Sunday, October 13, 2024

Easy Sunday: A big Irish Catholic family

History may show that the most consequential invention of the 20th Century was the birth control pill and other forms of reliable contraception. 


Large families are rare in America now. It is now commonplace for young women in America to choose not to have children at all. The replacement rate for a stable population is an average of 2.1 children for each woman. The rate in the U.S. is now 1.62 births per woman, and the rate is going down. 

This has all happened in one lifetime.

Gerald Murphy is a retired high school English teacher and a playwright, with dozens of plays and musicals performed by schools, churches, and community theaters in over 40 countries. 



Guest Post by Gerald Murphy





Katty, Jerry, George, and Peggy are still alive.
Suzanne, Molly, Jim, Mom, Dad, and Joe are deceased

My big Irish Catholic family


I read somewhere that research and studies say that single unmarried women without children are happier than married women with children. I’m not a woman, so I won’t presume to know if this is true. It’s confusing to me. I could ask my mother, of course, since she had quite a bit of experience in this area. Unfortunately, my mother died over twenty years ago, so, I’ll never know the answer.

 

My mother had nine children, five boys and four girls. Was it hard to live in such a large family? I can’t think of any of the nine who would have complained. We lived in a tough neighborhood, but with four older brothers, I was untouchable. We did not suffer from want. My father had work from the early Depression until the day he died. My mother fed us well. 

 

We had acceptable sleeping arrangements, The sisters had one bedroom and slept in two double beds, two in each. The boys slept in bunk beds, with me in a ‘junior’ bed, until one of the older brothers left for the service. Then I got my coveted bunk. 

 

My parents followed the teachings of the Church against birth control, although they did try the “rhythm method,” obviously without success. My mother, who could be very blunt at times, thought the method was merely a cruel ruse to get her pregnant again and again. She did not like being forced into repeated pregnancies, but she felt she had little choice. 

 

My mother came from Ireland. She had three sisters, and they all immigrated to America. Two never married (and in those days, being single meant no children.) The other sister married in her early forties and had only one child, a girl. My mother knew that her sisters would never have traded places with her. Raising nine children was an insane burden, both physically and emotionally. Why would she choose this life unless there were no other choice because of her Catholic faith?

 

My mother never preached to us the value of having many kids. She was practical. Kids could be a blessing, but also a curse. When the abortion debates came to our family in the seventies, she often pointed out which one of us she would have chosen for abortion. She had a great sense of humor, so we all laughed this off. But she could also be red-faced with anger and say this with exceptional Irish vitriol.

 

In short, in another time my mother could have had a very different life. She could have waited for marriage and ended up with just one child. Or she could have avoided marriage altogether, ending up happily single, with nine purring kittens on her happy and relaxed lap. 

 

So, should my mother have produced nine children, or one, or none? The answer, I believe, is not for me to choose. If a woman knows what she wants, and is able to choose herself what she wants, then she might be happy with her choice. I don’t think it’s a wise thing to have outsiders, whether the Catholic Church or JD Vance, make the choice for you.

 

Today we live in a different world from my childhood. Catholics are far less likely to blindly follow the rules of the Church. Even in previously devout Ireland, the hold that the Church once held has greatly loosened, brought on by the sexual abuse scandals involving Catholic priests. 

 

Those, like Vance, who would have us return to the good old days have a tendency to hark back to an imagined state of grace, a happy “Leave It To Beaver” existence where Blacks and women and immigrants knew their place, where men went to work in the morning, the woman stayed home and cooked, and the biggest problem kids got into was chewing gum in class.  

But those were not the days I remember. My life was happy, then sad, then filled with success, then failure and everything in between. It was confusing when I was young; it is still confusing. I suspect Vance had just as much confusion in his life. But he’s in a position now to re-invent the past and possibly mold the future. That is a scary notion. If my mother were alive today, she might have something to say about Mr. Vance. “Faith and begorrah, we might all be better off if his mother had only aborted the wee darling.” 



[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to:  https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.] 





