The Cohen Hearings are the new Watergate Hearings.

Deja Vu: We have been here before.

This feels like the summer of 1973, amid the Watergate hearings. 

Young readers may have a pang of regret, not to have been young and alive back in the hippy-counterculture days of the late 1960s and early 1970s, when young people were excited amid a cultural revolution, and then watching the slow train wreck of the Nixon administration. 

Colleges were in uproar, the single-sex ones were going co-ed, women were entering the professions, clothes and hair were wild signals, and we young people thought we had discovered sex and drugs.

I was there. I also know the feeling of being in an era of change, and looking back at the same time.

People in the 1960s read Earnest Hemingway and F Scott Fitzgerald and wondered about the lost generation. Maybe people were more alive back in the 1920s in Paris, bemoaning the Great War while drinking coffee and alcohol in Parisian bars, smoking cigarets, writing novels or getting the subject matter for them. Their generation had a name: the lost generation. They were part of a moment in time.

Just like the counterculture/Watergate generation.

Youth in the 1960s had our own revolution to console us, even amid our own great tragedy to bemoan, the political defeat of George McGovern by Nixon. There was a kind of happy ending as we watched the Watergate death spiral of that great symbol of evil, the man who had campaigned and won by attacking us with the slogan of opposition to "Acid, Amnesty, Abortion."

Now young people have hearings of their own, and their own moment. This is the Trump era. It may not be ending, but it is a moment of crisis in it. Democrats have the House and Trump is under a microscope.

Michael Cohen is a version of John Dean, a man on stage, testifying. Like Dean, Cohen knows some things, but not enough of the right things to be the stake in Trump's heart. Haldeman and Erlichman and the Oval Office tapes knew the truth. Dean--and Cohen-- only knew that an ugly truth was out there, but did not have the documentary proof of it. 

But there is a difference worth noting, and it speaks badly for the Republic. In 1973 the Republican senators who represented the public face of the GOP were desperate to look like seekers of the truth. They had standards for Nixon, but were unclear that Nixon had flouted them. They wanted it proven, not suspected. 

"What did Nixon know and when did he know it."  Every person over the age of sixty five knows that
phrase. It was a question of fact, questioning whether Nixon had been criminal. Whether he was
 wrong, and if it was wrong then it was indefensible. 

It is different now.  

Now GOP House members, the current face of Republicans in these hearings, are defending their president--as is predictable--but not by defending Trump’s behavior. They know his actions are wrong, that he has financial crimes, election crimes, open lies about his relations to Russian money and political influence and to Wiki-leaks. The Republican purpose is to attack the messenger. That is all that is relevant. They are doing a tribal defense of their man. Trump against a bad guy. Not what did Trump do.

They are doing exactly what Michael Cohen admitted he did and part of what he is going to prison for: he defended his client, Donald Trump, when Trump was wrong and his actions indefensible. Cohen warned Republicans that they would regret this.

Americans may need to reflect that this is the new reality for America, that the standard isn't the truth. It is the tribe. Nixon only resigned because GOP leadership decided he was in fact guilty and indefensible and the electorate wouldn't stand for it, so they would vote for conviction. That won't happen now. 

In the current political understanding, Trump didn't misbehave against laws and the Republic. He misbehaved against Democrats and liberals and progressives. He openly and proudly admits to trying to influence the investigation, and his allies openly talk about tampering with witnesses. They aren't admitting to obstructing justice, they are celebrating trying to defeat Democrats. 

If the standard is tribal rather than legal, tribal defense of the man, period, is a good thing, not a bad thing. It speaks badly for the long term future of our Republic, but it is the new reality

Today's youth are getting their great moment of crisis and change. It is happening now. 

The “crazy-man” strategy in negotiations

Trump and Kim are in Hanoi, talking about what to do about the nukes.

This could work out. It also might not.

Unpredictable bluster and a domestic audience to impress are doubly dangerous in combination.


