The USA will be Minority White by Mid-Century

Census population projections as of March 2018 predict the whites will become a minority in the USA around 2045[1]. This issue has been raised (and buried) repeatedly within the Republican Party.

And that means we can take a short break from my droning on, and instead let the RNC drone on for a bit. The excerpts a few paragraphs down are taken from the document entitled the Growth and Opportunity Project but routinely referred to as the RNC-Autopsy of 2013, referring to Mitt Romney’s election loss and how the GOP could retake the presidency[2]

The RNC document is fairly frank, as these things. Most RNC documents read as little more than vague cheerleading exercises for the Republican ‘brand’[3] and endless generalizations of the Democrats’ dismantling of the American Dream.

The ‘RNC Autopsy’ (this became the report’s de-facto name) takes a fairly candid look at why and how Mitt Romney lost, as well as various ideological and logistic challenges for the party going forward. Most of these are fairly banal, despite their critical importance (fundraising, advertising strategies, etc.). The section that got the most play was the short Introduction to Messaging essay. I would recommend reading all of it. Briefly, it stressed that Democrats had won the popular vote in 4 of the last 6 elections (make that 5 out of 7 now) and that the Republican message was going largely unheard by large swaths of the populations, particularly by an economically stagnant middle class, those living in poverty (at last count over 40,000,000 people) and most minorities, especially younger ones.

This theme continued throughout the piece, including the following astonishing (for Republicans) tidbits:

We should speak out when CEOs receive tens of millions of dollars in retirement packages but middle-class workers have not had a meaningful raise in years

One of the contributors to this problem is that while Democrats tend to talk about people, Republicans tend to talk about policy. Our ideas can sound distant and removed from people’s lives. Instead of connecting with voters’ concerns, we too often sound like bookkeepers

As Ada Fisher, the Republican National Committeewoman from North Carolina told us, “There are some people who need the government.”

We have to blow the whistle at corporate malfeasance and attack corporate welfare

Honestly, most of this essay could have come from a Democrat candidate’s policy speech.

These plot points were followed by the America Looks Different section, which outlines what everyone knows: that the United States is becoming more Hispanic and less White (with a capital ‘W’). The words ‘ethnic’ and Hispanic are used interchangeably in this section. The sole obsession as of that writing was claiming more Hispanic voters: Blacks, Asians and any other ethnicities, minorities, ‘races’, etc. were ignored. This makes for realistic, if not especially admirable, policy: it is the Hispanic population that is growing dynamically and which frequently holds the balance of power in some western states.

As most anyone is aware the current administration has not worked very hard to implement these recommendations[4]. In fact, alienation and harassment of Hispanics has been one of the faces of the New Normal, and it has become an increasingly ugly face indeed.[5]

The Republicans, like anyone else whose business relates to politics or demographics, are keenly aware of this ongoing shift in the makeup of the populace. At this point in time it does not appear that actually adjusting policy or candidate makeup will be part of the strategy.[6]

Naturally, there is always the chance that the Republican party will modify its platform and policies to focus on demographic realities, focusing on outreach to Hispanic (and other ethnic) communities, revisiting soon-to-be dormant or dead affirmative action programs, make a conscious effort to field minority candidates, etc. And there is certainly a chance that the Hispanic community will wholeheartedly embrace the GOP in the future, forgiving the noxious and insulting attitudes towards minorities that define official federal (and Republican in general) policy at the moment.

There is also the chance that you are laughing too hard to continue reading. Let’s pause for a moment while the laughter dies down …

I believe the strategy will come from a different place, one that is already being implemented, and will continue to be to a much greater extent. Before getting too deeply into this lets return to yours and my favorite document: yes, the notorious RNC Autopsy.

One of the most interesting little digressions in the mea culpa i.e.’ we blew it with minorities and Millennials’ section is the assertion that the Republican party was a superstar on the state level; it was only national elections that were troublesome and needed a rethink. To wit:

Republican governors are America’s reformers in chief. They continue to deliver on conservative promises of reducing the size of government while making people’s lives better. They routinely win a much larger share of the minority vote than GOP presidential candidates, demonstrating an appeal that goes beyond the base of the Party.

It is time for Republicans on the federal level to learn from successful Republicans on the state level.

Well, OK. The nature of the reform and making ‘people’s lives better’ is certainly up for debate, as it mostly involves ongoing attempts to destroy trade unions, suppress minority voting and redistribute wealth upwards, but I am more concerned with the last sentence I quoted. [7]

It’s time to take a look at Texas (I promised we’d get there eventually, if you’re reading the footnotes), a state where whites are now a clear minority. Both Hispanics and Whites comprise roughly 40% of the population, with other ethnic groups (most notably African-Americans) making up the rest. [8] The Texas Demographic Center (a division of the U.S. Census Bureau) agrees with this estimate as well; the projections found there show the Hispanic population becoming the plurality ethnic group by 2024.[9]

Texas is the great Purple Pumpkin for the Democratic Party. Flip Texas and it is pretty much game over as far as national elections go.[10] Both California and Texas have similar demographics, and surprisingly Texas (with 23%) trails only New Mexico in the percentage of Latino legislators, with Arizona and California close behind.[11] Commendable as it seems, 23% is considerably less than the 40% Hispanic population of Texas.

To get the point, Texas is run by white people, the agenda is set by white people, and it’s always been this way. There is no need to get into the history of discrimination and suppression of Hispanics in Texas but suffice to say it has been an ugly and consistent part of its history. This has never really changed, and the Texas legislature is not only dominated by whites, but by exceptionally right-wing white Republicans.