 

Saturday, October 12, 2024

A brief history of the U.S. and Mexico,

There is a history to our southern border and immigration across it.

American school-children barely learn it. American adults barely acknowledge it.

It started when the U.S invaded a neighboring democratic country and took half its territory.

Erich Almasy read my post last Tuesday, in which I speculated that if Kamala Harris lost the election it would likely be due to votes lost because Biden allowed for too long a surge of undocumented immigrants at the border. The disorder gave Trump an issue that polls show moves voters' opinions. Erich responded on Thursday, arguing that immigration was a net positive to the U.S., so we should stop complaining. Today he added a bit of history and context to that politically troublesome southern border.

In retirement, Erich and his wife Cynthia Blanton, both college classmates, live in the Mexican city of San Miguel de Allende.


Erich Almasy, at a replica Resolute desk at the George Bush Presidential Library in Dallas


Guest Post by Erich Almasy


Unauthorized Immigration – There is a Will and a Way 

In 1821, after 300 years of disease-based genocide and mass servitude, México, along with most of Latin and South America, achieved independence from Spain. By 1828, México was a democratic republic in which President Vincente Guerrero abolished slavery. The border with the United States was the Sabine River, separating Arkansas and the Mexican state of Tejas y Coahuila. The border was essentially unguarded, and as the price of cotton skyrocketed, the lure of prime bottomland was irresistible to many Americans who crossed into México. Ironically, an influx of murderers, rapists, and other criminals evading prosecution in the United States became so great that México closed the border in 1830.

 

By 1836, the Anglo immigrants (Texians) joined many native-born Tejanos in clamoring for independence from México. Their interest was to enter the United States as a slave state. The Alamo is not remembered for noble reasons.* The rebels succeeded, and by 1845, the Republic of Texas was the 28th state (a slave state) of the United States. In 1846, President James K. Polk, calling upon a Manifest Destiny instigated what Ulysses S. Grant (who served in it) later described in his Memoirs: “I do not think that there was ever a more wicked war than that waged by the United States on México.”** At the war’s end in 1848, México was forced to yield 55 percent of its land mass - the states of Texas, New Mexico, California, Nevada, Utah, most of Colorado and Arizona, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming.


Borders are often porous. Through the 1940s and 50s, the border between the United States and Mexico was largely porous since many cities were, in fact, “twinning” (Brownsville/Matamoros, McAllen/Reynosa, Laredo/Nuevo Laredo, Del Rio/Ciudad Acuña, Rio Grande City/Tamaulipas, El Paso/Ciudad Juarez, and Eagle Pass/Piedras Negras), with the border a painted line down the middle of a street. During World War II, wives of officers at the U.S. Army base in Eagle Pass would drive to the Victory Club restaurant in Piedras Negras, where the maître’d Ignacio (‘Nacho’) Anaya would prepare a baked corn chip, cheese, and jalapeño dish to have with their drinks. Ergo, Nachos!

 

The 1,954-mile border between the United States and México spans six Mexican and four American states, covering terrain from dense urban to parched desert. It is the most frequently crossed border globally, with approximately 350 million documented crossings annually. Most of the border follows the Rio Grande River (Rio Bravo del Norte) and includes maritime boundaries in the Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. There are 35 official border crossings with México, and the total population of adjacent cities and counties is over 12 million. The San Ysidro Port of Entry between San Ysidro, California, and Tijuana, Baja California alone, has roughly 60,000 vehicles and 30,000 pedestrians crossing daily.

 

In addition to managing the flow of documented immigrants, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) inspects shipped goods and agricultural products and interdicts illegal drugs along over 8,000 miles of border, not just the one between México and the United States. Although it is among the largest law enforcement agencies in the world with over 65,000 employees, CPB’s budget for its Border Patrol grew by only $2.3 billion (to $7.3 billion) from FY2022 to FY2024 during the height of the unauthorized immigrant surge. There were 19,357 border patrol agents in 2022, and that number has not substantially increased due to six to eight percent annual attrition and the time needed to train new agents. About 85 percent are stationed at the southern border.

