “Trump’s behavior is wrong? My oath of office is to uphold the Constitution. Based on the evidence presented, I thought the president should (should not) be removed from office.”

What’s so difficult about making such a statement? Not every constituent will be pleased with your decision, but at least the vast majority of people will respect your integrity. And, you know what? I’ll bet you get reelected for being…yikes, an honest politician.

The effect of the Big Bang, whether talking about the formation of the universe or behavior of politicians, maybe like squeezing toothpaste from a tube. Once the action is taken, it’s nearly impossible to return to the former state.

While the US can’t go back to the “Leave-It-to-Beaver” days, the populous can begin to demand politicians behave within the bounds of what is considered right and wrong. And, as a populous let’s not get sidetracked that only certain religions have the answer to what is right and wrong.  For every major religion, the major tenets are essentially the same for guiding what is right/wrong.  The US Constitution is also a great guide.

Unfortunately, since the Big Bang has left us with the toothpaste dilemma, the only way that seems feasible to jolt society and politicians back to some kind of normalcy is a revolution. Let’s hope the damage from the revolution is relatively mild.  Better still, let’s hope I’m wrong and we find another way.

 

#362. Trying to Understand Trump Supporters

08 Sunday Dec 2019

Posted by in Causes of the Revolution, Education Issues, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

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, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #332.  An update coming later in December.

In the previous entry I committed to try and understand why people continue to support Trump. What is particularly puzzling is support for Trump by people whose core values are polar opposite of Trump’s behavior. Why would one make such a decision?

Because a discussion about Trump can be so emotional, I thought it better to first have a couple of “experimental conversations.” Also, and maybe somewhat selfishly, I thought the experimental conversations should be with people who are really more acquaintances than close personal friends. Thus, if the experiment went bad, then the consequence of alienating each other would not be damage to a close personal relationship.

Two candidates for the experimental conversations immediately came to mind. #1 was someone from high school with whom I’ve had no contact since other than on Facebook. #2 was a second-generation immigrant with whom I had a working relationship a couple of years ago.

When considering the candidates, I understand somewhat why the one from high school might be a Trump supporter. Why the second-generation immigrant supports Trump makes no sense. Why would he ever support Trump? He’s Hispanic, grew up in south Texas near the border. Obviously, I’m missing something in his logic stream.

A key open issue with the research is the venue for the dialogue. Each venue has benefits and drawbacks. Facebook is easy to use but uncontrollable. The conversation between us could be interrupted by a myriad of friends of the participants or of mine.

Email might be okay to introduce the idea and present a few questions, but nuances and subtleties are nearly impossible in email. Plus, the time lag with back-and-forth emails would break the rhythm of the conversation. Texting would be faster but, as with email, nuance remains nearly impossible.

So the plan? Use old technology. The initial contact with the candidates will be email. The email will discuss the experiment and ask about participating. If yes, then set a time for a call to begin the conversation.

Given the sensitivity of the topic, one of the guidelines will likely be that the candidate can stop the interview at any time, but with the commitment that within a few days, we would try to talk again. If the second call goes south, okay. The experiment with that person fails. Not to be discouraged, lots of experiments fail. Also, like experiments one should make every effort to understand what went wrong, and not just point fingers at the other person.

After a couple of experiments the idea is to talk to more Trump supporters, trying to understand their perspective. “Why waste your time?” has been a frequent comment from people I’ve discussed the idea with. The conversation usually also includes, “Trump supporters will never change.”

The naysayers are probably right. But the curiosity in me is compelling. Maybe, just maybe, there’s an underlying issue creating support for Trump that can be addressed with a solution that is good for society at large and addressed without Trump’s usual bombastic and hurtful approach.

At the worst, the experiment should become good conversation at cocktail parties and family gatherings. Rather than yelling at one another, talking about the experiment might allow different camps to have civil discourse. You never know.

So, I’m off to pursue my naive experiment. I’m going to try and start this week. Probably won’t have any results for a couple of weeks, but I will post them in the blog.

If you have an idea about how to approach understanding why people with a polar opposite set of values than Trump still support Trump, please let me know. Or, if you have a question or two you’d like to have answered, please forward as well. Thanks. All for now.

#341 SCOTUS Puts another Arrow in Revenge Revolution’s Quiver

30 Sunday Jun 2019

Posted by in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Societal Issues, Stupid Is as Stupid Does

≈ Leave a comment

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, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #332.  