There are several mechanisms available to promulgate (white) minority rule in Texas and the United States. In Texas, gerrymandering has been pursued to such an extreme extent that the city of Austin (by far the most Democratic and liberal area in the state) has been spread around 6 voting districts: five of them are held by Republicans and city residents are a minority in each one[12] The hyper-aggressive and racially-based gerrymandering has just been upheld by the Supreme Court[13]

In response to both the 2016 election and the ever starker ethnic divides in the United States, Texas has passed a number of laws targeting Hispanics. The most notorious is currently the “Sanctuary Cities” bill that allows anyone pulled over or detained to be asked (or would that be interrogated?) about their immigration status.[14] This is sadly in keeping with Texas’s shameful history of Latino harassment, but it must be noted that this kind of action comes with the explicit blessing of the Republican ruling class. This parallels the inhumane and counterproductive ICE policies currently on display at the California border.

There is now an excellent chance that the Supreme Court will have a majority for a very long time. After Trump’s appointment there will be a hardcore right wing majority in place, and by the way, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85 years old. Thus, reversing the out of control gerrymandering seems unlikely in the near future, despite the clear violations of the Voting Rights Act. Oh, and speaking of the Voting Rights Act, it is gradually being diluted in any case. [15]

Ah, voting. The gerrymandering is an old and time-honored way to manipulate elections (and it should be noted that the Democrats do their share as well)[16]

A more recent entrant to the voting dilution challenge is Voter Fraud. According to various (entirely Republican) players, voter fraud is endemic and must be stopped. The president himself has claimed repeatedly that he won the popular vote but that “millions” of votes were cast illegally. Now of course, Donald Trump will lie about anything and everything, and this particular rant should be classified with any of the others, but it is an idea that has gained tremendous traction among the predictable factions. There are eight states that have now implemented more rigorous voter ID requirements, usually citing voter fraud, and generally citing between aero and one example as justification.[17]

Ending voter fraud is certainly not the goal these pillars of democratic values are aiming for. Any additional mechanisms to dilute or contain ‘ethnic’ (i.e. non-Republican) votes will be created and used. The justification is dead simple: the numbers do not favor Republicans in most cases. Thus, rigorous ID checks in selected (did someone say ethnic?) areas will depress not only voting but turnout. If Hispanic voters are ‘carefully’ checked up and down, back and forth for their adherence to every little detail of these new statutes, well, that will certainly slow down the process, wont it? You might have to wait in line for a while. And while you’re there, maybe some friendly Texas or ICE (or whoever else gets to enforce this stuff in the future) agents will ask for your bona fide citizenship credentials. Not exactly a recipe for increased minority voting activity.

Not to put too cynical a spin on it, but the United States is (rapidly in some cases, very slowly in others) evolving towards a neo-apartheid state, where a shrinking but empowered and moneyed minority will control a growing, economically stagnant majority. It has long been explicit Republican policy to enrich a tiny minority, usually masquerading as pro-growth tax policy.[18] While employment is at almost record levels today, middle class wages have been stagnant in real terms for 20 years or more.[19]

In the meantime the United States has developed into one of the most lopsided examples of wage inequality in the world.[20] This may be the marketplace in action according to GOP dogma but make no mistake: it is by careful and ongoing design.

Will the inevitable growth of non-white ethnicities (as well as Millennials and other disenfranchised groups who have been left out of the economic “boom”) result in a rearrangement of voting patterns and elected leaders. Or will the United States hurtle further towards an oligarchy[21] that, statistically, is already in place? I am not certain the answer to both can be yes. If I had to bet I would choose the latter.[22]

