Greening the Sinai Peninsula

 #369: Would It Work?

...................

If you haven't heard about the amazing idea that a near-desert, the Sinai peninsula, could possibly become a healthy, productive landscape of farms, grassland, and forest, you are in for a real treat.

My introduction came via the David Byrne newsletter, Reasons To Be Cheerful, which I heartily recommend.  I then googled the subject and picked the Guardian link (above, first paragraph), which involves additional detail.

The gist, for those who don't feel like a 5-10 minute read, is that using the dredged sediments from the bottom of a large lake along the Mediterranean coast, the washed-away soil of a good deal of the peninsula can be returned, while at the same time, fog-nets in the mountains will catch moisture.  Most importantly, though, hundreds of greenhouses equipped with vats of life-breeding organisms will hop-scotch around the peninsula, generating greenery, then moving on to the next location.  After decades of hard work, the moisture in the air, flowing from the Mediterranean, will begin to fall as rain, thanks to the more moist local air.  

What's even more exciting is the possibility that a greened Sinai peninsula will act to funnel rain to the east, south and west (I assume Jordan, Upper Egypt, Saudi and Yemen) almost all of which is barren and unproductive.  This would allow what is now mostly wasteland to support some of the excess population found in the region, and hopefully avoid water-related conflict and other sources of tension.

The good news is that re-greening a vast area has happened before, in the loess hills of China, described in both articles linked to above.

The possible bad news (my own opinion) involves at least three hurdles that the project will encounter:

* Political.  The Chinese government didn't have to deal with an Islamist insurgency that has made the northern Sinai a no-go zone over the past decade. 

* Financial.  The Chinese government in the 1990s, though they had help from the World Bank, were able to dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars to the project.  The Egyptian government, by way of comparison, has somewhat less control of its economy; that is, fewer resources to work with.  And, they'll be paying for a European company to do the dredging, while the Chinese relied on local farmers who were likely paid very little.

* Cultural.  The Chinese banned tree cutting and grazing when implementing their project.  Can the Bedouin, plus Egyptian locals in the northern Sinai be expected to refrain from grazing?  

Hopefully the Islamists will fade away if the re-greening project attracts enough investment to create sufficient jobs and economic progress.  Probably the most important variable will be whether re-greening is seen as a local project, or an effort engineered by outsiders who have the Egyptian government to enforce their plans.

To sum up, the science involved is probably less problematic than is the execution.  At least the re-greening project, if it takes shape, will be seeking to work with nature, rather than against it.

Plotting Success -- It Isn't Easy

 #368: Nonetheless, We'll Take A Crack At It

....................

In the Washington Monthly, David Atkins tries to explain why Democrats should forget about appealing to middle-of-the-road voters, and instead embrace what gets the base excited.  He thinks this is the way out of the trap that faces the Democratic party: not only do Republicans consistently get fewer votes at the presidential level (seven out of the last eight elections) yet still win or come close thanks to the Electoral College, but congressional elections are just as skewed in favor of Republicans--thanks to redistricting.

He identifies "popularism" (finding which Democratic proposals are most popular, and basing campaigns on them, exclusively) as the problem.  This is, he believes, because the proposals that generate the most excitement among activists (he mentions police reform, climate change, anti-racism) are what will get out the vote.

Given his arguments for this view (summarized below), it occurred to me that it's often the case that there's something to both sides of any argument.  And with that in mind, I comment (in green) on Atkins' points, #1 through #5, then suggest the two sides can be one.

Atkins:

1. Opinion surveys can't gauge what really motivates voters.

They're a starting point.  Usually, helping voters is a sure bet. 

2. Republicans win elections, despite having unpopular policies.

Usually because their opponents make tone-deaf mistakes. 

3. Activists won't stop pushing for social change, popular or not.

Nor should they.

4. De-emphasizing 'unpopular' issues may not bring back independents.

Or, talking someone's language is a first step. 

5. Appealing to the center at the expense of the base would lose votes.

Right-wingers certainly agree, witness their sharp turn to the fringe Right.

