Almost one year ago I posted "Goodbye Syria and good riddance" on this blog. President Donald Trump had ordered a withdrawal from Syria in what seemed to many to be a non-consultative rash and reactionary move. His then Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis disagreed and ultimately resigned in large part because of the decision.
At that time I agreed with the President's decision and continue to support his efforts to withdraw from these interminable military deployments. Last year I was critical of the way in which the decision was made. It reportedly lacked consultation with allies and even within the President's own Administration. Trump eventually relented to across the board pressure to remain though there was a decrease in the number of forces by half.
The same arguments are being made that the decision this time was made hastily without adequate preparation and consultation. A lot of the criticism is simply the knee jerk reaction of the President's haters. No matter what he does it is wrong and they seek political advantage. But as in December of last year, there is significant opposition from two other sectors - Republican leaders and the defense bureaucracy.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wrote an Op-Ed this past weekend in the Washington Post titled: Withdrawing from Syria is a Grave Mistake. McConnell says, "It will leave the American people and homeland less safe, embolden our enemies, and weaken important alliances." I am familiar with these arguments from advocates such as McConnell, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham. They are hawks of the traditional "America as the indispensable leader" believers. I understand their arguments, but I ask: "At what cost?"
The election in 2016 was decided in no small part by people who have had it with the endless wars that expend blood and treasure for questionable objectives and results. In fact, the one sure way for Donald Trump to loose reelection is to engage in another such adventure. The Iranians are trying to provoke him to do just that. The defense bureaucracy would have reacted as would normally be expected but for the President saying no in reaction to the shoot down of an unarmed drone by the Iranians. Though the President has approved further deployments to Saudi Arabia as a deterrent in response to attacks on Saudi oil facilities he has not taken the bait to engage in yet another military adventure.
Below is the post from December of last year. It remains relevant. Everything below this line was written in December, 2018. Note it sounds just like this past week one year later. I have made some additions in bold. The original post with comments is linked here.
Liberty Takes Effort is a blog for the discussion of current national, state, and regional issues while relying on the wisdom of the founders of our nation.
2020 Prognostication – Trump wins – for now
If pressed to predict the winner of the 2020 presidential
election today I would predict that President Donald J. Trump will be
reelected. The prediction is based on Professor
Allen J. Lichtman’s “Keys to the White House” model. The model is a proven predictor that uses
measures that are more objective than polls and pundits. The model predicted the Trump victory in 2016
while all other methods failed. But the prediction is only a marker in time - the present - and a lot could change.
The Democratic Party has avenues to change indicator status
and the outcome in the remaining year.
However, barring a major collapse of the economy, they may only be able
to change the indicators on the margins.
In that case they will need to provide a very strong candidate as an alternative to President Trump.
Can the leading Democratic Presidential candidates provide that
alternative? Read on.
 |
| Will these be the the two candidates in 2020 |
Electric Autonomous Advertisement Pods - I mean cars
Automobiles have played a major role in American economics,
history, transportation, and culture.
The industry is in transition as it moves full force to create electric autonomous advertisement pods. Yes, you
read that right – ELECTRIC AUTONOMOUS ADVERTISEMENT PODS.
Automobiles in their early days were a statement of wealth but
were quickly available to the common man with the advent of Henry Ford’s
assembly lines. John Paul Getty’s
Standard Oil ensured the combustion engine would monopolize the industry over
Thomas Edison’s electric vehicles.
President Dwight Eisenhower created a massive network of highways that
would ensure the dominance of the automobile over all other forms of
transportation and underpin suburban sprawl.
The heyday of the automobile was the 1950's and 1960's when creativity
and art dominated. The major
manufacturers would introduce new model years with great fanfare. Television reached the masses and it could be
used to promote sales in many ways that created an emotional attachment to
brands. Creativity also rested with
individuals that could take older cars from the 1930's and 1940's and convert them
into unique artistic statements as hot rods and later muscle cars.