  2. You can read the whole thing here:
  3. The most notorious is of course the Republican Platform every four years, with typical blather about American Exceptionalism, lots of freedom talk and of course scolding those bad Democrats.[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf Looking back ironically (easy to do I know) this section of the introduction ‘Our standing in world affairs has declined significantly — our enemies no longer fear us and our friends no long trust us. People want and expect an America that is the most powerful and respected country on the face of the earth.’ seems especially mordant, considering Trump’s popularity worldwide compared to Obama’s (although esteemed statesmen Duterte and Modi seem to prefer Trump, in Modi’s case at least at first). The chapter entitled A Rebirth of Constitutional Government also offers excellent comedic elements.
  4. Call him what you will (and we like to here), Donald Trump is not a hypocrite. When the RNC Autopsy was released he was very harsh in his assessment:
  5. There is no need to belabor this rather obvious fact – the images of children separated from parents at the border will surely becoming an enduring legacy of Trump’s ‘America First’ blather. It is also sad that the state of Texas, where nearly 40% of American citizens are of Hispanic descent, has continued to implement laws and policy that disenfranchise those ethnic groups, surely as at least a partial result of the 2016 election. More on Texas further down.
  6. You can see the notorious 2016 photo of Paul Ryan proudly posing with the incoming Republican interns here: There seem to be over 80 interns in the shot, every last one of them white (later scruitny revealed a single black women in the back)
  7. Although GOP gubernatorial policies as a whole are without the scope of this little essay, the recent experiment in Kansas shows how effective the ‘supply side’ idea is when you don’t have the ability to print money and your bond issues are not, shall we say, the most attractive available at the moment.
  8. The 2010 census declares that Whites comprised 70.4% of the population of Texas. This is widely considered a fictitious number, and most sources from all sides point to there being roughly 1 million or so more whites than Hispanics in 2017. There is little debate any longer about whether whites are a minority in the state.
  10. The next domino to fall would be Florida, but that is a different discussion.
  11. New Mexico:37% , Texas:23% , Arizona: 21%, California: 19%
  12. This essay offers a good overview of the disconnect between the realities of Texas and the strange obsessions of its legislature.
  14. Texas has no sanctuary cities, if you were wondering, but the ever vigilant legislature is thinking in ahead
  16. Many political scholars (far from all), consider the republicans far more egregious and extreme than the Democrats as this practice is currently constituted. See also
  18. Government Regulatory Agencies are also popular for shifting resources upwards, both financially and in the form of decreased protections and safety nets for citizens they are ‘protecting’. There have been many studies and opinions of this. Start with a Wikipedia page and then perhaps go on to Of course no regulation at all probably is no the answer either:
  19. There are several useful chats here: This is not a radical viewpoint, and I could cite many more sources but this article and group of charts sums it up nicely.
  20. The US is actually fourth in the world among developed nations as of 2015, according to this article. The top five in income inequality also have the 5 highest poverty rates (the UK is number 6 in income inequality but number 13 in poverty rate, presumably due to a highly functional safety net)
  21. And a little afterwordAs long as we’re veering off into election strategies, it must be noted that trade unions have been squarely in GOP sights for decades now (with occasional exceptions, such as certain Teamster factions). The unions represent a twin bogeyman: not only does collective bargaining (this battleground has shifted from the manufacturing sector to public employees in most cases) present a challenge to the hegemony of the Republican donor class, but concomitant with that, unions are instrumental in promoting democratic candidates and providing logistical support for Democratic voting efforts, from voter drives to candidate forums, even to the point of organizing transport for union members to polling places. The Supreme Court decision to overturn a law requiring non-union workers to pay fees applied toward collective bargaining has dealt a body blow to the union movement’s fundraising ability. See is just the tip of the iceberg. Recent Koch Brothers efforts have explicitly gone towards “defunding the political left”. Yes, that would mean unions, most specifically government unions. Hey, that government money if for the donor class! The “defund the left” slogan has been around at least since the Reagan era. See also: With the Supreme Court rubber- stamping any anti-union initiatives, these efforts will accelerate markedly.

    As a final sighing coda to the oligarchy theme, it must be noted that the primary engine of the growth and prosperity of the American middle class was the Labor Union movement. Their decline has run parallel with wage stagnation and perpetual diminishment of the American middle class.


The Ever Growing Candidate Pool

We introduce a new character here to our super-duper You Are There interludes, please welcome …

SEM ! – Shameless ex-mayor, and CBI’s new goto for legal matters

(applause, possibly metaphorical, metaphysical, or meta-data)

CBI: Let’s make it quick, golf at 1 today

CBI: Who’s got burger duty?

CBI: Never mind, I’ll get one at the course.

BS: Sir, we are going to open up the election process

CBI: That doesn’t sound good. I thought we’re trying to close it off to everyone but real Americans.

BS: Yes, and nobody is more of a true American than a pooch

CBI: A dog? I don’t like dogs.

SEM: There is nothing in the constitution about it. We are going to calculate ages in dog years, so we can run candidates 4 years and older. And of course the dog will be born in the USA, American through and through.

SEM: We can control them pretty easily, usually with a treat or 2. And the promise of MAGA. Even dogs are patriotic. probably more so than many of our so-called ‘American’ opponents.


IR: It will be like Scalia and Thomas. Thomas was his hand puppet.

PS: The most important thing is, the dog will be cute and be one of the faces of the administration. I’ll have him with me at the briefings. If they ask a typical hostile question I’ll signal the candidate to make a sour face. We’re working on training programs right now.

PS: Then we can accuse the press of making him unhappy

CBI: Ok, get on it and have those burgers ready next time

… to be continued

Goodbye to Paul Ryan

Paul Ryan will be retiring from congress this November. He is unlikely to return, despite being a shoo-in for (re)election in the future. The landscape is different now than anything he ever envisioned, with a blustering, ignorant demagogue barking orders at anyone and everyone in sight. Or insults of course. Paul Ryan was not made for these times. He is fading away quickly.[1]

John Boehner resigned from the House after years of futility trying to wrangle the Freedom Caucus into line with mainstream GOP policy. He is by all accounts a happier person today; occasionally surfacing to proffer his opinions on his old buddies seems to sufficiently satisfy any remaining politics jones[2]. Thus Paul Ryan, wunderkind and future face of the GOP was handed the thankless task of Speaker of the House in 2015.

Although it is not inconceivable that dealing with luminaries such as Jim Jordan and his flock would be enough to force Ryan (and everyone else) to flee to the nearest golf course, it is clear that the tipping point in the abrupt cessation of Ryan’s once bright political future is Trump, and Trumpism.

It is important to understand that Paul Ryan has had just 2 employers in his adult life: his family’s business and the federal government.[3] Ryan is essentially a career politician, propelled to easy electoral victories by his family’s dominance of private and public life in Janesville, his hometown in Wisconsin. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it hasn’t been that rough a road to head of the House for young Paul. And that is the most ironic part of the whole equation: the ride was going to stay smooth, as the party was bending over backward to hand him the GOP presidential nomination in 2016. Had he announced his candidacy he would have been the prohibitive favorite. Alas, it was a nomination he did not want in the slightest.