Donald Trump has made a virtue out of being unpredictable.  He says he keeps other people guessing and nervous. We give wide berth on the sidewalk to people shouting nonsense.  They might be off their meds.

It’s a strategy.  It may be what got North and South Korea talking, in panic and desperation over what the luntic in the White House was doing, and that set the stage Trump and Kim to meet.

In foreign affairs we have some experience with headstrong, self-confident, inexperienced leaders of countries, people with one eye on domestic politics.  History sees them as dangerous bumblers. They get their countries into wars.

Americans--Democrats, too--need to be hoping something good happens with North Korea.  Unless the outcome is spectacularly bad, Trump will call it victory.  Americans appalled by Trump should not begrudge this, although it will rankle. I even hope he gets awarded a Nobel Peace prize. (Democrats need not fear it assures his re-election.  Remember Carter brokered a peace between Israel and neighbors.  He looked good for a while, and then Reagan swamped him.)

Progress on the Korean Peninsula is worth the few days of Trump celebration. Then it will be back to the usual.

There is a flaw with the “crazy man” strategy. Kim has reason to fear treachery. He thinks he is safe now--safe enough--because he has hostages at gunpoint, which are the only thing keeping the US military planners from assuring Trump they can execute a “surgical strike.”  In range of North Korean missiles are American soldiers,  South Korean and Japanese allies, Hawaii, and the Wesr Coast of North America. Maybe the East Coast, too. The “Trump is so crazy he might do it” gambit got them talking, but that same gambit makes Trump an unreliable counterparty.

We saw what happened with the Paris accords and the Iran deal. So did Kim.

History teaches us one additional thing: there is no such thing as a surgical strike.  Hope for peace.

Climate change and the common good

People will change their behavior when it is in their personal interest to do so.

Democratic candidates press a "climate change" agenda.

The GOP is dealing with climate change by saying it probably isn't real.

But, if it is real, it isn't the fault of humans.

And even if it is our fault, there isn't much use doing anything about it because it is too expensive.

And besides, whatever we do is a drop in the bucket and inconsequential.

And besides even that, China and India and everyone else are polluting so they make pointless whatever we do by replacing any pollution that we save.

In Oregon, the Democratic majority is considering a "cap and invest" climate bill. Governor Kate Brown supports the bill and says it positions Oregon as a climate change leader--along with California--to "lead and pave the path for other states across the country to follow."

The GOP Senate leader, Herman Baertschiger, Jr. is quoted saying Oregon is a drop in the bucket of carbon pollution, that it is an expense and a waste of effort.  He is on-message, in that it coincides with the overall Trump/GOP position, one which served them well in the energy producing states in Appalachia, North Dakota, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Texas. There is coal-country in Ohio and Pennsylvania, two swing states critical to the Trump victory.

Trump and Republicans believe they have a powerful political message: lower regulations on American life generally, and especially on energy. Trump said he digs coal, clean coal. Trump speaks proudly of reducing regulations on coal slurry into streams. He also removed the automobile mileage requirements. He is appointing people to a science committee with the specific purpose of refuting evidence of climate change created by his own departments. He doesn't hide this. He brags about this. There is a message here for Democrats. Maybe not everyone is on board with a climate change agenda, at least as soon as it actually forces bother or expense on people.

It is like an unused gym membership. They like it "in general" but not when they actually have to do something about it.

There is a reason Trump and the GOP take this position, even in supposedly environmental-friendly Oregon. It resonates with a lot of people.

Democrats have a risk and an opportunity.

The risk is that they validate the Republican message and create rules that are burdensome and expensive and require sacrifice, toward an uncertain and remote goal.  As Kevin Drum wrote in his commentary on the Green New Deal, Click: Mother Jones 
      
     "Outside of war, I can’t think of an example in all of human history where a large polity—let alone the entire world—willingly made significant sacrifices in service of a fuzzy, uncertain hazard that’s decades away. We are overclocked hairless apes who are simply not designed to think that way. Why would anyone deny this?"

