Looking At The Loser Candidates -- 2016 Edition

Patriarchy Watch

If we vote Hillary Clinton into office as our 45th president, several alternative candidates will be left by the curb for pick-up.  What happened to them?  What would explain the ruins of their campaigns?

1.  Gary Johnson / William Weld, Libertarian.  The one candidacy that could conceivably still win for losing is the Libertarian ticket.  If their usual 1% in elections past becomes 5% or more, they have automatic ballot access in the 2020 contest: a win.
Optimistic Outlook: If the Republicans (see below) opt for a hollowed out rump, casting off all but the pure ideologues who 1) fear God, 2) carry guns, and 3) see conspiracy to their left, the cast out refugees from the Republican fever swamps would likely become Libertarians--absent any centrist alternative.  So, building on a 5+% result in 2016, the party could then nominate a William Weld in 2020 on a modified platform emphasizing realistic goals.  This would mean the party could conceivably vie to become second-most popular, matching the Republicans' 30% slice of the electorate, and, as a result, would become a key source of innovation in politics.
Pessimistic Scenario: the Republican party leaves its recent past behind, returning to a Jack Kemp centrism.  The Libertarian tendency to embrace simplistic solutions (open all borders, decriminalize all drugs, privatize Social Security, eliminate environmental regs) results in their usual 1-2% in 2020.

2.  Jill Stein / Ajamu Baraka, Green.  Paradoxically, the Greens are the most dependent on how the other parties shake out, even more so than the Libertarians.  A large majority of their natural base sees the folly of throwing away votes on a party likely to get at most 1%, and instead vote Democrat.
Optimistic Outlook: If the Libertarians or some other third party were to break open the duopoly of Red/Blue in American politics, the Greens could conceivably become competitive.  Let's say the Libertarians became a relatively centrist alternative to the Democrats and the Republican rump circled the wagons on the right.  The left would then, conceivably, open up.
Pessimistic Scenario:  Same old same old.  Doomed to marginal results at best; spoiler status at worst.

3.  Donald Trump / Mike Pence, Republican.  If the election were an episode of The Simpsons titled 'Bart v. Lisa', the cowabunga dude would talk a good game, but would fritter away his time cleverly pranking Moe's Tavern ("I need to talk to Amy Hurl, please").  Meanwhile, Lisa would have many thoughtfully prepared positions all ready to go, and would be the obvious choice.
Sure, Bart--like his dad--sees the light once in a while, but time and again just can't let go...of boyhood.  Likewise, no matter how many campaign managers tell him what to say, Trump simply can't let the trickster go.  Like Bart, his cleverness revels in the neato sleight-of-hand and turn-of-phrase that attract attention.
Optimistic Outlook: As I 'll explain below, Republican chances for redemption are discouraging.  A best case would be a sound thrashing for Trump, and for the Republican graybeards to organize around a much more centrist candidate for 2020.  Unlikely, since those out of touch with reality are prone to repeat the same mistakes.
Pessimistic Scenario: Due to a rousing debate performance, plus opposition research, Trump is able to salvage a relatively close, Romney-esque defeat, or do even better.  This leads to yet another boner-prone wannabe strongman to re-mix the drunk skunk recipe.

Conclusions
What all three loser parties will have in common, post-election--assuming Hillary victorious--is an inferior grasp of where a winning strategy lies.  And if we revisit the male and female archetypes we've been discussing over the past three posts, we'll see where each party likely fails.
   * Male: comparative, leading to an ideal
   * Female: positive, contextual networking

Patriarchy can be obvious.  For example: Trump's reliance on the male mindset to the exclusion of positivity (belittling as a tactic), context (his rallies could occur anywhere, as opposed to Hillary's thematic campaign stops), and networking (generally, he doesn't mix with supporters, and has a hard time listening to others' opinions).  Instead, he likes to compare his performance (polls, crowd size, zingers) and supposed winning streaks (wealth, conquests, brand).

Patriarchy can be much less obvious, in fact hidden--even taking the feminine form.  For example: Jill Stein is a woman, but the Green platform is comparative, identifying ideal positions, irregardless of political context.

Likewise, the Libertarians identify ideological answers, then apply them to contexts in which they won't fit in a politically successful way.

Here, then, is the big surprise.  Hillary Clinton represents feminism, not because she advocates the most radical approach to rectifying the injustice of sexism (what most people think of as 'feminism'), but because her positive, contextual, networking campaign is feminist in spirit.




  

The Press, The Clinton Foundation, & The Female Mind

For The Love of Good--a follow up to our previous two posts

Was Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, engaged in 'pay to play' as her detractors allege?  Or, can donations received by the Clinton Foundation during her tenure at Foggy Bottom be seen in a different light?