In 2012, running with deeply flawed and out of touch Mitt Romney, Ryan got a taste of what national politics were like. Although largely (not entirely) insulated from the anything goes rough and tumble of a national run, Ryan got full exposure to the way insults, invective and completely unfounded ‘rumors’ and ‘theories’ were flung back and forth. Unlike inside operators like the Clintons and Bushes, or gifted orators such as Reagan and Obama who relished the public forum, or even a borderline sociopath like Donald Trump, who needs a constant stream of real or imagined enemies to rant against while various cronies and bandwaggoneers cheer him on, Paul Ryan does not have the stomach for public conflict.

Compared to oily, ambition-addled ideologues like Ted Cruz or plodding career hacks like Jeb Bush, Ryan was a breath of fresh air. And he certainly looks better too. The problem is, not only was his ambition remarkably lacking compared to his peers, so were his goals. Despite perpetual mumbling about Entitlement Reform, and pointing to the ridiculous, deficit-swelling 2017 tax cut as a signature career accomplishment (coming in the wake of the continuous humiliation of failing to kill off the evil socialist Obamacare, among other conspicuous legislative non-starters), it is hard to pinpoint any real core beliefs belonging to Paul Ryan, outside of a deep commitment to transferring wealth and resources from poor to rich. The House was simply a natural stop for a wealthy and popular ‘businessman’ who has never had to look for a job.

Ryan naturally inherited opportunities that staunch Republican standard-bearers such as Lindsay Graham and Marco Rubio have worked their whole careers to get a sniff of. The Vice-presidential nomination was handed to him with no lobbying on his part; it is still uncertain whether his heart was in it. Certainly his campaigning in 2012, despite the familiar half-smile and easygoing manner, was lackluster. Even so, Ryan escaped the election with his reputation as the GOP’s brightest new star intact. The 2016 nomination was his to lose. But …he wanted no part of it. He was out before anyone could put him in.

What Ryan enjoyed were his wonky closed door GOP policy meetings, where he and his various spreadsheets could outline his case for ‘Entitlement Reform’, the impending Social Security crisis, and various other arguments in favor of increasing income and wealth inequality. The obeisance to graphs and policy papers contributed heavily to Ryan’s burgeoning reputation as the intellectual stalwart of the Republican Party, the face of the future and the moral underpinning for basing government policy on Ayn Rand novels.

After a while these sessions invariably induced both eye-rolling and complete ennui among his colleagues. The donor class was going to get paid with or without his spreadsheets, and his ‘proof’ that only funneling more resources to the rich would avert financial disaster was eventually met with indifference. Well of course – no math calculations needed here, Paul.

In the age of Trump, no one (certainly not Trump), has any interest in spreadsheets, or in calculations or premeditated policy of any kind. Ryan waffled for some time before endorsing Trump, but endorse him he did. After a few months where Ryan played “will he or won’t he”, he not only endorsed Trump but remained increasingly silent as his party pivoted overtly to one openly driven by racism and demagoguery. With nary a spreadsheet in sight. And Ryan has gradually been retreating from any skirmish at all with the new normal. The Trump cabal’s and the Freedom Caucus’ repeated attacks on Ryan were enough writing on the wall for him.[4] A golf date with John Boehner looks better all the time.

  1. In a modern slice of ignominy, typing “Paul” into a browser search field reveals the following suggestions for last names: George, D (“Pauly D’), Rudd, Walker, Patton (‘Paula Patton’), Simon, Bettany, Getty, Shore and Newman. No suggestions for Ryan. The list includes 3 dead people.
  2. In May 2017 Boehner notoriously was quoted that “Everything he’s <Trump> done (in office) has been a complete disaster <with the exception of foreign policy>” See also for the latest.
  3. Strictly speaking this is not true, but realistically Ryan’s political career was launched by his and his wife’s various professional networks and contacts. The only job he has held outside of politics since college was briefly with Ryan Inc. Central, a road grading company that is part of his extended family’s construction empire.


Listening in to Our Friends Overseas

Special guest stars

PFL: President for Life

PC: Premier Cru

ZZZ: Chinese Telecom Company Head (one of many)

M1, 2: Meeting Minions (Overseas Division)

Translation courtesy of ZTE Phones

PFL: (grumbling). OK, so what do we need here? 500 million?

PC: We think that gets us started. They are loans.

PFL: Yes, ‘loans’

M1: I remember we used to have these meetings back when he was a crooked businessman. Always phone calls. He never learned to use email.

PFL: He may end up more useful as a crooked politician.

(Polite Laughter all around)

(PFL picks up a phone lying on the table)

PFL: What data do we get from these anyway?

M2: Nothing much we care about. Google cares about the shopping and location data. We let them have it as part of the license.

PC: We like the Americans thinking that we’re spying on them with the phones. That distracts from any real spying we might do

PFL: Which never happens.

(Laughter again, more sincere.)

PFL: ZZZ, can we keep moving on this? How long until you can build it out without American components?

ZZZ: We recognize the national goal of total autonomy for all progressive electronic technologies. However that’s not possible at the moment.

PFL: A theme park! Do we have to deal with the little dunce?*

M1: Junior is running it but we don’t deal with anyone but our people. All we’re doing is guaranteeing the loan.

PFL: OK, not bad, Junior is supposed to be even stupider than the child.

(PFL picks up the phone again)

PFL: Do you think we could get The Child to start using a ZTE as part of the deal? I’m sure the twitter insults would work just as well for him

*Son of Child

Let’s Relive those Great 80’s Attitudes

Much has been made of Donald Trump’s crassness, bigotry and astounding mendacity. In addition his willful ignorance and eagerness to pursue the smallest real or imagined slight with threats, insults and a whipped cream topping of vulgarity are well-documented and essentially offered up daily and weekly.