The opportunity for Democrats is that, in fact, Americans do act when they see it to be in their own interest. Americans insulate their houses because it saves them money to do so. They put solar panels on their roofs because it saves them money. They buy electric plug-in cars, and hybrid cars, because it there is social cache' to driving electric cars, plus tax credits, plus cost savings. I drive a hybrid car. I have all the power I need and more, and I get 50 miles per gallon and therefore save money. And the car is really, really quiet at low speeds. I am not sacrificing.

It is not a coincidence that Social Security and Medicare are "socialist" programs that are popular. Everyone pays in, everyone expects to benefit. It isn't sacrifice, it is investment.

Democrats can go the coercion route, in which they ask people to take one for the team. The problem is that the rest of the world is not on the team, and much of the US is not on the team. That doesn't mean Democrats can do nothing.

They can do a lot, especially when they structure climate change programs so that they work with self interest rather than against it.

Governments are instituted among men and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

First Impressions matter. Poor Amy Klobuchar

Advice to candidates:

"Decide who you are before your opponent decides who you are."    

Amy Klobuchar

Brief case study: Amy Klobuchar is trying to create a brand. We are watching a process at work to destroy it.

A dozen Democrats are attempting to create their political identity on the national stage. For most Americans, and for every candidate except Sanders and Biden, we are getting first impressions. Voters are building a skeletal framework for an understanding them.

Meanwhile, opponents are busy.

By the day of the primary elections in the various states in 2020, the marginal voters--those voters who will vote but who are not engaged activists--will know perhaps seven things about a candidate. Many won't know seven, some of what they "know" will be incorrect. 

That is the reality. People vote in ignorance, on impressions.

Amy Klobuchar, is busy trying to get known.  I ask readers to take a moment right now. What do you know about her without a Google or Wikapedia search?

For me:

***Identity: She is a white woman.

***Job: She is a US Senator from Minnesota.

***Age: She is somewhere in mid-late middle age.

***Politics: She is a Democrat.

***Memorable incident: She announced in a snowstorm, because we remember a photo of her with snow in her hair and because Trump called her "snowball" or "snowflake" or something.

Fox, hijacking first impression

***Personality: Seems pleasant, but I read that there is some problem with her being mean to staff.

***Bearing and tone: she seemed confident and self assured, without being over the top, but not particularly memorable yet.

That is seven. I am still learning. For a lot of people, that is all they will ever know.

Beyond that, I make some inferences. 

My impression is that she surely must be less liberal/progressive than Bernie Sanders, because she got elected in moderate Minnesota and she has not been described as a close Bernie ally--which I would have heard if it were so. 

What about policy details, on health care, taxes, war and peace? 

I am unclear, although I assume, based on her being an incumbent Democrat in 2019, and that I have not heard to the contrary, that she probably is part of the policy consensus.

Vanity Fair. Click

If she stays in the news I will be able to add a few additional items, much of which will depend on her bearing and tone. I will connect--or not--with her emotional valence, whether she seems engaging and credible, whether she seems confident and self possessed, whether she can be persuasive and acts and sounds like a leader.

Opponents are at work, making sure that one of the first things we know about her is her supposed petty and cruel behavior to staff. 

When a voter knows little, it matters what is embedded in the brand skeleton. Humans have confirmation bias. We see what we are prepped to see, and in this case haughty Senatorial privilege, something which undermines branding that positions her as a powerful person who fights for the little guy. 

This is a dangerous idea to be part of the seven. It undermines a notion of "Minnesota nice" and it undermines her positioning as a person who can win votes of working people in the upper midwest.

What can Klobuchar do?  1. It would help if it were simply not true, because then the charge may run out of fuel. This may be hard. Having staff do things that benefit oneself personally is undeniably bad for her political brand. 2. Do what she has done: redefine incidents as examples of her being hard on herself on behalf of the public.

