Apocalypse Now: July 13, 2020

[Guest Contributor - Donald G. Mutersbaugh Sr.]

I can’t help but to think about the Democrat Convention this summer. I might be wrong but I believe that there has been another paradigm shift in the electorate. I predicted one before, and I’m predicting another one now: the candidate of choice is going to be based on emotions, feelings and about who can beat Trump – but not qualifications.

I predicted in an earlier writing that neither Biden nor Sanders would get the nomination. This was based on Biden’s performance and Sanders – always the bridesmaid with his socialist programs. Further, I predicted that two women may head the ticket. While this may still come to pass (I believe that Elizabeth Warren will lose consideration because of her untruthfulness), I’m going to propose a different scenario for consideration: a brokered convention. While this hasn’t happened in either party since 1952 and despite all of the rewrite of the rules, the Democrat party may have no choice but to wrest its way through one this summer. The hatred of Trump is overwhelming.

The old monkey wrench seems to be the Democrat establishment; despite the popularity of Bernie, they do not feel his progressive socialism will win the hearts and minds of the people – therefore, he’s got to go. And poor old Joe, he’s caught up in a maelstrom of family problems and political gaffes. Plus: “Here’s something ‘everybody knows' that is almost certainly true. The two most widely respected figures in the Democratic Party — Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi — are worried that a Sanders nomination could be disastrous for the party in the fall, increasing the likelihood that Trump is reelected or that enough marginal House Democrats lose their seats to turn congressional control back to the GOP. Of course, the reason an outsider like Trump took over the Republican Party is the same reason a socialist like Sanders might take over the Democratic Party: Party leaders simply do not wield the same levers of power in an era of online ideological movements. But that doesn’t mean they have no leverage.” https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/25/why-bernie-sanders-might-not-lock-democratic-nomination-117339

“Imagine that Sanders comes into the convention with a weak plurality, far short of 1,991 delegates. When he asserts that the candidate with the most delegates should be awarded the delegation, and rails against the establishment, he is confronted with his comments from 2016 like this one.

“The responsibility that superdelegates have is to decide what is best for this country and what is best for the Democratic Party,” Sanders said. “And if those superdelegates conclude that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate, the strongest candidate to defeat Trump and anybody else, yes, I would very much welcome their support.”

“His brand is suddenly tarnished – he looks like every other self-serving politician.” (Ibid) Oops! So, everybody has to consider what other likely strategies could come from this.

Remember: this is an emotional election and not a qualification election. So, qualifications aside what would be the most popular ticket (it is evident that one candidate alone is not going to shift this).

In a previous article that I wrote, I predicted that Michelle Obama would run for the presidency in 2024 – and that the interim time period would be spent grooming her for that event. What if the establishment proposed a ticket that had her as the vice president and the next most eligible candidate at this time for president? Bloomberg and Obama? Or how about Buttigieg and Obama? 

Even more outrageous – despite her record – could be Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama be the most reasonable compromise at this time? I believe that any ticket like this basically decided by the superdelegates could possibly cause Trump a problem especially if it were presented with an outstanding cabinet of people – perhaps, those no-Trumpers that have recently received the boot from the Trump administration.

This action by the establishment would obviously all but destroy the Democrat party. It would be a political calculation of how many of Bernie’s people would leave the party and how many would rejoin the party because of the excitement generated with this ticket. I have not seen any polls that have attempted to project these numbers – either coming or going. But over the long run, if the strategy were successful, I think the Democrat party would heal very quickly. I’m sure as part of this deal, all horse-trading aside, Bernie would be taken care of with some type of a political plum and indebtedness from the party leaders for his part in taking down Trump – however indirectly this may have occurred.

Now to return to the part about this being an emotional election. The Democrat party is going to have a hard time dislodging an incumbent president whose accomplishments and current popularity are so high. 

“Americans are more positive about the state of the nation than they have been in over a decade, and Trump and the GOP appear to be benefiting. Still, in this era of extreme party polarization, that puts his approval rating at 49%, as Republicans' already high ratings have risen further while Democrats' negative opinions of him aren't budging. Independents' ratings of Trump have improved, but they are still more likely to disapprove than approve of the job he is doing.

“The significance of the trend is clear. An approval rating near 50% greatly increases Trump's chances of being re-elected, a prospect that seemed unlikely with his approval stuck near 40% for most of his term.” https://news.gallup.com/poll/286280/trump-job-approval-steady.aspx 

There was one other poll taken recently that maybe speaks volumes to Trump’s reelection prospects: “New High of 90% of Americans Satisfied With Personal Life” https://news.gallup.com/poll/284285/new-high-americans-satisfied-personal-life.aspx When you examine the individual cohorts of this poll, the Democrat party faces a daunting task indeed! 