We can't possibly anticipate every future twist and turn, but a good bet is that combining the Left and Center, if it were possible, would be the most likely way forward.  So, what would that look like?  Maybe:

November '21: Includes addressing Climate Change, funding universal Pre-K, patching ObamaCare.

Spring '22: Identify symbolic cuts to the Deficit, and promise a major crackdown once the economy is humming.

Summer/Fall '22: Propose the following as a Democratic Party agenda if the Democratic margin increases to 52 in the Senate and the House is held:

1.  Allow Medicare to bargain for lower prescription drug prices.

2.  Climate Change, Part II

3.  A path to citizenship for Dreamers

4.  Family Leave

5.  Free Community College

Paid for by #1, above, as well as other revenue sources.

2023: A Voting Rights carve-out of the Senate Filibuster.

2024: Like '22, appeal to voters with a mix of max-popular items and progressive priorities.

2025+: Assuming wins in '22 and '24, take on things that need 60 votes.  By then, Republican moderates will likely have regained their voice (losing, time and again, will do that to you).  Or, if not, eliminate the filibuster and take on the next batch of super-popular items, plus a few progressive favorites.

The idea is to choose the most popular moderate and progressive agenda items on the buffet table; then, once properly fortified, and with the wind at your back, get to the remaining issues that seemed like such hard nuts to crack when you were weak and hungry. 

Grace Slick's "White Rabbit" -- Lyrics

 #367: An Anti-Drug Song?

...............

I take it these lyrics, in black below, appeared on the Jefferson Airplane album, Surrealistic Pillow, released in 1967.  I say this because in a few instances there are other words I've always 'heard' in my own mind--of course this is true of many situations where the listener doesn't own the recording, and so doesn't see the words in print.  

This questioning of 'official' lyrics got me to look up the song on Wikipedia, read the commentary, as well as history, and look closer.  (Note: Slick originally wrote this song, in '65 - '66 when with a different band.)

So, a few comments (in red):

One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small

And the ones that mother gives you, don't do anything at all

(A comment I read suggested that the initials to the words "larger", "small" "don't" spell out LSD.  That seems like cherry picking, in the case of "don't".  Instead, the word in question is "you", which if it began with a 'd' would be "dou".  So, no dice.  The lyrics even continue with "don't do", so that's that.)  

Go ask Alice, when she's ten feet tall

And if you go chasing rabbits, and you know you're going to fall

Tell 'em a hookah-smoking caterpillar has given you the call

(Here, one can make the case that the word shouldn't be 'call', but 'cord'.  Perhaps it was, originally, but was considered too direct, plus it didn't rhyme as well as "call".  But it's perfect, otherwise, since it could also be spelled 'chord'.  On the other hand, there are but two, linked "call"s in the song.  What's the 'link'?  Perhaps, the "oh ok, ah" attitude to taking drugs needs to be discussed with a female friend who's sober. 

Also, the "...and you know..." could be imagined as "and, you know, you are going to fall")

And call Alice, when she was just small

When the men on the chessboard get up and tell you where to go

And you've just had some kind of mushroom, and your mind is moving low

(Grace Slick once, famously, claimed that "White Rabbit" was an anti-drug song, which most laughed at.  But, that's ignoring "...the men on the chessboard...", and possibly, the "...hookah-smoking caterpillar..."  If we remember that this is a female perspective--one of the first with a confident, decided tone--one can read it as advice for situations in which men seek to dominate (..."tell you where to go").  The advice is that Alice will know when she is 'small'.  In other words, it's easiest to judge situations when sober.

Note: Also, there is one female on a chessboard, and 'she' is as powerful as Slick's delivery.)    

Go ask Alice, I think she'll know

When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead

(Here's one I've also heard differently.  The end of the line would be standard English if it were "...by the way".  But of course it can't be, since "...sloppy dead" rhymes with the song's final three lines.  Besides, it's fun, and could even be a snide comment: "BTW, aren't the Dead (a contemporaneous band) a bit sloppy compared to us? Ha ha.")

And the white knight is talking backwards

(Here, "knight" can become "king...ht" if the 'ni' is read or spoken backwards.)