But this could be fatal. Opponents may have gotten too big a head start creating early impressions.  

I Googled "Amy Klobuchar" and got these six stories at the top. Four of the six relate to behavior toward staff. This isn't a good sign. First impressions matter.

Grab attention.

Celebrity matters. Charisma matters. 

AOC

Guess what?  

Yesterday this blog's readership doubled, from from people referred by Facebook. The photo yesterday was this photo of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

People wanted to know more about AOC.

Apparently she interests people. She is attractive, photogenic, young, new, controversial. 

Some readers disagree strenuously to one of this blog's ongoing observations, that in the current news media environment, including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and the rest of social media, the political environment is better understood as an entertainment spectacle than as a policy debate.  

Objectors say I am too facile. They tell me they care deeply about policy nuance, for example between between "Single Payer," "Medicare for All," "Universal Access," and other potential changes in the health care system, and that they will choose their favored candidate accordingly. They say that likening politics to Commedia del Arte archetypes trivializes politics. We aren't seeing just matchups of professional wrestling characters or oversimplified Heroes, Fools, and Knaves. We are making policy choices.

They note that the future of the world hangs on this. This is serious.

John Delaney

Yes. 

But I am observing that we are seeing the serious business of team coalition building through political imagery, branding, and theater, not the serious business of policy articulation and choice.

This is the Super Bowl, not C-SPAN. There is a big element of spectacle.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has been in Congress for less than two months, has a national following, and is now identified by shorthand, like Cher, or JFK. 

Meanwhile, John Delaney, a three term Democratic congressman from Maryland, a self-made multimillionaire, who filed to run for president in the summer of 2017 and who has been to New Hampshire 51 times and to Iowa over 20 times, and has scores of staff in each state, is an unknown.

He remains unknown. 

He just left a Monroe County Iowa spaghetti feed, then a West Side Family Restaurant in Poweshiek County, then on to Black Hawk County, and then on to a Veteran's group, and then a Meet-And-Greet in Perry, Iowa. He is doing the serious hard work of running for president. He is talking seriously about issues. 

And so far, at least, it just doesn't matter. He hasn't got whatever "sparkle" people want in this current political/media environment.

Merkley meet and greet

Meanwhile, Jeff Merkley is considering whether to continue his exploration of a presidential run, or whether to file for re-election as a US Senator. He was in Medford, Oregon on Friday, meeting with long time supporters, and addressing that question. 

His politics are progressive within the range of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and AOC. He shares their overall policy approach. He is younger than Sanders and Warren, he is likable, he doesn't have the "Socialist" baggage of Sanders nor the heritage baggage of Warren. 

He has a quiet, humble manner. People tell me that--after 3 years of non-stop Trump--they welcome low-drama, earnest humility. 

He is perfect, right?

My observation is that this is what people say, but not what they do in real life. They don't want a listener. They aren't in fact drawn to a person who leans down to hear from a supporter. They want this in a spouse, a friend, a "good person", a re-electable Senator, but apparently not in a presidential candidate. 

Whatever it was people in Iowa wanted in Jimmy Carter in 1976 is not what they want now.

Listening

Apparently a presidential candidate today needs to be bold, erect, sharp-edged, commanding. One doesn't need to be male to be that. OAC proves that. But there is a style that the current media environment seems to demand. Trump, amid all his flaws, has it. 

People watch him because they find him interesting. Then, watching him, many are persuaded by him.

John Delaney doesn't have whatever that thing is that causes people to be interested. To click.

Jeff Merkley presents as a very good person, humble and earnest. Maybe that will catch on, but I don't yet see it.

Swift-boating Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Of course, Trump calls her a ditzy idiot, a Fool. We expected that.

The "swift-boat" attack is that she isn't authentically a struggling millennial, passionate about changing the world. 

The good news is that AOC knows what to do in a media fight. Other Democrats could learn from her.