Yes, well no need to run through all of that right here – you can get that anywhere (including the great man’s twitter account of course). What is more interesting to me at this precise point in time (which will ideally last for at least the duration of spewing out this essay), is the idea of the Trump administration as both a symptom and a tortured death rattle of 80’s Man-in-Charge. And like it or not, that is where the current version of the Republican party finds itself: firmly looking backwards, and deeply distrustful of a future where widespread gun ownership, casual bigotry and white male dominance might be considered faded symbols of a vanished time.

As a brief digression, there clearly is no real Trump administration. It is quickly morphing into a constellation of sycophants and talking heads (now mostly culled from Fox News’ stable of right-wing commentators and ‘experts’) revolving around Trump as executive policy (subject to change without notice) careens down whatever path looks ripest when the day begins. Soon the last ‘adults’ will be purged (they have been marginalized already) and it will just be the mad king and his court, desperate and eager to anticipate and proactively react to future whims.

So that sort of nonsense is fairly unique* to our grand experiment in Reality Show government. But there is a bit more to the story.

Let’s back up again, to those seemingly long ago days of the Obama presidency. Obama was not a democratic president, of course. He was a black president. In the world populated by 1980s white man, blacks do not run things, most notably the country. Sports and Entertainment? OK. A congressman or CEO here and there? Hey, ‘they’re’ making progress. What a country! And so on. Thus we simultaneously had a Birther movement and the rise of the Tea Party faction, a twin challenge to this Brave New World, a world which shocked the traditional order down to its toes.

Harping on the Birther movement, where Trump got much of his original political notoriety (and popularity among white supremacists) hinged on a central belief: if there’s a black president, it’s due to a con, a crime, a pack of lies and so forth. The Tea Party is a bit more broadly focused but also originated as an arch-conservative reaction to the Obama presidency; at last glance the percentage of minorities in the Tea Party and Birther movements are in the low single digits, to the point where any African-Americans in these groups are newsworthy.**

My generation, the one I very generally refer to as 80’s White Man (and, ahem, woman I guess) was quite possibly the first one that overtly frowned upon racist attitudes. It is very important to note some aspects of (again speaking very broadly) my ‘generation’ (aaargh, just kill me now). One very noteworthy aspect of a difference I have observed repeatedly in casual conversation between the geezers and Millennials is that ethnicity (and in some cases, Jewish identity, real or imagined***) is always noted. In other words, if someone new was hired at work, if there was a new postman, teacher, bus driver, whatever, there was blackness was noted. The whiteness was implied; otherwise the footnote (a black guy, woman, etc.) was expected. In the absence of this qualifier it was assumed to be a white person. Similarly a mixed race couple was very noteworthy and in fact cause for whispers and gossip, even in the so called liberal circles I ran in. Naturally, when no one is referenced without their ethnicity being noted , certain generalizations and perhaps prejudices are noted and/or reinforced****.

I have found that today’s narrative (at least much of it) does not focus on racial***** and ethnic identity. ‘Black’ or “mixed Race Couple’ are not adjectives heard in polite society (mostly …) and my general impression of Millennial and younger attitudes is that there is a comfort level with ethnic diversity that did not really exist in generations prior. I can offer considerable evidence of my boomer peers who honestly did not foster what I would normally call racist attitudes but were generally unable to relate to other ethnicities (mostly African-Americans of course), and in some cases were fearful in doing so and harbored fears (some subliminal in some cases) of the ‘other’, especially if the other were represented by young men, especially young men in groups. In fact a successful encounter with the other side was, instead of being routine, cause for celebration and a path to some greater degree of enlightenment that was desirable in a certain broad sense.******

The whites of Trump’s generation are acutely aware of these changes. Trump himself is someone who came, more or less, of age in the 1980’s, where your ethnicity mattered a great deal, and when the notion of an African-American man as president was absurd, where ethnicity was always noted. Trump is a man who does not read, is obsessed with watching Television and does not even use email, which 80 year old grandmothers use with ease nowadays. His comments and values give him away as a near-relic of a fading era, such as when he mocked the Academy for its low ratings (traditional television is dying and ‘ratings’ concerns have been superseded by content streaming strategies), his obsession with 20th century icons like the steel and coal industries and of course his appalling misogyny and casual, relentless bigotry. Naturally denial of climate science and obeisance to Evangelical religious movements are part of that package (the Evangelical movement has decided that Trump is a perfect exemplar of their ‘moral issues’) *******

All of these areas strike a chord with white people of a certain age, who are afraid that what they believe is slowly being replaced by the ‘other’. And well they should be: It is hard to imagine in America of the 2050’s still in thrall to Evangelical Christianity, still denying even the most obvious and measurable examples of climate changes, still clinging to cretinous energy policies that favor petroleum and coal (!!) over solar. And of course still restricting any positions of power to, essentially, white boomer males (they’ll be long gone of course). Will it be too late by then?

Yes, probably.

After Obama’s reelection in 2012, the now notorious Growth and Opportunity Project ******** (aka the RNC Autopsy Report) was very clear on the GOP’s need to engage younger people, minorities and women, with the only alternative being increased marginalization. And yet the Republicans gained more than 1000 state and federal seats during the Obama presidency. And suddenly the GOP, with notable but sparse exceptions, has become cheerleaders for Trump’s particularly noxious brand of populism*********. Naturally this is mostly political expediency as privately Trump is mostly an embarrassing presence to even the most ‘down home’ GOP hack, but to a large extent Trump is a culmination of GOP obstinacy over race relations, climate change and common sense environmental regulation over the years. They will cast their lot with the fading, frightened Boomer generation for now.