This will be an interesting election to see which matters most to the American people: emotions or results!

Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Democrats Concede 2020 Presidential Election

[Guest Contributor - Donald G. Mutersbaugh Sr.]

“Dewey Defeats Truman” was the banner headline on the Chicago Daily Tribune November 3, 1948. I am guessing that the above headline probably seemed as strange. But it’s true! The Democrat Party has all but overtly given up the 2020 presidential election.

Let’s examine the facts and see why this conclusion is probable. First the candidates. Joe Biden will be out of the race in the very near future. It is only a matter of time before all of his problems sink him. Between his gaffes and other issues while he was the Vice President, his son, Hunter, will probably provide the ignominious ending to a political career that should’ve ended years ago. 

And Bernie? Beyond his advanced age, he is like a mediocre boxer entering the ring with one arm tied behind his back. People will not ignore the fact that he has health issues – including “chest pains” – even before he assumes the position of President! “He has continued to raise substantial amounts of money [however] from his dedicated supporters — on Tuesday, his campaign celebrated an impressive third-quarter fund-raising haul of $25.3 million — and has remained among the top three contenders in the primary. But he has been unable to expand his base beyond those enthusiasts. In recent weeks, he shook up his staff in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two nominating states, in an effort to jump-start his candidacy as Ms. Warren passed him in some polls….

“In recent weeks, he has struggled with hoarseness, which forced him to cancel several events last month, but he then returned to the campaign trail. In March, he hit his head on the edge of a glass shower door, requiring seven stitches.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/bernie-sanders-health.html

Elizabeth Warren seems to be getting traction. But every time she opens her mouth to deliver some sort of pithy anecdote, a falsehood rolls out of her mouth. “Elizabeth Warren is telling a lie about herself. Again. The media are covering for her. Again.

“It is by now well established that Elizabeth Warren is a serial liar. She lied about her parents having to elope because of racism against her mother, who was white. She lied about being the first nursing mother to take the bar exam in New Jersey (which doesn’t keep such records). She lied about being a “single mom” when she met her second and present husband (she was still married, and had not yet filed for divorce). She lied about the death of Michael Brown, which was not a murder. Only recently, after more than 30 years, has she stopped lying about being a Cherokee and a woman of color.

“Lately Warren has been telling a story about how a boss supposedly fired her from a teaching gig after discerning at a glance that she was pregnant. Her own previous telling was otherwise: She walked away from that job.” https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/media-cover-for-elizabeth-warren-lies-again/

I’m only presenting the top three candidates because after that – there is no hope. All of the other candidates have already demonstrated they would not be able to handle the duties of President of the United States – and the American voters understand that. Do not believe the polls because the media have skewed all possible angles of this election to accentuate the positives of any Democrat candidate to make them a better candidate than President Trump. The problem is that the extreme right and the extreme left get most of the headlines because the media reports on them as if they represent all of the moderates who may simply lean slightly to the left or slightly to the right. This means that elections are won in the middle and currently not enough Democrats recognize it. If you are a registered Democrat and you always have been, but you are considering voting for Trump – well, that really sums up the trouble that party is in now. Also, don’t forget about the silent majority.

Going beyond the candidate will be the problem of the platform that any Democrat candidate will have to support (one or more of the following): Socialism (in general), Laxer Abortion Laws and Infanticide, Raise Income Taxes, Increase Social Security Payouts, Open Borders, Defund Military, Confiscate Guns, Eliminate Usage of Fossil Fuels, Defend/Support Illegal Aliens, Suppress Free Speech, Reparations for Slavery, Abolish Electoral College, Free College/Forgive College Loan Debt, Universal Child Care, Ban Fracking/Offshore Drilling, Increase the Estate Tax, Implement a Wealth Tax, Raise Minimum Wage, Rejoin Iran Nuclear Deal, Support DC and Puerto Rico Statehoods, Contraceptive Mandate, Increase Funding of  Planned Parenthood, Repeal Hyde Amendment, End Capital Punishment, Never Implement Voter ID, Pack the Supreme Court, Housing Give-away, Medicare for All, Weaken the Economy, and the Green New Deal. Most Americans don't want any these changes – especially once they understand them and how they will be financed.

Finally, “According to Moody’s Analytics, Trump is headed toward another four years in the White House. And, if the numbers are right, it won’t even be close….