The swift-boat technique is to attack the strongest part of the opponent's reputation. It got its name from the claim that candidate John Kerry, who got medals and purple hearts for courage under fire while commanding a small Navy river craft, was actually a coward. Kerry said the attack was beneath notice. People heard it go unanswered. Mistake. The attack muddled an important part of the Kerry brand. 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is under current attack, and will likely be for the entirety of her political life.

NY billboard

Attack Number One: She's a Fool. This one defines her as an ignorant inexperienced young woman. Opponents leap on mis-statements, regarding the size of Pentagon funding, of details in the Green New Deal, on unemployment numbers. She has made actual errors, and her opponents have turned perfectly reasonable statements into errors, by mis-stating her words.

It is classic archetype messaging, pitting the silly Fool against the steady hand of the Hero.

Attack Number Two: Undermine her authenticity.  AOC got publicity for revealing that she had worked as a bartender while running for Congress, and that she didn't have enough savings easily to enter the DC housing market. At first, Fox and other conservative media sources thought to mock her for this. See how poor she is, how young, how unprepared for grown up life.

That backfired. 

It reinforced her brand as an authentic and sympathetic struggling millennial. Many people struggle to have the "first, last, and security deposit" available to move into a new place, and many people have worked in the service and hospitality industry, and aren't ashamed of it.

The attacks confirmed she wasn't a privileged woman with a trust fund or a political special interest puppet-master.

Her critics learned, and reversed course. Now they are attacking her for her presumed wealth, power, and privilege. 

She isn't like you. She is mired in the swamp!

Boyfriend. There are new media attacks saying a boyfriend had a House of Representatives e-mail account. (He does. He is a volunteer.) Her boyfriend got paid $6,000 from a progressive PAC! Maybe that is corrupt!

Clothes. Meanwhile Fox and Friends revealed she modeled expensive clothes in a magazine shoot for Interview Magazine.

Fox and Friends' Pavilch: "The rising star of the Democratic Party has expensive tastes for a socialist. For a photo shoot for Interview Magazine, her pant suit--appropriate--retailing more than $2,800 alone. And the shoes 600 bucks. It's tough being a socialist. I think she should redistribute. Hypocrisy at its best."

Twitter followers and other media leaped onto this, echoing the hypocrisy meme.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did what John Kerry failed to do: offer a pugnacious and unapologetic response: 

"The alt-right doesn't seem to understand the concept of magazine shoots. You don't get to keep the clothes, duh."

She added: "I don't "pretend" to fight for a Living Wage & Medicare for All. I do it."

Opposition tweet

Apartment. More criticism came from critics of her renting an apartment in a high rise building. Conservative media leaped. Look how well she can live with her $175,000 salary! There is a Whole Foods nearby!  A newspaper headlined she was "spotted shopping" in it. 

There was the dividing line. AOC was Whole Foods, not Walmart, i.e. she is a privileged hypocrite.

Again, AOC responded immediately and pugnaciously, with a tweet, citing her name being on the target list of the Coast Guard officer who had compiled weapons and ammunition in a suspected plot to do a mass attack on her and other prominent Democratic politicians.

    “Journalists are sharing stories about where I live the same day it’s shared that myself + others were targeted by a mass shooter. All this paired w/ amplifying unvetted conspiracy theories. It’s reckless, irresponsible & puts people directly in danger. This isn’t a game.”

Note: No apology.

Two takeaways: 

One is that we see underway the Trump/Fox approach to damage the AOC brand. Define her as incompetent and try to make her look hypocritical.

The second is that AOC is media savvy. She knows what to do in a media fight: defend her brand. She is who she is, and it's OK.

Swift-boating Bernie Sanders

Swift-boating: Attack people at their point of strength.

Bernie Sanders, the plutocrat! 

Trump and his media allies are branding Bernie Sanders a fraud and hypocrite. It seems illogical and impossible--fundamentally backward--but it works politically. 

And it is happening right now. Watch out, Bernie.