At a recent 4th of July parade, as the antique cars passed
by, my brother-in-law and I would say as they approached, “1968 Chevy Camaro,
1934 Ford Pickup, 1957 Thunderbird, etc.”
A nephew of about 35 years of age watching the parade with his own young
children said, “how do you guys know all of these old cars so well?” I
said, “in our time cars were a work of art.
When the new model year was rolled out there were themes like the
introduction of two-tone paint, or push button transmissions, or rocket lights
reflecting the space age. They were
things of beauty and innovation that we all wanted.
Cars today for your generation, like so much else today, are consumable
items. They all look the same. You lease
them and turn them in. Do you foresee
anyone coming to a parade like this when you are our age saying, “Oh, wow,
there goes a 2015 Nissan Rogue or a 2007 Toyota Corolla?”
Cars were a common shared experience for the Baby Boom
generation. Teens were bursting to
obtain their license. It was a means and
a symbol of independence. They almost
immediately purchased a car for as little as $50 (my first was that price - a
1961 Dodge Dart). They paid for the car,
the insurance, and the gas. They did
everything in their cars. On weekend
nights they rode up and down Main Street, stopping for an ice cream and to talk
with friends. Boys did much of the
maintenance themselves. Girlfriends and
boyfriends went “parking” at the reservoir or some other place for romantic
encounters at the end of a date. Cars
were an integral part of their culture.
Meet the first female President of the United States
Former South Carolina Governor and United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley will likely be elected the first female President of the United States. Whether that happens in 2020, 2024, 2028, or
2032 is the question. At 47, she will be
a relatively young 60 year old candidate as far out as 2032.
Haley has six years of experience as a governor. As Ambassador to the UN she was a standout
on the international stage. She is
young. She has solid experience. She is a mother. She has center-right conservative bona fides. She is a woman of color. She is attractive. She is an excellent speaker and unflappable
debater. Her husband is a Major in the
Army National Guard who has deployed to Afghanistan.
Last October Haley announced in the Oval Office, seated beside President Donald Trump, that she would leave her post as UN Ambassador. NPR reported at the time of her resignation, “She did not say what she will do next, except that it will be in the private sector.” Since Haley’s departure she has not taken a position with any private firm, but instead has positioned herself for a presidential run. Her finances are improving as she commands $200,000 for speaking engagements.
Free College and Student Loan Forgiveness
A presidential election approaches and the giveaway bidding keeps
rising. The two big ticket bids are “free
college education” and “forgiveness of student loan debt.” These two issues are symptoms of a problem. They are not the problem. Too often in our culture we focus on symptoms
and politicians pander with supposed solutions.
That is why many problems are never solved. The real problem is a higher education system that
is far too costly and ineffective in delivering quality outcomes efficiently.
Students and their parents sense that something is out of
joint. Increasingly they are
questioning the value proposition of the four-year college. (Actually, only 39% of students graduate in 4
years and only about 60% by year six.)
The cost is too high. The rigor
of the experience is questionable as everything outside of academics seems a
priority on campus with socialization atop the list. The enhanced economic promise associated
with the degree are diminishing. And the
debt burden incurred can be stifling.
Higher education costs have skyrocketed. The quality of education has not improved in
any way proportionate to the rise in cost.
Government programs to make higher education affordable have in fact had
the opposite effect – fueling rising costs.
Much of the burden of that cost is placed on the shoulders of those ill
prepared to complete college and ill prepared to pay back the debt burden.
Hometown Nostalgia
The recent creation of a Facebook Group for people from my
hometown "This was Randolph" quickly drew nearly 5,000 members. Thousands of posts, comments and reactions
indicated life in Randolph, Massachusetts in the 1960s into the 1980s was
overwhelmingly positive for children and teenagers. No doubt young people in many small towns
across the country in the same period shared that positive experience.
In a 1993 Washington Post Sunday Magazine feature about Rod Langway, an NHL Hall of Fame hockey player from Randolph, the author
described Randolph as a “tough blue-collar community south of Boston.” I was living in Washington, D.C. at that
time. Reading the article I was taken aback by that description of my hometown.