*Of course we can look back to equally unqualified presidents and administrations such as US Grant, the entire Harding experience or even a drunk Nixon threatening to atom bomb Vietnam, but somehow the stakes seem much higher now, and the consequences of foolish action more dire. Perhaps it’s just me.


***Disclosure – your humble narrator is Jewish and I recently discovered an active undercurrent of (admittedly mild) anti-Semitic sentiment in a company where I was a software developer, circa 2011-2013.

****This of course continues to go both ways. If a white athlete in a predominantly black sport (basketball being the obvious example) performs remarkably, their whiteness tends to follow them around as an ongoing adjective in the narrative. Sadly, white basketball players were at one time considered to be ‘smarter’ and more ‘savvy’ than their black counterparts, who achieved their superior results strictly through ‘natural’ athletic ability. There is a good essay on these attitudes here:

*****I recognize that ‘race’ is an invented notion used to promulgate segregationist policies but I’m using it anyway to get from A to B more quickly. Sorry.

******To myself a classic, and somewhat sad example of this, is illustrated in this essay by Chris Offut, one of my favorite writers, but clearly a man not that comfortable around the ‘others’: Ironically Offut is using himself (who is knowledgeable about ‘trash food’) as someone equally reviled by Southern white men as African Americans are, but it is clear at the end of the essay that actually relating to an African American man is not a routine event for him, and cause for (misplaced, I think) elation.



********* It should be pointed out that Congress is increasingly ignoring much of what Trump is asking for. The hopelessly vague demands for ‘Infrastructure’ or ’Immigration Reform’ have gone nowhere

********** Sorry for all the asterisky footnotes

The Gun Debate

The scene is the Roosevelt Room in the White House Kitchen. Today’s staff meeting has been assigned to the gun issue. There is an AR-15 assault rifle on the table near CBI. The usual staffers are in attendance as well as the Lizard twins.

Special guest star: WLP, head of the NRA

CBI: Good morning. We’re here to get this dumb gun thing behind us, and get back to making America great again. Lizardo, I did not see your daughter wearing the MAGA cap to school by the way. We had a deal, and I don’t like people who renege on deals.

LZ2: (looks uneasy, glances at LZ1). I assumed that was a joke, sir.

CBI: (visibly upset) Those hats are NOT a joke. We are here because of those hats! And me of course.(Smiles and calms down). OK, LZ, get on top of it. There is nothing smarter than wearing that hat. I would think she would be wearing it all the time. No greater route to popularity than associating with a winner.

CBI: Let’s commence with the compliments

BS: Sir, we’re a little short on time. You’ve got lunch and golf, and that phone call from Prime Minister Trudeau.

CBI: That French fool is a huge pain. Oh Sorry, Duane, I guess you’re French, too.

WLP: I’m from New York, sir, like yourself. My heritage is German, Scottish, French-Canadian, but that goes back a ways.

BS: It’s Wayne, sir.

CBI: Let’s get on with it. And cancel that damn phone call. I feel like putting in a little extra link time today.

(CBI picks up the AR15) So this is the baby that’s causing all the trouble, huh?

CBI suddenly points the AR15 at the group of people opposite him at the table.


(Several attendees instinctively scatter, some go to the floor)

CBI: Ha, ha. You guys are as bad as those pathetic high schoolers. You’d think one of those kids would have the guts to confront that shooter guy – maybe some of the football players or something.

CBI: I know I would have, that’s on the record. I’ll bet this thing would work great for Baldwin. Maybe ALL the Baldwins at once. (waves the AR-15 around the room again)

CBI: Can we take a few minutes while we go around the room and hear congratulations on my courage?

(Each attendee gives a short speech praising CBI’s bravery in confronting the Florida shooter)

CBI: So Duane, we need some kind of symbolic action so these dumb-ass high school kids, and the hired actors, will shut up. Can we sub in a different model of rifle to replace these things? After 6 months we’ll bring this baby back.

WLP: It is our policy not to back down when our 2nd amendment rights are threatened, sir.

CBI: Oh, come on. As you know by now we’re about results, not that silly constitution. That goddamn Sessions never shuts up about it. You know, I never heard anything about that when he was kissing my ass hoping to be attorney general.

WLP: We think this issue is being manipulated. It is a mental health issue. If enough citizens had AR-15s, we would in fact not have an AR-15 problem at all.

CBI: Hey listen Duane, I’m the one that came up with that mental health angle. DO NOT take credit for my ideas. I’m doing you guys a favor with that stuff.

CBI: Hey, is it burger time yet?

CBI: I think we’ve done some good work here today – let’s call it a day. I’ve got some appointments.

The 4 Rs of the GOP Part 4


As previously discussed, the GOP adheres fervently to its core values: namely a reactionary mindset in terms of fondly looking back to a time when middle aged white men could rule the land unfettered by messy disruptions by women, minorities and other distractions, a perpetually bubbling undercurrent of full-on racism that has now reached full bloom with Trump’s overt embrace of white supremacist thinking (now coming mainstream) as well as random deportations and of course regressive taxation. The latter is the lynchpin that holds it all together and enables the donor class to continue to profit handsomely; ironically most of this strata are probably holding their nose whilst the messy populism stuff happens (certainly luminaries like the Koch brothers would not allow a mob of Middle Americans wearing ‘Make America Great Again’ hats anywhere near their glittery Manhattan fund raisers.)