Fox story on Thursday

Two days ago this blog revisited a simple archetype for branding politics, using the framework articulated by Sandford Borins, the political scientist from Toronto who examines narratives. He notes that there are three primary roles, into which politicians attempt to fit themselves. The Hero, the Fool, and the Knave. One positions oneself as The Hero for the current circumstance and then defines the opponent either as unworthy because of weakness and naivety (Fool) or unworthy because of power and dishonesty (Knave.)

This coincides with a recurring theme in this blog, that Trump reduces politics to a duel between himself--the Bad Boy professional wrestling hero--versus his various opponents, who he defines as unworthy: "Little Marco", the Fool, or "Lyin' Ted," the Knave.  

And in the general election he defined "Crooked Hillary," as another Knave.

Sanford Borins wrote me to note how swift boating is best used to brand someone as a Knave: 

     "Remember that the knave fable is most effective when it includes an aspect of kleptocracy, i.e. the politician benefiting personally from office. That is why Trump has been so assiduous about not revealing his personal information. Someone in the Trump Administration and/or GOP is working to tell knavish storers about the Democrats before they begin telling their own."

Supporters and admirers of Bernie Sanders understand that part of Sanders appeal is that Sanders is the guy who never sold out, the uncorrupted politician.

His brand was unkempt hair, rumpled suits, and modest living. He doesn't pal around with billionaires. This makes him uniquely legitimate in calling out the lobbyists and the DC swamp who use their office for personal gain, while he represents the opposite, the everyman-truth teller. An honest politician. A Hero.

Swift-boating attacks Sanders at his point of strength, calling him a rich guy hypocrite and fraud. 

Of course, the reality--even one reported deep inside the Fox story--is that Sanders has a home in Vermont, something essential to a Vermont officeholder, and a one bedroom, one and a half bath townhouse in DC, i.e. a permanent residence in the two places he is expected to domicile. No big deal. He also recently bought a vacation home on a Vermont lake, using the proceeds from the sale of his book.

Fox Link: CLICK

A vacation home is consistent with the circumstances of other successful professional people in long careers, e.g. accountants, attorneys, physicians. There is nothing surprising or exceptional here, but it is described as blatant hypocrisy.

The Fox story also notes that he flew 300,000 miles last year, implying this is extravagance. Again, on closer read, he flew in order to carry out his work of making speeches around the country. It wasn't extravagance. It was arduous duty.

Still, the headline story is wealth and extravagance. "His lifestyle doesn't always match the rhetoric." 

Long time followers of Sanders will think this ridiculous, but a great many people are just learning about Sanders. What they are now hearing is that maybe Sanders is not the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington Frank Capra-style hometown Hero. Maybe he is really cashing in.

Email subject: "Crazy Bernie."

And, simultaneously, they are hearing Trump's label for him. "Crazy Bernie" the subject line in the fundraising email I received from Trump on Thursday.  

The re-branding message is that Bernie Sanders is a conniving politician who secretly cashes in on fabulous wealth and a luxurious lifestyle while simultaneously plotting to steal your money.

A Knave.  

Tomorrow: 

Underway now: Swift-boating Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The silly little Fool.

Senator Ron Wyden meets with citizens, again.

     

"At this town meeting there has not been a bad question in the house, and as long as I have an opportunity to represent you in the United States Senate, this is the way we will do it."

                    Ron Wyden, on the completion of his Town Meeting

Senator Ron Wyden

Senator Wyden stood in front of 250 people at the North Medford High auditorium for 90 minutes answering questions posed to him by high school students and community members.

The gathering was open to everyone. The school principal drew ticket numbers from a bowl to determine by chance who could ask a questions.  Approximately twenty questions were asked and answered. 

Questions not raised were as interesting as issues raised. 

All politics is local. 

Not asked about:

   ***No questions or discussion of health insurance eligibility, or the Affordable Care Act, or of pre-existing conditions coverage, or the 2018 health care changes initiated by the GOP.