When thousands began migrating from Boston to the
fast-growing town in the 1950s it was considered a country backwater. It quickly became a blue-collar working-class
town in the 1950s and 60s, but it never seemed “tough” in a pejorative
way. It was a place of large families
and bursting schools where children played outdoors with little or no supervision. It wasn’t perfect, and there were some that
suffered in isolation and abuse, but the reflections on the Facebook Group
surely show it was in general a wonderful place to grow up.
Reading the posts within the group, one could not help but
think how much has changed - not just in my hometown, but in many small towns
across the country.
Who are these 5000
people in the Facebook Group?
Census Controversy and Gerrymandering before the Supreme Court - Part 2: Gerrymandering
There are two interesting and very important questions
before the Supreme Court this term relating to congressional
representation. One case is about
apportionment – the way in which the federal government allocates the 435
Congressional Districts to the states.
The other is about redistricting – the way in which districts are drawn
within and by states. As they are both
complex issues this will be a two series blog, Part 1: Apportionment and Part
2: Gerrymandering. Apportionment is the
process of allocating congressional districts after the decennial census. Gerrymandering is the manipulation of
congressional districts within state boundaries for political advantage.
These are complex issues for the Supreme Court that float in
a gray area between politics and clear-cut law.
The issues may seem arcane to many, but they are of major consequence
for the republic relating to representation, power, and resource allocation. Both issues are worthy of considerable
citizen attention.
GERRYMANDERING
In Part 1: Apportionment, the Constitutional requirement was
described to conduct a census every ten years from which the 435 Congressional
Districts are reapportioned to the states.
A further mandate that each of those districts have roughly the same numbers
represented was also established. Beyond
those broad goal posts the responsibility for creating the districts within
states is left almost entirely to the states themselves.
Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution says, “The Times,
Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall
be prescribed in each State by the Legislature.” It further provides a regulating authority stating,
“the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.”
Placing the state legislatures in charge of creating
districts within their borders makes the process a political one. As in all political activities advantage is sought
by competing interested parties. An
environment ripe for abuse is created.
Trump exonerated - stop the resistance! It's futile
To win the 2020 presidential election and retain control of
the House of Representatives the Democratic Party must stop the endless
acrimony over Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential election loss and move on to
offering solutions to real problems. If
not, it will lose the 2020 presidential election and the House of
Representatives. The nation is worn thin by the post 2016 rancor. Further continuation of a strategy of “resistance”
is harmful to the nation and likely counter to future Democratic electoral
success.
On May 17, 2017 Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller in an “Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian
Interference with the 2016 Presidential Election and Related Matters.” Thirty-four indictments of individuals and
three companies resulted. Thirteen
Russians and two companies were indicted for social media trolling and twelve
Russian military officers were indicted for hacking the Democratic National
Committee Email servers. The remaining
indictments and convictions were for peripheral violations of the law such as
lying to the FBI or Congress or long-past crimes unrelated to the
election.
On March 24, 2019 Attorney General William Barr provided
the major findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report titled: “Report on the Investigation into Russian
Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Barr writes, “the Special Counsel’s
investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it
conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US.
presidential election.” Further, the
Attorney General found that, “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s
investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an
obstruction-of-justice offense.”
In 2017 a special counsel was demanded. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused
himself as demanded. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein provided the Special
Counsel with an extremely broad authority and scope. Mr. Mueller was unhindered by the White
House or the Department of Justice in his investigation. Everything possible was done to
accommodate those that demanded a full, fair and thorough investigation.
Immediately following the release of the Attorney General’s
top-level summary Representative Maxine Waters said, “this is not the end of
anything!” The Democratic Party follows
her lead at its peril.
Census Controversy and Gerrymandering before the Supreme Court - Part 1: Apportionment
There are two interesting and very important questions
before the Supreme Court this term relating to congressional
representation. One case is about
apportionment – the way in which the federal government allocates the 435
Congressional Districts to the states.
The other is about redistricting – the way in which districts are drawn
within and by states. As they are both complex
issues this will be a two series blog, Part 1: Apportionment and Part 2:
Gerrymandering. Apportionment is the process of allocating
congressional districts after the decennial census. Gerrymandering is the manipulation of
congressional districts within state boundaries for political advantage.