The original entry for this week was a diversion from politics, culture and the potential for a Revenge Revolution sometime after 2020. The topic was ideas about the Big Bang Theory and the formation of the universe. (I’ll publish the Big Bang entry sometime in the next few weeks.)

Maybe discussing the idea of the Big Bang was fortuitous. A big bang seemed to be the thinking of the Supreme Court this past week. The decision regarding legality of extremely partisan gerrymandering — Rucho vs. Common Cause — may go down as one of the most illogical SCOTUS decisions of the last 100-150 years. Use Plessy vs Ferguson as a reference point for being illogical.

The majority opinion, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, claimed SCOTUS was not entitled to second-guess state legislatures’ decisions re gerrymandering, even if the result was extreme disproportionate representation. Really? The majority of SCOTUS’ justices claimed the Constitution did not provide authority for the Supreme Court to address such state issues as gerrymandering, and besides, the framers envisioned that politics would influence the drawing of legislative districts.

Duh, Roberts, put aside the legal mumbo-jumbo and try to figure out what’s right and wrong for the country. The case, which involved extreme gerrymandering in North Carolina, demonstrated clearly that Republican legislators intended to discriminate against certain voters, i.e., Democrats, the Party which happens to include most black and Hispanic voters.

The consultant, hired by the Republican-controlled NC legislature, publicly stated disappointment that he could ensure Republicans only 10, not 11, of 13 the seats in the US Hose of Representative despite the percentage of voters in North Carolina being split about evenly between Democrats and Republicans, and slightly favoring Democrats.

Gee, Roberts, using your logic, it’s OK if Democratic votes in North Carolina count less than 1/2 of what Republicans votes count. (Of the 13 districts, based on the number of Republicans and Democrats, at least six (6) should be represented by Democrats. With the gerrymandered districts, Democrats hold only three (3), or less than 50%.) If the SCOTUS justices keep referencing the Constitution as the basis for the gerrymandering decision, at least have Democratic votes count 3/5 of a Republican vote, which is what the Constitution noted that slaves counted.

When citing laws and legal precedent, ever think about considering the 14th Amendment? What about considering the Voting Rights Act? What about Brown vs. Board of Education? Okay, I understand your logic. None of these decisions had been made when the Constitution was written and, therefore, should not be considered.

But wait. What about the Citizen’s United case?  In Citizens United the majority, of which you were a member, claimed that when it came to campaign financing a corporation was really a person and should be treated as such. I’ve looked at my copy of the Constitution and I can’t find where corporations are mentioned, let alone being considered “people.” Your logic must be to reference the Constitution when convenient but to disregard the Constitution when you want a different outcome.

A second Supreme Court ruling this past week was well-publicized, but frankly a bunch of meaningless noise. The second decision prohibited the Bureau of Census from including a question about citizenship during the 2020 census. Roberts, in an apparent Fox-News attempt to be “fair and balanced,” sided with the Democrats on prohibiting the citizenship question.

But Roberts’s position is a ruse. The SCOTUS decision does not prevent future census from including a citizenship question. Moreover, with all the publicity around the case, Roberts and Republicans already have convinced many immigrants, even legals, not to respond to the census. And who can blame them? As long as Trump is in office, immigrants will be targets for deportation, regardless of status, and the Trump administration has demonstrated repeatedly a willingness to ignore restrictions on misusing and/or sharing confidential information.

How should the Supreme Court decisions be interpreted? In the months and years ahead, the US will experience more partisanship, and as hard as it might be to believe, even more extreme positions by politicians. With the gerrymandering decision in place, politicians must now consider all members of the other party as the enemy if a politician is to survive in the primaries in the gerrymandered districts. Compromise and civility will be surefire paths to losing a primary, which has become the defacto general election.

The gerrymandering decision piled on top of the Citizens United case, should be viewed as the Supreme Court putting another arrow in the Revenge Revolution’s quiver. Given the stupid-is-as-stupid does approach of the Supreme Court combined with the abdication by the McConnell-led Senate Republicans to thwart any illicit and illegal actions by Trump, the only solution to steer this country back to the middle where a government can work for all people seems to be a revolution.

Comments, welcome, as always.  Any, yes, have a happy 4th of July.  Wasn’t there a revolution sometime around then?