   ***Nothing about foreign policy, wars, or American troops anywhere. There was no mention of North Korea, the Iran Deal, Afghanistan, Venezuela, NATO, the Military, Syria, or the European conference just concluded.

Students and Community Members

   ***Nothing about the Mueller investigation, including Russia collusion, Russian involvement in elections, potential obstruction of justice, the AG, Trump's campaign, or prosecutions.

   ***Nothing about the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, or nominations.

   ***Not a word about abortion, LGBTQ, or any other culture war issue.

   ***Nothing about Trump, his personality, his tweets, or presidential norms of behavior.

   ***Trade issues. There was no mention of China, Mexico, Canada, nor balance of payments, automation, or anything related to global trade or manufacturing.

   ***No mention of the stock market, the Fed, unemployment rates.

Questions and concerns raised were close to home.

   ***Smoke and forest fire suppression funding and policy. Wyden said the current funding is inadequate and had been focused on suppression rather than prevention, a foolish waste, which he said was addressed in new legislation.

American sign language translator

   ***Protection of rivers and areas, especially the Rogue River. Several people expressed gratitude and concern about the Rogue fishery, Rogue tourism, and the designation of Wild and Scenic rivers.  Wyden said he was proud to have expanded and protected more rivers and forest areas.

   ***Accommodation in health care delivery under the Oregon Health Plan to the deaf, who have a problem communicating their health issues. Wyden said he was absolutely sympathetic to this issue.

   ***Jordan Cove pipeline. There were comments on both sides of this issue, one from the Laborers Union supporting the project and praising Wyden for his neutrality, and others from environmental activists opposing the project. Wyden said he had promised to be neutral and not put his thumb on the scales of the regulatory process that would issue permits for its construction. This answer was the only one which got clear negative response from some members of the audience. Many audience members, in orange tee shirts, were there to protest the project.

   ***Green New Deal. Wyden said he supported it, and that criticism of it as impractical was pre-mature and the criticism mistook the proposal as current legislative mandate, not a long term aspirational goal.

   ***Drug prices. Wyden said they were unfairly high. He said he would have hearings hoping to pin down drug company executives on drug pricing, likening those hearings to the hearings in which tobacco executives were questioned.

   

   ***Immigration. Wyden said he supported the immigration bill had been passed overwhelmingly in the Senate, but which stalled in the House. He said this is a nation of immigrants, that immigration was a good thing for America, that nearly everyone in this room would be a descendant of immigrants, and that his father escaped from Germany and survived the War because of immigration. He gave full throated support for immigration

   ***Border security. Wyden said that he supported it, and had voted repeatedly for fencing, drones, border guards, and other security tools that would actually work. A wall would not, he said, and it was being pursued because it was a vanity project for the president based on a campaign promise saying that we needed a wall that Mexico would pay for.

   ***School funding and its relationship to National Forest history. Wyden said he had supported the program that brought income to the counties and schools, and that without the $5 billion it brought that the distress in Oregon's rural counties would have been far worse.

   ***School start times in the morning. A student said he had a hard time being awake and alert in the early mornings and thought that schools should start later in the morning. Wyden said he had recently read scientific research which concurred with the student. He said that the student should bring this up with the Medford School Board, a member of which was in the room, because this was a local rather than Senatorial matter, but that he was happy to serve as that point of introduction between the two. 

Wyden laughed and congratulated the student for the question. He said that he thought he had heard every possible question and issue raised in his 926-plus Town Halls, but this was a brand new one.

Wyden presented himself as a problem solver, not a partisan warrior.

Wyden sounded like a senator, not a presidential candidate. His only big, overarching theme, was that officeholders should meet their constituents, hear their concerns and answer their questions, directly, as in Town Halls, and not through paid media. Wyden did not talk about "bipartisanship" but it came up repeatedly in how he answered questions, in which he would cite the name of a GOP senator with whom he worked to get things passed regarding preservation of public lands, drug prices, school funding, and smoke. His only reference to Republican Greg Walden was a passing one of having worked cooperatively on some forest issues.