The great sage, who now looms over the party (and lets be fair, over much of the USA) as more of a mythical figure than an actual president with a well-documented track record that even in the most favorable light is strictly a mixed bag, is Ronald Reagan. While JFK has also ascended to mythical status, especially among Democrats* pining for the good old days when they were young and cute, thus Reagan has become a similar shining symbol for the Republicans. And it can probably be fair to say that the best grade you could give JFK is an incomplete.

Ronald Reagan is fondly remembered as the perhaps the peak of the GOP in the 20th century, a winking, charming unifier. To this day the search for another Reagan is an ongoing obsession (do a web search on ‘the search for the next Reagan’ – you can spend the rest of the day reading all about it).

But what is Reaganism? Is it strictly style points, a friendlier version of Trump’s noxious populism, Paul Ryan’s crude, ill-formed diatribes on entitlement reform, the overt racism and religious intolerance of the current administration and its concomitantly acquiescent Republican leadership?

Yes and no. It was Reagan who seriously introduced the idea of trickle-down economics (a fringe idea that suddenly gained credence with the ascension of Reaganism), and which continues to hold sway. Every Republican budget negotiation has repeatedly linked lower federal deficits with lower taxes, not higher ones. While this sure sounds great (the Trump budget assumes 3% a year growth, due presumable to tax cuts). It is useful to note that deficits have always worsened as a result of tax cuts, and that the resultant economic growth seems to happen (or not happen) independent of tax rates. Another useful aside is that more, not less direct government spending generally results in greater employment and concomitant economic growth.

Thus Reagan ushered in the new normal of permanent huge federal deficits, promulgated forever without any serious regard for balancing the budget (this trend was interrupted briefly during the Clinton administration). This has been taken to fresh extremes by the Trump tax cut, which does not even really paper over the problem of huge deficits – it’s just a fact of life now, and most GOP leaders don’t even bother to lodge any objections whatsoever.**

Another new normal is states’ rights, conveniently used for allowing rather sketchy state policies which include institutional racism, continuing erosion of the church-state divide and various other policies such as ever more permissive gun laws (Open Carry, ‘Stand your Ground’, etc). It should not be forgotten that Reagan made his now-notorious kick off campaign speech in 1980 espousing states’ rights in Neshoba County, site of the notorious murders of 3 civil rights workers 16 years earlier. This was not a coincidence. And Reagan continued to practice what he preached throughout his presidency, all in the name of states’ rights. States’ rights continues to be code for ‘we will not interfere in your local dealings with blacks. We’re with you’.

It is deeply ironic that both Reagan and Trump, two men who could not be classified as religious in any meaningful respect, have become heroes to evangelical America. Reagan’s election ushered in the overt GOP love affair with the Christian Right and Evangelical America. Although Jimmy Carter was an actual born-again Christian, it was Reagan who publicly courted the Evangelical movement (Carter had by now become a ‘traitor’ to the various mores held dear by the Christian Right, such as prayer in schools, overt anti-gay policies, public funds for private exclusionary educational institutions, etc.). Once again, Reagan did not disappoint, and it is important to remember that as AIDS mushroomed into a full-blown medical crisis, the White House did and said nothing (many Evangelicals to this day are still fond of categorizing AIDS as God’s revenge upon gay culture). In fact, Reagan did not mention AIDS publicly until 1987. He certainly mentioned God many times before that, and the phrase ‘God Bless America’ became closely associated with Reagan. More importantly, it is now commonplace for conservative candidates to demonstrate obeisance to the Religious Right.

Thus Trump’s cabinet contains 9 (out of 15 total) evangelicals. We  have to come to a point where a twice divorced serial adulterer and habitual liar comes to be the champion of the Religious Right. Well, it’s all about power, isn’t it? The notion that Evangelicals have now surrendered the last bit of any real or imagined moral authority seems completely incidental and irrelevant to present day politics.

Thus the Search for Reagan continues for the Republicans, much as the Search for JFK (they might settle for (Mr.) Clinton at this point, or, for the next generation, Obama) continues on the other side. A well spoken, kindly gent with a twinkle in his eye, continuing those other three R’s of modern Republican policy.

Hmmm, and make sure you take care of the donor class, sir!


*Probably Democrats age 60 and above, to be brutally honest. I think in the next 20 to 30 years, failing a new Democratic superstar, Barack Obama has a good chance to be transformed into a bit of a mythical figure.

**One exception is the Freedom Caucus, many of whom continue to try to hold out for some semblance of deficit reduction. They are not averse to greater kickbacks to the wealthy of course, they just want to eliminate every vestige of the dreaded welfare state

Chinese Interests Purchase Democratic Party

The Prognost-o-matic™

In a controversial move, the Trump administration has sold the Democratic Party to Chinese interests in return for forgiving $400 billion of US debt held by China in the form of Treasury Bills, Notes, and Bonds. After heated arguments and various legal maneuvers along party lines, the Supreme Court approved the constitutionality of the transaction in a 5-4 vote.

In addition the Chinese government has made a promise to refrain from dumping its additional dollar holdings, now numbering roughly $1.2 trillion.

Despite widespread protests, the move was deemed an “inevitable” evolution of the synthesis of politics and economic interests in some circles.

The Democratic Party has been purchased by a joint venture headed by Geely Automobile and the Chinese government. There are various smaller entities that will have a smaller stake, including Alibaba and the Beijing Sinobo Guoan F.C. soccer team. Timetables for the full takeover were not disclosed.

Said Chinese President Xi Jinping of the move, “This is not an attempt to meddle in the affairs of the United States but it does give us a seat at the table. We have a great many interests in North America and this purchase will allow us to grow both the Chinese and Democratic brands in a way beneficial to both countries.”