“Under the current Moody’s Analytics baseline economic outlook, which does not forecast any recession, the 2020 election looks like Trump’s to lose,” the authors wrote. “Democrats can still win if they are able to turn out the vote at record levels, but, under normal turnout conditions, the president is projected to win.” https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-in-a-landslide-this-historically-accurate-model-predicts-exactly-that-2019-10-15?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

Granted the “Moody’s Analytics” is a pocketbook analysis: If the economy is strong, Trump Wins; if it is a recession, Trump may lose. But as the article points out, it has only been incorrect once since 1980 – and that was with Trump! 

So, what is a Democrat to do? Wait and see. Between now and February 2020 there may be some last-minute changes – like Hillary Clinton joining the fray and running for President. Another possibility: Michelle Obama. While she has professed no interest in running for President, there are many people who have encouraged her and believe she could win.

Other people believe Trump would shred her. I personally believe that she will reenter politics at some point. Right now, I think that the Democrat Party is trying to groom her for a Presidential run in 2024.

The bottom line: The Democrat party does not have a viable candidate – and they know it! I believe President Trump will be reelected – and there will be no need for a recount!

Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The Political Change Curve

[Guest Contributor - Donald G. Mutersbaugh Sr.]

What is going on with the Democrat Party? The Kübler-Ross model attempts to explain the five stages of grief in terminal illness: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. 

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kübler-Ross_model] The model was first introduced by the Swiss-American psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book On Death and Dying. It was inspired by her work with terminally ill patients. I started with this model since the Democrat Party seems to have disappeared down the rabbit hole of mental and terminal illness.

After the election of President Donald Trump, I was amazed by the amount of animosity and blind hatred exhibited by so many people. In all of my years of presidential change, I had never observed a complete lack of respect – not only for the President – but for the entire electoral process. What I am going to do is try to explain the political change process, where I believe the democrats are now, and where they might be going in the future. Let’s review the model.

Shock. The first stage of this process is shock. On election night if you watched the various networks which announced that Donald Trump had won the presidency you could see the look on their faces: gobsmacked. This was quickly followed by a room full of the walking dead.

Denial. Once it became evident that Donald Trump had actually won the presidency, it seems as if everybody proceeded into the next stage – denial: impossible, they collectively thought – something must have been misreported.

Anger. After denial, came anger: how can this be? How could he have possibly beaten Hillary Clinton? People felt cheated – after all, she was the queen on her way to the coronation!

Blame. After the anger had slightly subsided, everybody started pointing fingers and blaming anybody they could. Those stupid people – how could they? It was a terrible campaign! He wasn’t a politician; what business did he even have in running for the office?

Depression. Once it became evident that he was the President, depression set in as everybody began to realize that he was going to be the President for the next four years. Or maybe not – we can always impeach him! Most realists, however, settled in for the possibility he would fulfill his complete four-year term.

Fomenters. This next stage came about from the ashes of the Phoenix: maybe something will roil the environment enough that his presidency would be seen as a joke. This allowed for three main factions to come to the forefront and completely obfuscate everything he was trying to do – or did – especially the positive successes. To that end arose media bias, fake news, and the Law of Institutions: “The people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution.” https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_institutions (This explains so many Democrat (and Republican!) politicians.) Most reporters and editors are liberal. When you are liberal, and everyone else around you is as well, it is easy to fall victim to Confirmation Bias.

Acceptance. For some who had lived through one or more of the preceding stages of the Political Change Curve, they realized that acceptance would become the best way to move on – to eliminate the complete nonproductive existence they were living, the anxiety and angst they experienced every day, and to try to refocus their existence to look forwards instead of backwards. They realized that life goes on and they needed to make the best out of a bad situation.

Critical Analysis. This stage recognizes the need to improve, correct, and otherwise mitigate the intolerable environment – in other words figure out a way to correct the problem. 

Rebuilding. This final stage occurs when all of the preceding stages have been experienced in part or in total: it is the actual implementation process of corrective action to bring about the desired success: control by the Democrats.

The Democrat Party has failed to recognize a key component in helping its members who are trying to navigate this environment: the easier it is for its individual party members to move into the healing process of trying to live with Donald Trump’s presidency, the easier it will be for the Democrat Party to credibly move cleanly into the next election cycle.

I believe that most of the Democrat party is stuck in the Fomenter stage: complain, misdirect, whine, etc. I think that acceptance may come within the next couple of months when the presidential hopeful herd thins out and a nominee emerges. I believe that the Fomenter stage will be sporadically interleaved with messages about the Democrat candidate (positive) supplanting fake news about Trump (negative). 