And the red queen's off with her head

(A commenter noted that it's actually the queen of hearts that says "off with her head" in the books by Lewis Carroll, and, furthermore, that the white knight is not the character who talks backwards.  Which makes the pairing of the white knight and the red queen in the song's lyrics quite telling, and fitting, especially with the "larger...smaller" imagery, earlier)

Remember what the dormouse said

Feed your head, feed your head

(The five last words of the final five lines are, in order, dead, backwards, head, said, head, which could be a nice play on the word "head", using it as a verb as well as a noun.  But where is 'backwards', anyway, if we did want to head that way?  If it rhymed, it would be "backweds", so, possibly, Alice's knowing advice is for a woman to wait for her White Knight to turn into a forward-facing king, rather than following orders on a chessboard, or accepting a "cat's" pill, when one's mind is "...moving low...".)

So, overall, the listener hears a buffet table of ambiguous meanings, which is the mark of a well-rounded, mature song.  I highlight an alternate interpretation to underline that ambiguity.

What The Devil Wants

#366: Not What You Think

....................

I recently googled "What Does The Devil Want", and as expected, there were many religious attempts to define the answer.  In fact, many fell into the trap of self-confirmation (several church websites had  "Keeping you from Church and studying the Bible." as a central devilish concern).  Below, I make a few observations on the topic:

  * Apparently the origin of the word 'devil' involves the Greek for 'slander'.  I find that interesting because, at first glance, slander doesn't seem that big of a deal.  In 2016 a candidate for president made up outlandish charges (Your father plotted to kill JFK), and defamatory nicknames ("Lyin' Ted Cruz", "Crooked Hillary", "Low Energy Jeb").  But, instead of being sidelined for the devil's work, that candidate easily won his party's nomination, and the presidency.  Of course, when you think twice about it, the use of slander is war--in miniature.

  *  Another answer to our question comes from the place where the devil lives--or should we say 'lived' since he's surely dead--hell.  If heaven is its opposite, hell is full of misery and lost hope.  But, isn't the realm of hell simply what happens to a mind that has chosen what it knows to be wrong?  When we transgress, we move from the unitary, internal agreement that is heaven, to the miserable duality of knowing we've made a mistake: regret, shame, and self-punishment.

What the devil wants, using the heaven and hell spectrum, is for us to end up divided in our minds, hating what we do, yet doing it anyway.  That is, ignoring our conscience and suffering the consequences.  Perhaps the best way to get a person to abandon the ship of conscience is to tempt him with the idea that he can get away with wrong-doing.  And if a movement emerged that treated 'getting away with it' as a manly virtue, that mocked shame (for pussies) and apologies (wimps), and attracted a leader who was a marvel at communicating those lessons (by literally never paying a price for his multitude of serious transgressions), wouldn't that be the perfect vessel to fulfill the devil's desire?

  * Finally, though, the devil would have to exact his price: hauling his minions off to hell.  That, of course, is his overall goal, so once a deal is struck, his targets abandon their conscience, revel in the giddy delight of not getting caught, reassure themselves on this account by repeating the same slanders ("Our enemies aren't worthy.") until the price must be paid: defeat, and the rest of their lives in hell.  Of course what has happened is that without a conscience, their inner decision-making process is compromised, atrophies, and is then abandoned, in favor of directions from their leader, making the end inevitable.  The foolish impulse finds its way into action.  The body rebels, with nervous ticks, or their equivalent, on display.  Doom then finds its prey, like the haunting owl's hoot: "Woo, woo, woo, woo, woo!        

Every Day A Winner

 #365: Walking Away --> Sometimes Key To Success

............

I admire people who don't need life to turn out one way or another.  They wake up in the morning and navigate a best way forward, no matter what disappointments occur.  And, if thwarted, they simply recalculate based on their new reality.  This may involve resistance, or it may be time to move on.