 

The problem for CPB is immense in terms of distances covered and volumes of people and goods processed. In addition, CPB must house detained immigrants and support the adjudication of legal causes for entry, such as political asylum. The present economic/political-driven surge in unauthorized immigrants came from over 97 countries, in particular, those from the Golden Triangle of Central America (El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala), Venezuela, and Haiti. It is estimated that 6.1 million people, or over one-fifth of Venezuela’s 2022 population of 28.3 million, have dispersed into North and South America. This is the largest population displacement in Latin American history.

 

During the height of the pandemic, Trump’s administration was able to utilize Title 42 of the Public Health Service Act of 1944 to stop or expel all immigrants at the border. By May 2022, it was clear that unauthorized immigrants were not spreading COVID-19 (we were doing just fine by ourselves), and the law was suspended. Unfortunately, the economic and political effects of COVID-19 continued, and the CBP was now unequipped to deal with the surge. In February 2024, after the 249,741 unauthorized immigrant encounters of December 2023, the Senate, under the direction of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump, killed a bipartisan bill crafted, in large part, by conservative James Lankford of Oklahoma. Most Republican senators didn’t even read the bill after Trump denounced it for political reasons. Its $19.6 billion cost would:

 

1. Stop all immigration when weekly crossings exceeds 5,000.

2. Alter the "humanitarian parole" definition

3. Provide 50,000 detention beds for detention processing

4. Modify asylum treatment to a “reasonable possibility” standard.

5. Increase Border Patrol recruitment and streamline hiring.

6. Fund mandatory monitoring.

 

Do we have the political will and the financial means to create a manageable border? I believe we do, and both James Lankford and most Democratic senators members agree. 

 

Note one: Books to read:             

*Forget the Alamo - Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson, and Jason Stafford

** A Wicked War – Amy S. Greenberg

 

Note two: The parallels between Polk’s invasion of México in 1847 and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 are astonishing: one democratic republic invading another, religious and God-ordained justification, civilian population atrocities, and relative size of the combatants. In México, the war is referred to as The Intervention. In the United States, it remains the only conflict not celebrated with a memorial on the National Mall.




[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.] 




Friday, October 11, 2024

Consistency is for saps.

Trump is ideologically flexible.

Trump has no principles.

Same thing. 

Trump takes care of Number One. That is the limiting factor on Trump. He wants to be popular.

I take a tiny bit of comfort in that.

Watch Trump on the abortion issue. Most Republican politicians either genuinely oppose abortion or feel trapped by their past statements in opposition to it. Republican legislators in red states are banning abortion. Republican counties and states are banning travel for abortions. Ohio banned an abortion desired by a 10-year-old rape victim. Those laws are wildly unpopular, but politicians with fixed principles persevered. 

Trump, with Melania's help, is abandoning his anti-abortion supporters. Appointing anti-abortion judges was necessary to solidify support among his tribe. But now anti-abortion court decisions are unpopular, and so are strict state laws forbidding most abortions. If Trump gets back into office he will be more careful filling judicial openings, and he now says he would veto national abortion bans. Trump promoted Trump Steaks for only a couple of months. They didn't sell. He dropped the product. No use tying to sell something people don't want.

When the economy was collapsing in the face of Covid shutdowns Trump worked with Democrats -- especially House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden -- to pass the CARES Act. It was the biggest, most expensive piece of re-distributionist legislation in history. It cost a deficit-busting $1.2 trillion and it was a Scandinavian social welfare dream package. Americans like "free money." Trump was flexible.

Trump opposed TikTok. But a large contributor to Trump's campaign had a multibillion-dollar stake in TikTok's owner, ByteDance. Moreover, TikTok was popular. That one-two punch caused Trump to support TikTok. 

Trump is a provocateur. It is popular to communicate outrage over some suspected slight or unfairness against one's team. Yesterday Trump "Truthed" on his Truth Social website that Kamala Harris should concede the election and that CBS-TV should be de-licensed.