These are complex issues for the Supreme Court that float in
a gray area between politics and clear-cut law.
The issues may seem arcane to many, but they are of major consequence
for the republic relating to representation, power, and resource allocation. Both issues are worthy of considerable citizen
attention.
APPORTIONMENT
Every ten years the United States Census Bureau conducts the
census in accordance with Article 1 Section 2 of the United States Constitution. The Constitution originally provided for the
maximum amount of people in a district (30 thousand) at the start of the
republic. However, as the number of states increased, and the population grew,
it became impractical to keep expanding the number of districts or to restrict
the number in each district to thirty thousand.
The Apportionment Act of 1911 established that there shall
be 435 congressional districts in the House
of Representatives to represent the interests of the citizens. The
Senate represents states. Each state is allotted two senators by Article 1,
Section 3 of the Constitution (50 states x 2 senators = 100 senators).
The 535 members of the Senate and House of Representatives
together make up the bicameral legislature that together are called the United
States Congress. Additionally, the District of Columbia is allocated
three Electors through the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution. Total electors therefore are 538 resulting in
the requirement that a presidential candidate obtain over half, or 270 electors,
to win a presidential election.
Who will win in 2020? - syllables and follicles may tell
Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper will not be
president – bet on it. Only one person with a
four syllable last name was ever elected president (and he was a five star general national hero) and the trend is toward
fewer syllables. Former Maryland
Representative John Delaney will not be president – bet on it. Delaney is bald. We very rarely elect bald presidents.
Prognosticating about the 2020 election is well underway. Much of it is based on anecdotal
evidence. As the readers of the Liberty
Takes Effort blog know - facts and analysis dominate here. The above predictions are based on
statistical analysis of historic patterns.
Syllables and follicles do not appear to have been analyzed as a
predictor of presidential contest outcomes in the past.
Reading last week of Hickenlooper’s presidential candidacy one
might think, “no one with that name will ever be elected president.” That
conclusion is supported by analysis of past president names. Cultural
and ethnic biases toward this modified German-origin name are not at issue. Rather, it is the number of syllables of this
lengthy last name.
Constructing a table with the names of all past presidents
one discovers that only one president has ever had a last name of more than three
syllables (Dwight Eisenhower). In fact, the majority were
two syllable last names. This insight
deserved further analysis.
Two syllable first names also dominate throughout presidential
history. Looking at both the last and
first names of presidents one discovers that over 70% of presidents had three
or four syllable first and last name combinations, but most prominent are two syllable
first and last name combinations.
What is the condition of our economy?
The last quarter of 2018 saw a constant drumbeat of negative
“news” that likely contributed to a psychologically induced drop in the stock
market. Headlines like, “Worst December
for stocks since 1931 gets worse as rate hikes spook investors” were
commonplace. Social media regurgitated the narratives. One
would have thought the sky was falling despite an abundance of contrary
economic performance measures that the economy is strong.
Something is wrong when armchair analysis by novice
investors can detect the difference between economic reality and a false
perception, but “journalists” cannot or will not. The American public would do well to guard
against watching biased and unreliable television “news” and informing
itself (or rather not informing itself) through social media. The resources are available to make better
economic decisions. The only requirements
are time and focus. The rewards can be
significant.
What is the evidence the economy is strong?
In the 1960s, economist Arthur Okun created the misery index
economic indicator. The misery index is
largely the addition of the inflation rate and the unemployment rate. The lower the number the better the
economy. The Carter Administration holds
the title for the worst Misery Index at more than 20 (Inflation over 14% and
Unemployment over 7%). Dwight Eisenhower
had the best at only 3.28. The current
misery index under the Trump Administration is 5.9 – the best since Eisenhower
in 1952.
Recent release of end of year 2018 and January, 2019
economic data confirm a strong U.S. economy.
Lagging Economic Indicators (Table 1) illustrate how well
the U.S. economy is performing. LAGGING
indicators are facts about what has happened in the recent past. They can help in making some prediction about
the immediate future, but straight-line projections of historical trends are dangerous
and to be avoided. In general, look at
this table to assess where the economy is right now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)