Wyden described areas of legislative agreement, not the issues of division. The overall message was that his purpose was to use his political power, gained by experience and seniority, to get things done. 

The event was oddly non-political. This works for Wyden.

Brand and Accuse.

Donald Trump is a master at branding. He deftly defines his opponent. 

There are three political archetypes. Hero, fool, and knave. 

The right wing has their hero, Trump. They are busy defining the future Democrat as either a fool or knave.

There is a reason the right wing media have gone crazy publicizing and attacking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She is photogenic and popular--good ratings. And she is easy to distort. They want her to look foolish.

Busy defining Democrats.

The Trump campaign and media allies are defining him as an embattled, picked-upon, hard-nosed, common sense authoritarian, fighting to defend American interests and safety against the America establishment and foreign enemies. 

The fearless hero.

They are using AOC to define Democrats as Irresponsible, money-confiscating, socialist, wild-eyed, and unfit to govern. A dangerous fool. 

They are defining their future opponent now.

The message: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-Cortez wants to raise your tax rate to 70%, and the Democrats are getting on board this confiscation!!!

AOC floated the idea of a marginal tax bracket of 60-70% on annual incomes over $10 million a year. That happens to be popular, according to polls when described this way, even with Republicans. Very few people earn that much. A great many people think the deck is stacked in favor of very rich people, and they aren't one of them.

Fox hosts and guests understand marginal tax rates, but many people do not, so they intentionally say directly that their viewers--typical Americans--will have 70% of their income taxed. Even Grover Norquist--a career tax expert--tweeted the misstatement. 

Fox and Friends guest Ainsley Earhardt said "When you hear they're going to tax 70% of your paycheck, if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gets her way, how do they have so much support?"

Donald Trump in El Paso: "We've been looking at Venezuela. It's a very sad situation. That's what socialism gets you when they want to raise your taxes to 70%."


The message: Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal would take away your cars and planes and make you travel by foot or horseback, and this is what all those Democrats want to do!!!

AOC's Green New Deal proposes transitioning to renewable energy rather than fossil fuels. This, too, is popular, as a goal and direction. But they are describing it as if it were draconian legislation to be imposed immediately.

Hannity: "This is a real, serious threat to our way of life.  Horrific. Frighting. Dangerous. Impractical. Misguided. Guaranteed to fail, the results would be disastrous."

Ingraham: It would take away cars, airplanes, heating your home. 

Fox and Friends: No more beef. She wants to ban all the cows.

The Message: Democrats are knaves, too. Personal behaviors are turned into mandates. Example: Cory Booker is vegan.  Caricature: He wants to impose it on everyone!

Cory Booker has been vegan for four years. He has said "I think that whatever you eat is a very personal decision and everybody should eat what they want to eat. That’s America. That’s freedom." It is a heart-healthy diet. Various studies suggest it dramatically reduces heart disease. It is hard to do in America.

Fox's response is to turn it into an attack on Americans.

Fox's Watters: "Good luck running for president trying to take away meat."

Fox's Hannity:  "Are Democrats really trying to take the White House on a platform of banning meat? Lock your freezers. Save your meat."

Fox's The Five: "He wants to be the most powerful person in the world and he wants to impose his meat rationing on the rest of us!"

Political science professor Sandford Borins, at the University of Toronto has described an those archetypes of political campaign candidates. Hero. Fool. Knave.  Each campaign attempts to frame themselves into one of those categories. Trump and his allies are firming up Trump as hero and Democrats, either as the wild-eyed fools with harebrained impractical ideas, or else as a dangerous autocrat, who would confiscate your food. Maybe both.

Democrats have a challenge. Understand that is going on. Define Trump as the knave and their own candidate as the hero who will save us from that knave.