A FAKE NEWS SCAM, which is totally illegal. TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE. Election Interference. She is a Moron, and the Fake News Media wants to hide that fact. An UNPRECEDENTED SCANDAL!!! The Dems got them to do this and should be forced to concede the Election? WOW!"

In other contexts Trump complains about censorship, he doesn't threaten it. There is no ideological consistency here. The through-line is what his team wants to hear.

Democrats underestimate Trump. Normal politicians feel a need to be consistent and are tethered to fact-checkable reality. He is not a normal politician. He is a showman doing outrage comedy. He happily invented a straw man villain -- poor, Black, cat-eating Haitian murderers. Trump need not be congruent with reality. He is congruent with popularity. A majority of Americans are put off by the notion of cat-barbecuing murderers living next door.

I think it is entirely likely that Trump will win in November. He may govern like a tyrant, with high-handed flouting of the law and cruelty to people disliked by his MAGA supporters. I expect that. But he may well increase the welfare state. It is popular. He may expand health insurance benefits; his working-class rural supporters need it. If Trump supports an expanded ACA (and changes the name to Trump Care), Republicans in Congress will go along. If tariffs raise prices and tank the economy, he will reverse course. If deportations create hardships for farmers, food processors, and small businesses -- and they will -- then deportations will stop. 

The limiting force on Trump won't be the Constitution, expertise, tradition, law, or the simple truth. It will be what is popular. He cannot create a dystopia for his enemies without creating one for his friends.

Trump is no ideologue, committed to a disastrous plan or principle. He isn't Stalin or Hitler. He is a populist demagogue, a Juan Perón. Maybe a Benito Mussolini.




[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.] 



Thursday, October 10, 2024

"I'm coming to America. Land of opportunity."

Net-net, immigration is good for America.


People don't come to America to loaf and collect welfare benefits. They don't get them. 


They come here to work their butts off.


Erich Almasy has been reading the news about the problems of illegal immigration. I wrote here on Tuesday that if Kamala Harris lost the election it would likely be because Biden allowed for too long a surge of undocumented immigrants at the border. It was lawless and disorderly and gave an impression of Democratic incompetence or unwillingness to address real-life problems. There was a problem, and if Democrats won't fix it, maybe Trump will.


Erich Almasy doesn't dispute the fact that a crush entering the country overwhelmed our ability to process them. But amid the claim that immigrants are dangerous, expensive, cat-eating "others," he argues that immigrants -- including undocumented ones -- are a net positive for the U.S. We need them. They don't "cost" us; they enrich us. They are excluded from major federal public benefit programs, including food assistance, non-emergency Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. They pay into Social Security but don't collect it. And they are more law-abiding than native-born Americans. 


In retirement, Erich and his wife Cynthia Blanton, both college classmates, live in the Mexican city of San Miguel de Allende.




Guest Post by Erich Almasy

Have you ever met an unauthorized immigrant? Probably not knowingly, but almost certainly. They are all around you - serving your food, pumping your gas, driving your Uber, and doing many low-paid jobs that native Americans won’t perform. Most of these people are of Mexican heritage; however, did you know there are about 725,000 Indian unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. — the third largest population of unauthorized immigrants after Mexico and El Salvador?

 

Republicans claim that there are 25 million unauthorized immigrants, but Pew Research, which has collected this information for decades, shows a much smaller number. As of 2021, their statistics show that the nation’s 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants represented about 3 percent of the U.S. population and 22 percent of the foreign-born population. These shares were among the lowest since the 1990s. Between 2007 and 2021, the unauthorized immigrant population decreased by 1.75 million, or 14 percent. The unauthorized immigrant population in the United States grew to 11.0 million in 2022 but remained below the peak of 12.2 million in 2007. The number of unauthorized immigrants from México dropped to 4 million in 2022 from a high of 6.9 million in 2007.