Let's first remind ourselves of the male and female archetypes we've discussed in the past two posts: men, generally, focus on comparative worth, a process that selects for the best; women, generally, tend to organize positive networks that are inclusive.

And what is The Clinton Foundation but an inclusive, positive network?  Over the past two decades it claims to have "improved the lives of over 430 million people in more than 180 countries".  Randomly accessing the efforts it helps fund, we find crucial projects like educating girls, providing micro-credit, fighting climate change, etc.  Each year the foundation's quarter billion dollar budget leverages billions in public sector spending, relieving those--who probably don't need it--of their money; a modern-day Robin Hood whose victims give willingly.

Contrary to the charge that donations to the Clinton Foundation are another form of political lobbying --where legislative favors are traded for campaign cash, charities do unequivocal good.  The only gain on the part of the Clinton family has been the arguable prestige accrued.  In fact, the Clintons receive no salary; plus, they donated $1 million to the foundation in 2015.  And if no favors were granted--aside from handling queries in a professional manner, what's the harm?

The standard answer is an allusion to public policy perversion: a rich donor can at least make his case, whereas those without a donation can't.  But if it's important charity work rather than personal or political gain, should the media have made such a big fuss?  Unless donors influence decisions, isn't the foundation's mission more important than keeping up appearances?  And one can be sure that if the Clintons completely removed themselves from the foundation its budget would shrivel precipitously.

Here, then, is the alternative, female way of looking at this issue:
   * The Clintons were reaching out to anyone who wanted to join their team.
   * There was friendship, communion, selflessness.
   * Those donors who acted out of line were blown off or ignored.
   * The world is about to get very troubling, so minimizing catastrophes as the entire planet is brought into the fold is more important than dealing with pearl-clutchers.
   * If the world is a family that must be protected, with no time to lose, the Clintons did the feminine, motherly thing, and those who denounce them are simply prejudiced against the female mindset.

And if the media's stumble in this case is indeed prejudice, we can see the first female presidency in yet another light.  Perhaps over the past 25 years the Clintons have been subject to bad press simply because they've represented a more feminine political style--this, by the way, likely due to Hillary, a feminist, being a driving force in the Clinton relationship.  History may well be amazed that it took so long for the media to fully realize this.  For example, Matthew Yglesias writes in Vox today about the way the media ignored former Secretary of State Colin Powell's arguably more questionable use of a charitable foundation.  But of course he was an avuncular, respected... man.

And if that doesn't convince you that charity work--if professionally and transparently run--should be encouraged, no questions asked, well, let's remember that the only alternative to voluntary donations is ...paying taxes.

Photographing A Woman President

Getting Used To A New Figurehead

Adding to my post from a month ago, here's another way to look at the same subject:

The first time I see a photograph of Hillary Clinton these days I experience a slight shock as I adjust to the new face of national leadership.  Maybe I experienced something similar when Barack Obama was about to become president; I don't remember.

The reason I think it might be different this time around is because, generally speaking, women have contextual, rather than abstract minds.  We expect them to be living in-the-moment, at least more so than men--again generally speaking.  Meanwhile, photography is abstract experience.  We could be handed a photograph of people getting wet in a rainstorm, and we're sitting in the sunshine wishing it would hurry up and rain.  So, in adjusting to a new figurehead, who's a woman, and someone we'll eventually become quite used to seeing, there's perhaps an extra hurdle to overcome.  Thus the slightly jarring, out-of-context shock we get when we see Hillary and realize she's likely to become president.

Could it also work the other way?  Once Hillary is elected, as is thought likely to happen, could the real Hillary appear, relaxed and in-the-moment?  One might think so, as the context in that case would be manifest victory; while beforehand, seeming confident, prior to the election, would be non-contextual.

If a change is truly going to come this November, we might then see a bit of this Hillary.

The First Woman To Be President

That Different Style

I posted my 337th tweet on April 6th, 2016:

Unexamined assumptions department: a female Presidency will be visually stirring, rhetorically exciting, diplomatically unambiguous.

My point, of course, being that we've always had men as presidents, so we assume that the visually stirring image, the rhetorical thunderclap, and the unambiguous declaration are part of being president, when of course they're not...necessarily.

So what might be stylistic differences that we could expect in a woman president?

Ezra Klein had a long essay in Vox (with accompanying Hillary interview) that raised this topic.  He was trying to reconcile the Hillary that her friends and associates know (funny, at ease, well liked) with the public image of a somewhat uncomfortable politician who has high negatives in public surveys.

Klein came to the conclusion that Hillary's style accentuates the feminine networking that links friends together, as opposed to the masculine focus on status that sends the best to the top.  In other words, the power of positive outreach, rather than the power of comparative striving.