A person who doesn't need a certain outcome in life, doesn't need to control reality.  Instead, the twists and turns of fate can be scanned for opportunity, and sometimes what at first seems like a second-best outcome, or alternate course, becomes an unforeseen windfall.  On the other hand, it's usually the case that disappointments in life send one down what are obviously secondary paths.  But even then, it's better to accept reality, and be grateful as one counts one's blessings.  That's because, if things aren't going to get any better, why not turn one's full attention to making the best of it--that is, aiming for every day a winner?

Which is how I feel about President Biden's agenda getting through Congress.  If it succeeds, that's a win. If it doesn't, that could possibly, in the end, be a second-best result, though still getting quite close to an ideal outcome.

Here's the rundown, as I see it, covering the main characters, their outlook, and a bottom line for each.  

President Biden: He'll take whatever deal he can get, including a trade with SineManchin that sees, at minimum, several programs (Child Care, Paid Leave, Free Community College, Pre-K For All Kids, extended Child Tax Credit, Medicaid for non-Participant States, ObamaCare Patches, Climate, Medicare Expansion) in exchange for passing the Bi-Partisan Infrastructure bill that SineManchin are eager to see become law. 

Joe Manchin: To win his senate seat in 2024 (at age 77), he wants to take a stand against government largesse.  He likes the Infrastructure spending, and might accept several programs as listed above, but in general, the less the better.  How much of his strategy is a pose that he can abandon?  We don't know.  My guess is that it's all for real; he won't budge--very much.

Kyrsten Sinema: Arizona is a relatively conservative 'purple' state with a lot of well-off retirees.  Sinema, much to the irritation of most Democrats, is trying to appeal to middle-of-the-road voters, and hoping she can get past any primary opponent when she runs for re-election in 2024 (at age 48).  She has scuttled Democratic party plans to tax the rich and corporations, along with a plan to sock it to the big pharmaceutical companies.  In general, like Manchin, she believes less is better and seems to be hoping nothing passes, save for the Infrastructure bill she helped shepherd through Congress.  Will she compromise, once she's established herself as a conservative Democrat?  I'm guessing she's willing to give up a little bit, but only as long as she's seen as a throttler.

Bernie Sanders: Sanders, and the other progressives in Congress, want the entire $3.5 billion over ten years, if not more.  They're likely to wait until the last possible moment to see if the other side blinks.  Then they'll accept a deal that's at least $1.5 trillion or more, over ten years, but nothing less.

In all cases, the likeliest timeline involves a November agreement, if there is one.  This is because the US would like to pressure other countries to pledge generously to the fight against Climate Change at the upcoming UN conference in Glasgow, Scotland, occurring Oct. 31 through November 12.

Even if the Biden Agenda passes with little to show, Climate-wise, there will be government action to announce at the conference.  The EPA's Michael Regan has rules for methane emissions, as well as energy production, if Congress fails to act.  But, ideally, the start of the conference would see an agreement announced based on the relatively ambitious Biden agenda. 

What might the second-best outcome be?  Unless SineManchin are bluffing, and desperately want their Bi-Partisan Infrastructure bill, signing the two bills will likely leave out quite a few component parts.  But, this would allow Democratic candidates to campaign on those extras. Democrats could say: "All we need are another two senators, and everything's doable, including...XYZ".  The focus would be on the specific programs, themselves--many very popular--rather than on the 'deal' that's unfolding and how much it would cost.

Could SineManchin be bluffing?  It's not likely, but certainly possible.  This would be a very well kept secret: that both senators told Biden when negotiations began that they needed to drag out the negativity, but that as long as they're seen as nay-sayers, they'll eventually say they wanted the Infrastructure bill too badly to hold out, and all or most of the 3.5T will pass.  Somewhat more likely is that nothing is passed, and much more likely that a small portion makes it through the wringer.   

What's the likelihood that Democrats keep the House and add two senate seats?  Most experts would say that this is very unlikely.  But, there are several things working in the other direction (as I explained in an earlier post):

* Biden's predecessor has been acting erratically, and could easily become too old for his role as party boss.  Plus, he has a record of making everything about him.  So, if his favored candidate is beaten by another Republican in a state primary, he may refuse to endorse the victor, ruining that candidate's chances.  Likewise, he may pick a flawed candidate, and that candidate wins his primary, but ruins the party's chances in the general.