 

In 2023 and into 2024, there was a massive surge in border encounters involving largely non-Mexican unauthorized immigrants. This surge reached its highest monthly total of 249,741 in December 2023. The previous high was 220,063 in March of 2000. By August 2024, the monthly total had dropped to 58,038 encounters, and the surge appears to have ended. The encounters for the twenty-two months of 2023 and 2024 totaled roughly 3.3 million, bringing the U.S. population of unauthorized immigrants to approximately 14.3 million, a 30 percent increase since 2022.

 

Republicans claim a massive cost of unauthorized immigration: increased Medicaid, increased crime, illegal gun imports, increased housing costs, lost jobs, unlawful voting, excessive use of welfare, and education system overload. The National Review blithely asserted they cost $451 billion annually. A Republican report of January 2024 stated that the lifetime fiscal drain per individual is $68,000. The wording of this report includes “likely,” “caveats,” “data limitations,” or “rough approximation” after every “fact.” Many of these assertions, such as housing shortages and gun imports (they go the other way), have been debunked as patently ridiculous. 

 

According to New American Economy, undocumented immigrants contributed about $13 billion to Social Security funds in 2016 and $3 billion to Medicare with no drawdowns. Unauthorized immigrants are not entitled to Medicaid except for emergency treatment. A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report shows $27 billion in federal and state spending on Emergency Medicaid for noncitizen immigrants for the seven fiscal years (FY) 2017 through 2023. Twenty-seven billion dollars represents less than 1 percent of overall expenditure in Medicaid over the entire period and, in some years, is less than half of a percent. Spending on Emergency Medicaid was $3.8 billion in FY 2023 and was 0.4 percent of total Medicaid spending that year.

 

Unauthorized immigrants are not entitled to welfare, although their USA-born children are. Unauthorized immigrants stay out of the legal system to avoid deportation. A Texas study found that unauthorized immigrants are arrested at less than half the rate of native-born U.S. citizens for violent and drug crimes and a quarter the rate of native-born citizens for property crimes. They don’t vote in elections. Our election systems distinguish between U.S. citizens and non-citizens, and fraud is nearly non-existent.

 

Professor Francine Lipman of William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, states that "unauthorized immigrants contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services" and "contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance programs." Even the Republican report admits they contributed $321 billion to the U.S. GDP in 2023.

 

So, was the surge of the past 22 months a problem? Absolutely. Is it over? Apparently. Are unauthorized immigrants a drain on public resources? The facts don’t support it. What exactly is the problem?




[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.] 



Wednesday, October 9, 2024

How Republicans think about January 6

Donald Trump attempted to subvert the 2020 election to retain power. It was a failed coup d'état.

Republicans see it differently. They don't think they are supporting a modern-day Benedict Arnold. They think Trump is being picked on for nothing.

This week Special Counsel Jack Smith outlined Trump's crimes in his revised indictment. Trump arranged for fake electors to sign false affidavits of election. He pressured Pence to use those ballots to justify discarding legitimate votes for Biden. He summoned a crowd to the Capitol. He watched a demonstration turn violent against members of Congress. He watched the violence on Fox News and did nothing. Told that Pence was in danger from the rioters, Trump told the aide, "So what?"

So how do Republicans of good character continue to support Trump? These are people who earnestly say the Pledge of Allegiance. These are generally law-abiding people. So how is what Trump did acceptable?

They don't think Trump did anything wrong. They think he was just asking questions. They think he didn't do anything different from what Democrats did in questioning the 2000 vote in Florida or the 2004 vote in Ohio. He just filed and lost some 60 lawsuits, but the court results mean nothing. The courts didn't prove the election was fair, only that the Trump campaign did not provide evidence of fraud. Lack of evidence doesn't prove the election was legitimate. 

What about the calls to Georgia's Brad Raffensperger and Brian Kemp and Arizona's Doug Ducey, urging them to reverse the vote in those states. Were those okay? Yes. He was just asking questions. Besides, these Republicans were in on the steal.

What about Trump's election security chief, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Christopher Krebs? He said the election was correctly run. Shouldn't Trump have paid some attention to him? No. He turned out to be just another anti-Trump RINO.