The feminine answer to the projecting of dominance, then, might be to have cabinet officers take on a greater role in dealing with the public.  And, instead of 'talking head' media presentations from the Oval Office that involve citizens watching their leader, a feminine approach might be to have more town hall, roundtable, and panel discussions that showcase cooperation, listening, and attempts at consensus.

Hillary's productive relationships with her fellow senators when she was in the Senate might also suggest a higher priority being given relationships and constructive negotiations with the legislative branch.  

As for outreach to the public, perhaps she'll have fewer press conferences, and instead, once a week, invite everyday Americans to the White House in order to listen to their concerns, to suggest ways government can address their problems, and to give the public a sense of how she governs--all recorded and the video made public.

Personally, I find the ceremonial duties of the presidency to be much too time-consuming for things that could easily be left to underlings.  Hillary's known for her policy expertise, so instead, why not focus on that, and let the pardoning of the Thanksgiving turkey fall to the Vice President.

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

[8/16/16 update: the remainder of this piece was written prior to her Veep pick,  and can now be skipped]

Extra points from me: if she explains to the American public when announcing her vice presidential pick that the office of president has become so demanding that she'll have an assistant veep, who, with the V.P., will take on most of the ceremonial duties she'd normally perform.  Her Veep team would thus be:

Vice President: ask Joe Biden to stay on for another four years (serving as her legislative bridge-builder)
Assistant Vice President (serving mainly overseas): Julian Castro
In-country Special Assistant: Bill Clinton (for all the schmoozing done in this country)

A lineup like this would emphasize both past experience and set up a veep step up in the future.



  

Taking It Easy

Slow Down and Look Around

I took this photo on July 13th.  It shows what is probably the most exciting place along my work route.  Those are rare native phlox, still with us from when the prairie state was majority prairie (now, sadly, less than 1%).  They bloom in mid July.

When I got home, the electricity went off and stayed off until the minute I got in bed.  So, a lesson: some days are made for reading, reflecting, and stopping to take a picture of what makes you happy.  And do we really need to be on the internet every day?

Elizabeth Warren's Veep Prospects

Newfound Respect

The question I've been mulling recently is: Who'll Hillary pick as her vice presidential candidate?  My list's #4 and #5 (MA senator Elizabeth Warren and VA senator Tim Kaine) made it onto the current short list (along with Julian Castro, currently HUD secretary).

Recently, I read a speech, given by Warren, that changed my feelings about her prospects.

Previously, I'd liked her, but found her prescriptions too simplistic.  For example, she, along with Bernie, were for breaking up too-big-to-fail banks.  I assumed this would be like breaking up Ma Bell into the baby bells--something that happened to the telephone monopoly in the 1970s.  Plus, there'd be a reintroduced Glass-Stegall--separating banks from Wall Street.  The problem with these simple solutions is that there is a much simpler way to do it, which is what we already have.  Impose penalties on any financial institutions that are too big, and watch them do the cutting themselves.  Not cutting enough? Increase the penalties.

So, while I liked Warren and Sander's point, I thought their solutions just weren't elegant enough.

Enter Warren's big picture speech, which laid out the reasons we'd be better off if we followed Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR, and broke up monopolies wherever we found them.  Would this take on income inequality?  Yes.  How about the lack of good jobs?  Yes.  What about making American culture more interesting?  Yes--down with the big box franchise and up with the local, and smaller-scale version.

Except, if this is the answer we've all been waiting for (probably, but how would you break up Facebook and Google?), what's our strategy?  Do we fight, despite the huge monied interests arrayed against us?  Or, is what we might call decentralization the next frontier, after battles over campaign finance, Republican party obstruction, and Obama's legacy?

I sense it's the latter possibility, that Hillary is perfect for those three preliminary battles, and that Warren's decentralization agenda will only be possible afterwards.  Better that Warren nurture the movement from the outside, rather than alarm and embolden Big Business while they can still, probably, get their way.

The other way to look at this, though, is that Hillary is looking to appeal to working people who feel disadvantaged by recent economic change.  What better way to speak to them than with an Elizabeth Warren message that wealth is unevenly and unnaturally distributed due to monopolies and other unfair advantages?

My guess is that Hillary will take things one step at a time, choose a likable, safe, and probably male vice presidential candidate, and focus on winning in '16, which will involve a message that's not so much 'I'm angry and I'm fighting' as 'I'm fair and I'm firm'.

What The Future Rearranges

Getting It Wrong Right

We all use trial-and-error.  Beginning as children, we experiment with hand-eye coordination, walking, speaking and so on in a learning process that never really stops.