Once this Acceptance stage is adopted, the Critical Analysis and Rebuilding stages will begin rapidly because a completely disgusted electorate will have to be recaptured to the party of fake news, years of Russian collusion and impeachment threats. “We should all be worried that more than 65 percent of voters think there is a lot of fake news in the mainstream media and that our major media institutions are seen as creating, not combating, our growing partisan divide.” https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/

Here is food for thought. Biden will not make the final cut (bunch of reasons). Neither will Bernie: always a bridesmaid. Plus, he, like Biden is an old, white, male – not a chance. A possible combo of Presidential hopefuls for the Democrat ticket: Elizabeth Warren and V. P. Kamala Harris? The Republicans will probably run Trump and V. P. Pence. But with two females or a minority candidate on Democrat ticket: who knows?  Maybe V. P.  Nikki Haley? Republicans may have to think outside of the box. With politics, who knows? Forget the polls. If it involves Trump, all bets are off!

Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The Righteous Mind

[Guest Contributor - Donald G. Mutersbaugh Sr.]

I would like to share my thoughts about a book whose subtopic should be of interest to all political animals and religious leaders: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Jonathan Haidt's words of wisdom can be summed up: whatever position you have politically or religiously, always try to question what else it is that you are missing. Henry Ford had similar thinking: “If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person’s point of view and see things from that person’s angle as well as from your own.” What makes Haidt’s rather scholarly work different centers on this: Reason is often less decisive in deciding what the best moral or political position is; rather, it’s our emotions and intuitions that react first. The following presentation will include quotes from Haidt’s book, The Righteous Mind.  Please keep in mind that this is more of a book review than an editorial. Also, be aware that there are many other points to his theory, but space limitations prevent me from presenting all of them; this is a summary of the main topics.

Haidt starts with notion that our views are the product of reasoned thought. Haidt uses the metaphor of an elephant and rider. The rider is our conscious (rational) mind, which you may believe is in charge. But the elephant is our unconscious (intuition) mind, which is far bigger and stronger. The rider is really the elephant’s servant whose job it is to come up with rationalizations justifying the elephant’s position and movement. This is the first principle of moral psychology: “Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.” As Heidt recommends, “Thinking in this way [rider and elephant] can make you more patient with other people. When you catch yourself making up ridiculous post hoc arguments, you might be slower to dismiss other people just because you can so easily refute their arguments.” He then presents “The social intuitionist model. Intuitions come first and reasoning is usually produced after a judgment is made, in order to influence other people. But as the discussion progresses, the reasons given by other people sometimes change our intuitions and judgments.”

In the next section Heidt presents the second principle of moral psychology: “There's more to morality than harm and fairness…. Moral matrices bind people together and blind them to the coherence, or even existence, of other matrices. This makes it very difficult for people to consider the possibility that there might really be more than one form of moral truth, or more than one valid framework for judging people or running a society.” Heidt uses a metaphor that the righteous mind is like a tongue with six taste receptors (the following is directly quoted):

The Care/harm foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of caring for vulnerable children.

The Fairness/cheating foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of reaping the rewards of cooperation without getting exploited.

The Loyalty/betrayal foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of forming and maintaining coalitions.

The Authority/subversion foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of forging relationships that will benefit us within social hierarchies.

The Sanctity/degradation foundation evolved initially in response to the adaptive challenge of the omnivore's dilemma, and then the broader challenge of living in a world of pathogens and parasites…. It makes possible for people to invest objects with irrational and extreme values – both positive and negative – which are important for binding groups together.

The Liberty/oppression foundation… evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of living in small groups with individuals who would, if given the chance, dominate, bully, and constrain others.

You might ask why this is important. It is because liberals, conservatives and libertarians all place differing degrees of emphasis on these different foundations. In the Liberal Moral Matrix, the most sacred value is care for the victims of oppression. In the Libertarian Moral Matrix, the most sacred value is individual liberty. And in the Social Conservative Moral Matrix, the most sacred value is to preserve the institutions and traditions that sustain a moral community. “Republicans understand the social intuitionist model better than do Democrats. Republicans speak more directly to the elephant. They also have a better grasp of Moral Foundations Theory; they trigger every single taste receptor [six, not just two or three].” This is why Republicans have a hard time understanding Democrats and why Democrats have a hard time understanding Republicans. All of these people are good people, intelligent people, and mean well; it's more of a comprehension or lack of understanding type of problem.