What about Trump's Attorney General Bill Barr, who told Trump that Biden won the election? Same thing; he's a backstabber.

What about the people he summoned to the January 6 rally and then sent to the Capitol to intimidate Pence? Was that okay? Yes. Trump was just exercising his right to freedom of speech. The people who rioted were on their own. Trump used the word "peacefully" once in telling them to go to the Capitol, which absolves him of liability. 

Should Trump have tried to stop rioters during the hours they were attacking the Capitol? He had no obligation to do that. Trump realized those patriots felt strongly about the election. Besides, Democratic politicians in Seattle and Portland didn't stop violence in George Floyd protests, so it is a double standard to say Trump should have done more. 

What about Trump's plan to substitute fake electors and void the election? The electors thought they maybe won their states, or should have won them, so they signed that they were "duly elected" with a clear conscience. They were just giving Pence an option. 

Bottom line: Trump did nothing wrong. If it had really been a coup d'état, it would have worked. Rioters would have been armed.The Secret Service would have succeeded in getting Pence in the car and away from the Capitol so that the elderly Senator Charles Grassley (R -IA, who would preside over the Senate at that point instead of Pence) could have thrown the election to Trump. As JD Vance said in the VP debate, on January 20 Biden took office, so what's all the fuss? 

Republicans think the prosecution of Trump is a slap in the face of those who believe Trump should have won the election, and maybe did. "Illegals" may have voted. Black-majority counties in swing states -- Detroit's Wayne County and Atlanta's Fulton County -- may have had shenanigans. That happens in places like that. Maybe there is no proof, but there is no way in heck that a feeble old man like Biden could have legitimately received seven million more votes than a great president like Trump. 

Trump did nothing wrong. 



[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]  


Tuesday, October 8, 2024

Heads up to Democrats: If Harris loses, here is why.

Kamala Harris was composed, professional, and fully presidential when she appeared on CBS's 60 Minutes.


Journalist Bill Whitaker asked the right questions.


The problem for Harris is that the questions he asked are the ones on a lot of people's minds.

Here is the two-minute exchange, time well spent to watch Harris explain, correctly, that Trump tried the sabotage addressing the border problem. But Whitaker got to the real problem: Why did you let the problem fester for three years?

Click Here

Here is some of the transcript:

Bill Whitaker: But I've been covering the border for-- for years. And so I know this is not a problem that started with your administration.

Vice President Kamala Harris: Correct. Correct.

Bill Whitaker: But there was an historic flood of undocumented immigrants coming across the border the first three years of your administration. As a matter of fact, arrivals quadrupled from the last year of President Trump. Was it a mistake to loosen the immigration policies as much as you did?

Vice President Kamala Harris: It's a longstanding problem. And solutions are at hand. And from day one, literally, we have been offering solutions. 

Bill Whitaker: What I was asking was, was it a mistake to kind of allow that flood to happen in the first place?

Vice President Kamala Harris: I think-- the policies that we have been proposing are about fixing a problem, not promoting a problem, okay? But the--

Bill Whitaker: But the numbers did quadruple under your-

Vice President Kamala Harris: And the numbers today--

Bill Whitaker: --under your watch--

Vice President Kamala Harris: --because of what we have done-- we have cut the flow of illegal immigration by half. We have cut the-- 

Bill Whitaker: But should you have done that--

Vice President Kamala Harris: --flow of fentanyl--

Bill Whitaker: --should you have done that. . .?


Good Harris "vibes" and Democrats' relief that a too-old Biden passed the torch does not make a significant policy problem go away. Biden let an immigration problem fester. Whitaker wouldn't let the subject drop because it exhausted not only the patience of a great many Americans, but his own. The Biden administration did not take visible action on the southern border until Florida and Texas governors weaponized the problem by busing migrants to blue-state cities. Republicans have a false, cynical, but effective explanations for the Biden policy failure. They claim that those "illegals" are somehow allowed to vote, and this is a way Democrats to rig elections. Or it was on-purpose preference for dark-skinned immigrants over the interests of White people who have to try to manage crowds of poor, homeless immigrants. Or it is another iteration of the "woke" double standard, in which illegal disorder by people in the Democratic tribe, be it in BLM protests or immigrants gaming the asylum system, is OK, but disorder by Whites, at January 6 for example, is prosecuted.