Geely chairman Li Shufu added a prepared statement that read in part, ”We are excited to add the Democratic Party to our portfolio. We feel this will dovetail perfectly with the Volvo brand, making Volvo the official car of American Democrats now more than ever.

Rumors that Guangzhou FC chairman Gao Han would be named the new Democratic Party chairman were unconfirmed. However Gao also issued a brief prepared statement, asserting “our motto is ‘be the best forever’, and we hope to describe the Democrats that way soon.”

The Democratic Party will not be renamed in the foreseeable future, according to the principals involved in the acquisition.

Republicans Change Name to White People’s Party

Look into the Future as The Houseplant Presents:


In a long anticipated move advocated by President Trump and Special Confidant without Portfolio (SCP) Steve Bannon, the Republican party has changed its name to The White People’s Party. Said the president: “The term ‘Republican’ has a lot of messy history. It says country club. It says elitist. It says Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice. We’re all about something brave and new now”. Myself and my amazing staff have discussed fully realizing real Americans’ vision for the future, and that includes accurate names for everything.

Said press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders: “We received a little blowback from the NSWPP [the dormant National Socialist White People’s Party] regarding rights to the name, but after a meeting we convinced them that this move is for the betterment of all Americans, including our traditionally Aryan friends.”

Sanders  added “Naturally the media will get this completely wrong. All Americans are welcome to be White People. In fact we encourage it whole-heartedly. Personally I would never be part of any exclusionary party.” Upon hearing of Sanders’  remarks the president thrust 2 thumbs up and exclaimed “Sarah is just amazing. And so are White People”.

Said Paul Ryan, “I think the president is on the right track here and should be given enough room to make his vision work. Personally I’m proud to be both a white person and in the White People’s Party. The haters trying to divide our great country  will cry racism, but this new, better vision of America has no room for racism or hate.”




The 4 Rs of the GOP Part 3

Regressive Taxation

Well, the new tax bill was just passed. Sp before getting too much into term paper mode (for which I apologize in advance), let’s just say:

Winners: Corporate shareholders, Pass-through corporations

Losers: er, everyone else?

Ironically, many fairly wealthy folks will get reamed, especially in those bad, bad (i.e. blue, blue) states like California and New York, which are losing a chunk (although not all, as previously considered) of their real-estate and property tax deductions.

The super-rich will do fine as we know – the shareholder class is the one that profits most directly from lower corporate taxes.

And don’t forget, the looming deficits will naturally revisit Paul Ryan’s favorite topic: Entitlement Reform! This is better referred to as increasingly the disparity between rich and poor in the USA, already the most acute of any industrialized country.*

It should be noted that this is a very complex topic. As is my wont, I will (over?) simplify it to make a simple point, and, you know, get on with things.

The period of time I am most concerned with begins with the Reagan era. Reaganism ushered in financial policies notoriously labeled ‘Voodoo Economics’ by candidate George H.W. Bush, in response to Reagan’s espousal of what would variously be referred to as Supply Side, Trickle Down, Laffer Curve, etc.

Here’s the gist of it: if you lower taxes, government revenues will rise. And lowering them for the top tax brackets will create the greatest economic windfalls, as lowering tax rates would lead to greater investment. A critical component of this policy is not just income tax, but capital gains taxes, which have always been taxed at lower rates than ordinary income.

Here is a brief overview of the capital gains argument:

It should be noted that the arguments for lowering taxes on higher incomes are roughly equivalent although not identical.

The right wing of the GOP (i.e. The Old Guard) has generally opposed most (i.e. federal) taxes, whether on income or property. In many respects this thinking (stemming from classic liberalism) is a forerunner of today’s GOP libertarian threads, although conspicuous exceptions are now made for categories such as defense spending, and police activities in general.

There is no real evidence that lower tax rates for the wealthy generate greater economic gains in general or, or, laughably, increase government revenues.** The question is, do the advocates of this policy really believe in it or is it a cynical ploy to simply reward the Republican donor class?

The answer is yes.

The current tax reform bill conforms to the supply side model, but focuses much more heavily on reducing the corporate tax rate. This is not particularly radical, as the difference between the effective and statutory rates in the US is quite broad, and simplifying the rate structure is a laudable goal***

Although it is generally conceded that reductions in effective corporate tax rates generally benefit shareholders (i.e. stock prices), the magic bullet in the tax plan is ‘pass-through’ taxes. These are scheduled to be reduced drastically, and it is widely expected that as a result many corporate entities will be converted to pass-throughs. ‘Surprisingly’, many of Trump’s businesses are set up as pass-through. An added surprise is that this is expected to disproportionately benefit the very top strata (by both wealth and income) of American individuals.

For more analysis of the pass-through and general tax plan ramifications there are many august analysts that will do better than this journal. Or you can read the thing yourself …

I am mostly trying to pivot to the fourth R of the modern GOP: Reaganism. Coming soon!

* Naturally Ryan does not see it this way – to most in the GOP, government dependence on government handouts is a self-sustaining cycle that need s to be broken forcefully and immediately. That the main champion of this viewpoint is a man who has only worked for his well-to-do family business and, yes, the federal business in his entire adult life can be viewed as somewhat ironic.

**This has never happened. Basically, lower taxes = higher deficits.

***Statutory means the rate based on gross the gross, or published, rate and effective refers to the net rate after deductions, expenditures, etc. The corporate tax rates in the US have gradually gone down since the mid-1960s, and corporate tax as a percentage of GDP stands at around 2^ today compared to 7%in the mid-1940’s. See