* Covid could be on the way out.  If it is, or is for the most part, the nation's mood could improve dramatically.

* The economy could take off.  Despite Covid's Delta variant, the threat of inflation, and supply chain problems, the economy has been chugging along.  The most likely to disappear is inflation.  Most higher-level economists point to recent inflation pressures as being temporary.

* Anti-Vax fever among some Republican politicians is almost certainly a loser.  It is hard to believe there aren't Republican advisers trying to kill what is a bug-eyed 'painting yourself into a corner' position if there ever was one (the percent of voters who are vaccinated against Covid is probably close to 75% and the percent vaccination against Measles, etc., is nearly 100%).

What about a "We don't need this" approach from Bernie and the progressives?  Could it work?  In other words, if progressive Democrats refuse to pass the Infrastructure bill without the full $3.5 trillion over ten years also passing, would SineManchin blink?  Most political pundits would say it wouldn't work, since Biden himself has said the total price would likely be lower.  But who knows?  The power of "I don't need this." is often underrated.  And if Biden and SinaManchin had made a wink-and-nod deal in advance, it'd be the perfect thing for Biden to say "It'll be less." to erase any footprints (the deal where SineManchin act out, before changing their tune at the last minute).  And if you think about it, running for re-election on a popular platform, with very popular pay-fors (taxing the rich and corporations) isn't a bad consolation prize for the progressives.

It might even make for a winner of a day--but not until November 8th '22.

My point, though, is always aim to win the day, and that starts with being grateful, no matter what.

 

What's With All The *@?1`* WTF Language?

 #364: So What?

.................

Like most modern Americans I hear everybody's 'few choice words' and consider it par for the course.  But let's take a closer look:

When someone swears, what are they really doing?  They're breaking a taboo.

But what if we switched taboos?  What if, to express outrage, frustration, independence, or just for emphasis, the custom became to briefly remove an item of clothing?

"Not fair", you say, since speech is much more of an abstract expression than is covering up/uncovering our bodies.

Actually, 'mooning' someone, or more often other people, plural, does seem a bit like cursing.  And our little experiment reveals something about swearing: that it's more 'attack' than 'defense'; it's aimed at another person's comportment and standards, or more often, general societal standards, rather than ones' own.  This becomes easy to understand if you imagine someone who's so isolated they know no one can hear; and when they swear, the words have no strength; they're but weak imitations of the real thing, ringing hollow in the speaker's mind.

Which is the reason I don't swear, save for the occasional "big, big 'D'" as the song goes.  But does it bother me when others swear?  Yes and no.  In the end I'm invariably unaffected, so I end up not caring.  I do feel sorry for someone who fails to use choice words sparingly and in just the right situation.  And it does bother me, initially--as it takes a split second to confirm the speaker's intent, just as a sudden lunge in your direction, in a crowd, is disconcerting, briefly, until you realize someone just wants to shake you hand.

Another reason I don't swear is that like removing one's clothes and standing naked in front of strangers, the common prohibition on the mixing of public and private spaces is a handy rule of thumb for discerning appropriate conduct.  The exceptions, like allusions, allegorical art, the manipulation of symbols, and so on, are what fuels creativity; but if not partially hidden from view, that creativity simply fails, due to over-exposure.

Smart Money On Clean Energy

#363: Why Climate Change Isn't Just Another Ozone Hole

.........................

For those of you too young to remember, the '80s and '90's had what at first glance seems like something similar to Climate Change as an urgent issue: an ozone hole over Antarctica.  Looking back at what was a successful campaign to end the use of the chemical causing the problem, CFCs, some would say, "Hey, we'll solve Climate, too, just give us time."  Except that's not how it works with Climate.  That's because almost all economic activity uses fossil fuels or causes carbon to be released.  This is changing, slowly, with innovations in energy, agriculture, and materials allowing progress, but altering what fuels our economy uses is a much bigger challenge than banning a single chemical used as a refrigerant.