Meanwhile, Trump and Vance toss up racist tropes: criminals, rapists, murderers, pet-eaters, and as of yesterday, "bad genes." It is the good us against the bad them.

Democrats handled the immigration issue poorly. Harris is scrambling to get in front of the problem, but she is late to the game and Whitaker called her on it. Democrats wonder with dismay and amazement that so many voters seem to be willing to accept Trump-style crudeness, illegality, violence, and authoritarian language and policies. Trump sounds like a fascist, Democrats tell me, and yet voters accept that. Incredible! How can that possibly be?

David Frum warned about this problem in The Atlantic back in 2019 and explained it in one sentence:

"If liberals won't enforce borders, fascists will."



[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your emai go to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]  



Monday, October 7, 2024

My next car won't be a Tesla

Elon Musk ruined the Tesla brand for me. 

Two years ago Teslas were cool. Now they aren't.

Bumper strips available to put on a Tesla: 


Teslas used to be a mix of luxury, innovation, super-high performance, safety, environmental sensibility, and leading-edge technology. I knew that they were selling like hotcakes in Silicon Valley. I heard about Teslas from enthusiastic friends who told me they nearly drove themselves and that the company kept sending improvements to the navigation in free downloads. There was buzz. I test-drove one and loved it. 

I would have bought one, but I liked my current car, a Toyota Avalon hybrid too much. I was waiting for something -- anything -- to give me an excuse to sell it and trade up.  I considered a Tesla moving "up."

An added bonus was that Republicans were badmouthing electric vehicles. People like Ted Cruz were saying that gas-guzzling polluting cars were the All-American way and that electric vehicles were just another California affectation, like hot yoga, vegan diets, and zero-emission goals. If Cruz hated them, they must be good. Trump promised to end the green energy subsidies for EVs inside Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. Trump was the drill, baby, drill candidate, the one who said wind turbines cause cancer and smashed birds. Trump's blanket condemnation of EVs was another plus for me.

Then things started to go wrong in the brand ideas that surrounded Tesla.

First Elon Musk bought Twitter. It was always a raw slugfest site, but after Musk Twitter got worse. It moved politically right and it wasn't subtle. Somehow the algorithms that shape my feed makes it so about 60 percent of what I get fed is anti-immigrant, MAGA tweets and re-tweets. It became Fox or Newsmax. 

California, as always for Oregon, is the leading indicator of West Coast trends. New car registrations for Teslas in California fell for three consecutive quarters, and the drop-off is accelerating, falling another 24 percent between April and June 2024. Tesla's share of the market is dropping; Rivian's is up.

The New York Times

Elon Musk, the face of the Tesla brand, isn't being subtle. He doesn't give Tesla-ready buyers like me a way to avert our eyes. He was literally jumping up and down on the stage with Trump Saturday in Butler, Pennsylvania. Musk said that "Trump must win to preserve the Constitution." If Democrats win, he said, "this will be the last election." This morning my X home button brought me directly to an Elon Musk post offering me $47 for each person in a swing state that I refer to him and who signs a petition he sponsors.

Trump has trained Republicans to dislike EVs generally. Musk is training Democrats to avoid Teslas, the brand. It is lose-lose.

The vehicles themselves -- stripped of their brand associations, if such a thing is possible for an automobile -- may sell themselves. Friends who own them say they are great cars--and then they grimace about the Elon Musk taint, as they assure me they bought before Musk went all-MAGA. Independent voters -- frequently a proxy for people who are simply less engaged -- may be happy to drive Teslas. 


But cars are now, and have always been, statements about the owner. There is, in effect, a Trump or MAGA bumper strip attached to every Tesla. It is like a watermark, always there in the background attached to the brand. It isn’t something I could explain away.





[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your emai go to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]