One could even say that we're all amateur scientists, testing our hunches on our way through life.

Our most embarrassing moments are usually caused by gaps in our understanding, when previously hidden reality is revealed.  It doesn't happen very often, but occasionally, by chance, we'll not have heard of a popular singer, for example, that our friends are talking about.  Or, as a society, we'll discover DNA testing, which can prove that someone previously convicted of a crime is in fact innocent.

Do science and technology, though, have undiscovered blind spots?  And if so, where might these lie?  I briefly describe three: past, present and future, below.  First, with social media, we have an on-going technological transformation that will soon, hopefully, reveal just how primitive our lives are now.  Then, a prior transformation, the 60s, that is only just consolidating itself, 50 years on.  And finally, an example of actual science that is on its way to being rewritten.

1.  Social Media  -- We're obviously taking baby steps, since most platforms (FB, Twitter) can't be traced back more than ten or so years.  Once humans begin using social media to organize more effectively, there'll be dramatic changes in the following three and other areas:

   *** Education (this is my big Twitter idea** that I have yet to write about).  We will gradually abandon the one-size-fits-all, pour-knowledge-into-an-empty-vessel model.  In its place will be an eating-at-your-own-pace model with teacher oversight.  Huge numbers of wasted, threadbare lives will be transformed.

   *** Communication (my little Twitter idea).  There exist many gifted people on social media who, once recognized by rightful acclaim, will contribute the talent that we as a society presently miss.

   *** Politics.  Once we've succeeded in organizing ourselves (my suggestions are here, and here) into a thinking, deliberative mind that responds to emerging trends and events with relative ease, the excruciatingly slow, wrong-headed 'politics' of today will seem like ancient history.

2.  The '60s -- Most historians would agree that something happened to us during the 60's.  A relatively straight-laced, doctrinaire approach to life was challenged, and in some ways gradually replaced, by a relatively free, fun-loving alternative.  What can we learn?

In a word: Freedom.  When free, humans are characteristically themselves; otherwise, they're merely following orders.  This is why so much changed over from orthodox to innovative.  When more and more realized that they could just stop obeying their marching orders and instead, suddenly, fling the doors of perception wide open, they became their own freemen and -women.

3.   The Pre-historic Migration of Humankind -- Here's a specific scientific blind spot, rather than a technological revelation (further background on Diffusionism, as it's called, if you're interested, here)

It is gradually dawning on historians that pre-history was the story of sea-going vessels with many empires and small bands of explorers venturing out onto the ocean in search of new lands, and that the Americas, long thought sealed off from Eurasia by vast waters, were visited, explored and settled by many cultures.

But why isn't this common knowledge?  What accounts for the blindspot, if indeed there is one?  There's a combination of four factors:

   **** Chance.  Given enough history, there's likely to be at least one era that's misunderstood.  And since the Americas are separated from the rest of the world by sea, individual hints of prior cross-hemispheric contact, when examined on their own, have always seemed impossibly anomalous, suggesting a hoax or other unlikelihood.

   **** Marginal Effect.  Compared to the advent of modern contact beginning in 1492, most pre-historic exploration had little effect on Native American culture.

  **** Die Out.  Even cultures that were able to establish a presence in the Americas would be seen, eventually, as outsiders, with different ethnic markings, like skin and hair color, which would serve as natural targets in times of stress.  Or, assimilation would see ethnic markings fade over time.

   **** Willful Ignorance.  Because western civilization was so obviously successful compared to what would otherwise be a few foreign settlements here and there, or a gradual assimilation and erasure, and because the historians in question were part of that western civilization, it was originally difficult to see any other contact being in the same category as the Columbian arrival of the 15th century.  Then, the iconoclasm required became simply too disrespectful, it was likely thought, to be possible.  Then, entire careers were built on manifold published papers agreeing on the absence of pre-Columbian contact, meaning that it became much easier to ignore uncooperative facts.

But facts are hard masters.  First, it was the Viking settlement in Newfoundland dating to around 1000.  Then a presence in southern Chile that pre-dated the ice age corridor that would have allowed the settlement of the Americas without the use of boats.  Now, there's even a television program that explores specific facts and hoaxes, called America Unearthed, that periodically appears on the History Channel.  And there's the print magazine, The Ancient American, which I have subscribed to for nearly a quarter century, which also discusses evidence for pre-Columbian overseas contact.

** I've had feedback questioning whether I haven't just given away my 'Big Twitter Idea'.  The answer is 'no'.  While I've revealed what might be described as the theme (see above), which has of course been touted by many others before me, the innovative part involves implementation.  For example, if Mark Zuckerberg of FB fame had said in his college days that he had an idea that involved communicating over the internet, that wouldn't have given much away.