That's why governments must lead the way; for obvious reasons (spreading the word, raising the enormous funds necessary, and getting it done ASAP) as well as to signal to other nations that we're a team player.

Surprisingly, the first countries to change over to a clean energy economy won't be the ones taking the biggest hit, but those likely to be the big winners, globally.  Don't we want the Googles, Apples and Twitters of renewable energy technology to be in the US?  Besides, taxes on carbon (a national tax as well as international tariffs) are inevitable, so those who change now pay little in the long run.  And who wants to be the last one to buy a gas-powered car?  If it has no resale value, gasoline is taxed much more vigorously, and gas stations have all but disappeared, that's a losing proposition.

And where are we in getting ready to surf the coming wave?  A major first step in the right direction is currently awaiting passage in the Senate.  President Biden's Build Back Better policy agenda would mean walking down the beach towards that clean energy wave on the horizon.  Ironically, the senator least likely to go along with Biden's plans is from a state that would greatly benefit from the government spending involved.

Hopefully something will remain of our president's Climate agenda if and when BBB passes the Senate.  The obvious thing to do at that point, aside from talking up the economic gold mine that is being innovative and cutting-edge, rather than late to the party, is for Democrats to get to 52 seats in the Senate, and then get rid of the filibuster, making the governing process much easier, and enacting what are popular Democratic policies.

The chances of that happening aren't as long as some would think.  Here's my top-10 list of what might happen to cause the Dems to get lucky.

And here is Ed Kilgore with the suggestion that Dems reserve the highly popular Medicare Expansion provisions (vision, dental, hearing) for 2022, when voters would be reminded why they want to vote Democratic.

 

How To Handle China

 #362: Answer:  The US Will Take These Steps If You Don't Behave

........................

The reunification of China is not something I oppose, and I imagine that is how most Americans view the matter.  What does irritate is a 'husband' telling a 'wife' that she must submit, without first attracting her with righteous action.

A recent speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping restated his desire for a peaceful reunification with Taiwan, a self-governing island since China's civil war ended in 1949.  Few people have any problem with this sentiment.  Instead, the reason Taiwan has said 'no', and the US has backed them up, is because Xi's China wants its 'wife' more than it wants to please her.

Obviously, everybody has a lot on the line.  With the world's economy intimately connected, any hostilities, let alone an invasion of Taiwan, would bring ruin to our lives, planet-wide.  To avoid such a mess, the US should communicate to Xi that if he doesn't behave, the US will take the following steps:

 * Publicly link Xi to 'the husband who desires his wife, but won't please her'.  This shaming would be a big embarrassment, and if it were communicated in concert with other world leaders, the effect would be world class humiliation.

 * A next step, if necessary, would be to publicly urge the relocation of business links to other markets

 * Yet another step would be to offer incentives for said relocation, and for active government investment in necessary substitute supplies of things like rare earth metals

 * Finally, if Xi won't abide by the laws of marital engagement, a defensive military posture can be augmented

Ideally, none of the above would be necessary.  A private message, signed by the US and its allies would lay out the above four steps and ask that Xi 'attract' Taiwan in his bid for reunification.

Will 'Plant A Billion Trees' Work?

#361: A Local Cautionary Tale

........................

The fight against Climate Change involves cutting emissions of greenhouse gasses, first and foremost.  Eventually, we'll also want to remove carbon from the air, since much of what we emitted in the past century will otherwise be in our atmosphere for a long time, causing Climate Chaos.  In some regions this will involve artificially removing carbon.  In most of the world, however, planting grasses at sea, and trees on land is the obvious, natural solution.  

Unfortunately, there are problems with our efforts at planting trees.  As this Vox article by Benji Jones points out, trees need water, the right soil, and usually, cooperation from the locals.  Otherwise, if planted in the middle of a hot summer, in inhospitable soil, or in a field used for grazing, most seedlings will perish. 

A local example:  A decade or so ago a particularly curvy section of a local highway was straightened by the state highway department, and in its former curvy areas trees were planted.  I imagine the on-paper master plan for this project had generic blobs of trees on each side of the roadway.  Someone then asked a tree person what kinds of trees should be planted.  The answer was probably smaller ornamental offerings so as not to eventually pose the threat of a taller tree falling on the road.