The third part of the book deals with our “groupishness”. As he explains, “Yes, people are often selfish, and a great deal of our moral, political, and religious behavior can be understood as thinly veiled ways of pursuing self-interest…. But it's also true that people are groupish. We love to join teams, clubs, leagues, and fraternities. We take on group identities and work shoulder to shoulder with strangers toward common goals so enthusiastically that it seems as if our minds were designed for teamwork…. our minds contain a variety of mental mechanisms that make us adept at promoting our group's interests, in competition with other groups.”This leads us to the third and final principle of moral psychology: "Morality binds and blinds. It binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say." Once we understand this, it makes it easier for us to understand who we are, and more importantly, it helps us to understand the opposing viewpoint of another group. With this approach, we hopefully avoid the tendency to negatively confront the other group – just because it's the other group. It also helps explain why people make decisions within the group that might be different than what the individual wants: it's because we are “groupish”!

So, if you’re ready to trade in anger for understanding, do as Haidt concludes: "We`re all stuck here for a while, so let`s try to work it out."

____________________________________

Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich. He is also an ordained minister and has a Doctor of Divinity degree.

 

Republicans in Freefall

This was published in The Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/03/opinion-republicans-in-freefall/

Things could not be bleaker for the Republican Party. Its fund raising fell apart over a year ago as a backlash to immigration reform. Regularly, President Bush sets new record lows for how much a modern president can be disliked and how completely his policies can be rejected. Three special election defeats in Republican strongholds are proving that there will be no safe-havens in November. The latest polls show voters preferring Democrats over Republicans by a margin of 53 percent to 32 percent. This is nearly twice the deficit the Republicans faced going into the disastrous 2006 elections.

This is a portrait of a party in freefall, yet many Republicans remain in denial. They grasp at straws about America’s racial undercurrents and the Democratic Party’s uncanny ability to lose elections. These retreats into fantasy will not prevent the tsunami that is heading toward the party on Nov. 4.

Republicans I speak with are just as fed up with their party as Americans in general. The Republican Party seems like a random collection of egos and personal agendas. Many of these personal agendas have embraced Big Government and Big Brother with more zeal than the most ardent leftist. They see dispensing favors and funds as their ticket to electoral bliss. They ignore the epic failures of the Bush presidency, and those of the recent Republican era in Congress, in the hopes that Americans will somehow do the same.

The Republicans have a razor-thin window of opportunity before all is lost. The November elections are just over five months away. Voters want something real, and their skepticism and cynicism are reaching record levels. They know the campaign calendar dictates that everything said by a politician is suspect from now through the election. Candidates from across the political spectrum prove this during every campaign cycle when they say anything, including fabricate and outright lie, in order to dupe voters into supporting them. Voters want to see real actions that back up the words.

The Republicans can still do something that could save them. They could treat the Bush administration like it was the opposition party. Can you honestly envision Republican members of Congress, as well as their pundits and activists, letting Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton get away with the corruption, incompetence, waste and abuse regularly displayed during the last seven years by the Bush administration? Of course not. Republicans would have scrambled to the microphones attacking every moment of the administration and hauling every official they could before their oversight committees.

The strategic error made by Republicans is that they began looking at everything through a partisan lens. If a Democrat does it - it is fundamentally bad. If Mr. Bush or another Republican does the exact same thing - it is fundamentally good. Most Democrats suffer from this same myopia, but they are not the ones perceived to be in power. Oversight hearings and spirited attacks by Rep. Henry Waxman and others are viewed as holding our government accountable. Republican efforts to hamper these actions are rightly viewed as a conspiracy to shield the Bush Administration from accountability.

This is a no-win situation for Republicans. Their only hope is to begin exposing the foibles of the Bush administration with even more zeal than Mr. Waxman and his Democratic colleagues. This should be easy for a real Republican or real conservative. There is very little worth preserving from the last seven years. Except for some excellent appointments to the federal courts, Bush and his acolytes have been the antithesis of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater on everything that matters. The sooner their legacy is erased the better for the Republican Party.

The Republicans can start their return from the dead by returning to their roots - displaying a healthy skepticism of Big Government and fighting government waste. Waste is waste and corruption is corruption, no matter which party is in charge. Republicans must recover their moral compass.

Members of Congress should begin their resurrection by aggressively conducting investigations and oversight of waste and mismanagement in the federal government. In recent weeks, $7.8 billion was reported spent in Iraq without adequate documentation. There are reports of highly unethical and possibly illegal procurement and contracting actions at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Coast Guard is not adequately investigating and preventing marine accidents. The list of improvement opportunities is endless. Criticizing these, and other examples of mismanagement, is a good first step for the Republicans in Congress to show some real concern about government integrity. Republican journalists should also be aggressively pursuing and reporting on incompetence and wrongdoing in every other nook and cranny of the current administration.

The Republican Party must take this kind of substantive action if it wants to convince voters that it is mending its ways. With the August recess, national conventions, Olympics and probably an early adjournment, there are only a few precious weeks left for the Republicans in Congress to avoid electoral oblivion.