When one drives through this area these days, the planted trees have suffered from deer damage, something the state's experts, living in an urban area, perhaps didn't consider.  In this more rural location, trees need the following:

* water, in particularly dry months, during the year after planting

* minimal fencing to keep deer from eating and rubbing

* mowing, to keep competing vegetation from overcoming planted trees

Ironically, 'volunteer' trees will take over if allowed.  For Climate, this is probably the likeliest solution.  Unfortunately, this could easily result in massive hackberry, oak and maple within yards of the roadway, a no-no for a highway department that must constantly fight fallen limbs and trunks (Fun Fact: nearly a century ago a wealthy local planted sycamores along this roadway, county line to county line.  Unfortunately, though beautiful, they were all removed, in their prime, to widen the road).

So, the obvious solutions are a fall planting to avoid a spring planting plus drought, in addition to minimal fencing (I re-purpose livestock fencing for my trees).  Alternatively, as I do, mowers can be on the lookout for 'volunteers' growing in the right location.  These are often the result of squirrel know-it-all foresight, and can be flagged and mowed around.  This takes a good eye and a grounding in tree-identification.  But this still leaves deer as spoilers, so best to settle for fencing.

Top Ten Events Leading To A Democratic Victory In 2022

 #360: Will These Events Happen?  Possibly.

......................

Predicting the future isn't easy, but we can imagine the future based on possible events, and be fairly sure--if those events are significant--about where they might lead.

So, let's explore ten events, ranked according to the certainty they'd mean a Democratic victory in the 2022 midterms.  #10 is the least likely, #1 the most:

#10:  Democrats attract 'mirror' candidates for congressional districts in which the Republican candidate is heavily favored.  Mirror candidates promise to reflect constituent opinion, rather than to offer their own.  They run as 'outsiders', bringing sanity to Washington.  The idea is to peel off enough independents to deprive the traditional Republican candidate of a sure win.  Candidates would reflect constituent opinion by holding town halls, commissioning polls, and setting up online feedback mechanisms, then voting accordingly.  Direct democracy's lure in the tech age might be hard for the independent-minded to resist.

#9:  Afghanistan fades from the headlines, and instead of periodic reminders of tragic death and destruction, the realization that we removed ourselves from an endless war gains the upper hand.  Ideally, the Taliban would have immediate difficulties governing and have to rein in their worst tendencies in order to secure international investment.  Or, even better, their autocracy collapses due to intransigence, incompetence and recession-induced infighting, leading to elections and an internationally recognized unity government.

#8:  Iowa senator Chuck Grassley dies, aged 89, just weeks before his 2022 election contest.  Iowa Republican party leadership, controlled by Trump loyalists, selects a replacement nominee who is unprepared for prime time.  He makes several gaffes, and fumbles softball questions from Fox News hosts.  The Democratic candidate draws enough independent voter support to squeak through to victory, preserving a 50-50 Senate.

#7:  The various voter-suppression efforts at the state level (Texas, for example) have the perverse effect of egging on marginal Democratic voters, who want to vote based on some of the other items on this list.  This reverse psychology also energizes the organizers tasked with getting out the vote.

#6:  The Delta variant of the Covid-19 virus becomes increasingly confined to areas of the country where vaccination rates are lowest.  These areas correspond to regions where Republican voters constitute a clear majority.  With a death rate differential (deaths in Red areas minus those in Blue areas) averaging perhaps 500 a day, for a year, there'd be something like a hundred thousand fewer Republican votes by election day.  In a few close races (perhaps Georgia's senate contest), that could be the difference.

#5:  Our 45th president suffers extreme embarrassment as New York state's investigation into the Trump Corporation uncovers massive tax evasion and insider coddling.  Add in his other looming, legal headaches and the publicity is sure to register with 2022 voters.  Will his hand-picked governor, senate and house candidates want him on stage, campaigning with them?  But of course.

#4:  During his two years out of office, come 2022, our previous president has kept up his high fat, high cholesterol, low fiber diet.  His legal predicaments cause intense stress.  This eventually catches up with him.  Hobbled by a heart condition, stroke, or other ailment, he's a shadow of his pre-presidential self and unwilling to expose his weakness in a public attempt to fire up the Republican base.  The party is rudderless just when it needs a shot in the arm.  

#3:  The vaccination rate nears something approaching 'herd immunity' in most metro and suburban areas.  Cases, hospitalizations and deaths plummet as the virus is confined to areas of low vaccination.  This stark contrast highlights the shocking Republican embrace of anti-vax sentiment in states like Florida.  Even greater numbers of suburban voters choose their Democratic candidate, joined by a small but significant number in rural areas.

#2:  The repeated federal spending on the pandemic, coupled with the Biden agenda's stimulus effect, means the economy is in line for a dynamic growth rate last seen in the 1990s.  Suddenly, the main pillar of Republican attacks on the Democratic agenda crumbles, bringing down Republican hopes for retaking the House and Senate.

#1:  Because of his intense need for adoration and, in turn, control over others, our previous president has managed to lower the chance of success for Republicans in a number of key races.  Instead of strong conservative candidates able to appeal to independents, his weight is instead behind toadying yes-men, each with a bumbler's single-minded resolve: to make the boss look good.  This only brings upset defeats to the fore.

I'm leaving out Inflation, Abortion and Climate, as they're either ambiguous (inflation), inflame passions on both sides (abortion), or are likely more of the same (climate).

A recent article by Matt Cooper in the Washington Monthly makes the case that the 10-year $3.5 billion Build Back Better bill now before Congress (free Community College, free Child Care, Paid Leave, extended Child Tax Credit, expansion of Medicare, and a big first step on Climate Change among other things) isn't necessary for a Democratic victory in the midterms.  And neither is the 10-year $1 billion bi-partisan Infrastructure bill.  Three possible outcomes, RE: the Biden Agenda, as I see them, ranked least to most likely to assist Democrats in 2022:

#3: The Infrastructure bill passes; the Build Back Better bill does not.  We should remember that, on its way to the Senate, Republicans in the House, egged on by the former president, voted against the bi-partisan infrastructure bill, a wildly popular spending plan, just to deny Biden a win.  Votes against were also being readied as of last week.  In '22, faced with opponents who remind voters of this shameful, heedless selfishness, what's a loyal, Trumpified Congressman to say?

#2: Neither bill passes.  As Cooper points out, this allows for an aggressive Democratic message in 2022.

#1: The Two Bills, Linked, Pass Together.  Even if the price tag is brought down significantly, the 'win' would be contagious.

According to this informative tweet, the specific $$ amounts (in billions), over ten years, for several likely items in the Build Back Better bill are: 

Child Care and Pre-K: $465                                                                                                                            

Paid Leave: $450

Climate: $625

Free Community College: $120

IRS Funding $80 

Total: $1.74 trillion, almost exactly half the original Biden plan.  This, or a similar scaled-back version would presumably receive the blessing of Democratic hold-out senators, given the following tweaks: 

* Allow fossil fuel sequestration to count toward renewable energy (once that proposed technology has been proven reliable).  

* Make the first two items means-tested (if you're rich enough you don't need them), which would bring the total down to the 1.5 T maximum identified by one key senator.  Note: few rich kids would be going to community college.

* Task the IRS with providing taxpayers all they need to file a digital return.  Make it an easy few minutes online for the vast majority of filers.  This would surely be very popular, and help congress swallow the 'increased enforcement' pill--also very popular.

Paying for the above would be a handful of items selected from the right-hand side of the linked tweet, above.

...............

10/13 Update: Ed Kilgore, in New York magazine, suggests that Democrats hold off on the very popular Medicare expansion plank in the Biden agenda, and save that for a reconciliation bill in 2022.  This would mean that just when voters were making up their minds about who to vote for during the summer and fall of 2022, they'd be reminded that Democrats were voting to include vision, hearing and dental care benefits in Medicare.   If this were ranked in the above list, I would place it somewhere between #3 and #5.