How to write a nasty negative campaign commercial

A poorly-done negative TV ad is ugly, unconvincing, dishonest, and it turns people off politics.

Moreover, it can backfire. 

Nonetheless, we will see lots of them. 

We see negative ads because candidates and campaign consultants think they work. They demonize the opponent. Call me naive, but I think exaggerated, hyperbolic ads backfire, at least in Southern Oregon. 

In August we are still in the soft focus let-me-introduce-myself phase of campaign commercials. We get direct-to-camera narrations of what a wholesome person the candidate is, showing the candidate at his home, in a familiar local landmark, at his place of work, talking genially with one or more sets of readily-identifiable constituent groups, e.g., people with hardhats. 

Negative ads start in September. The goal is to define the opponent as dangerous by creating a caricature of him. The elements of that are using creepy music, depicting the opponent in blurry black-and-white photos and video, and by freezing the frame of videos so that the opponent is depicted
mid-word or mid-blink.

Another device is to choose a voice-over narrator with a deep voice, speaking with an ominous tone of implied warning about the opponent while showing text from some presumably neutral news source.

Yet another is to use video clips of the opponent looking happy, while the narrator describes some problem. The implication is that while we are hearing about inflation, crime, suicides, or business closings, the opponent is happy and unconcerned.

Race matters. It is commonplace in negative ads to adjust the color filter so that dark-skinned opponents are made to look darker-toned, and therefore more "other" to Whites.

The Oregon 3rd senate district race has been a place where negative ads have been used extensively, so I will use it as an example. This year Democrat Denise Krause faces off against Republican Brad Hicks. The district is light blue because it includes Ashland, a charming college town with a Shakespeare Festival that attracts upscale, educated residents, i.e. Democrats. It is understood to be a winnable district for Republicans if they just spend enough money, and then even more money. The race it attracts a million-plus dollars of upstate Republican money, corporate PAC money, and the "usual suspects" of local prominent donors, pouring into a small media market. Money is pouring in again this year. More about this in subsequent posts.

A frequent attribute of a bad negative ad is that it ascribes bad motives to the opponent. Let me invent such an ad, starting with the Democratic candidate. A Krause ad might claim "Brad Hicks wants to pave over paradise and turn our green farms and forests into a parking lot for his corporate buddies."  (He favored reducing the size of a national monument area.) Another might say, "Republican Brad Hicks must be impressed with Donald Trump's lawless ICE agents, since he supports using our tax dollars to force local law enforcement to help ICE out." (Like most Republicans, he opposes the Oregon sanctuary law.)

A Hick's ad might say, "Denise Krause wants to lock up our forests so that they burn up in uncontrollable wildfires, filling our state with dangerous smoke." (She opposes selling land in the Siskiyou Monument.) Another might say, "Denise Krause doesn't care about the property theft, rape, and murder done by illegal aliens, since she opposes having local law enforcement participate in lawful ICE enforcement." (She supports the sanctuary law.)

Note that these ads use a common device: They speculate on and attribute bad motives to their opponent by exaggerating a position on an issue, inventing a catastrophe, and then saying the opponent favors the catastrophe. Do political campaigns actually write such ads? Yes they do write them. I expect you to see them.

The problem with being a Democrat in this district is that the candidate will get outspent five or ten to one, which lets the Republican candidate define them. The problem with being the Republican candidate is that one is awash in money from the most powerful people and business interests in the state, and they donated the money so it could be spent. And spent it will be, in amounts so conspicuous that it cannot be ignored. History shows that the pressure is irresistible to spend it with negative ads. That has an unintended meta-message, an unsaid message within the denoted message. That message is that the Republican candidate is a captive agent of a very rich, very dishonest, Republican power elite who will say anything to win power. Voters reject that.

Tomorrow I will make a "modest proposal" for how Republicans should instead spend the money pouring into Brad Hicks' campaign. I support Krause. So why would I give Republicans good advice? Because they won't take it.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

The Boston Tea Party and Hamas

American schoolchildren learn that the Boston Tea Party was the work of patriots. 

They destroyed property. They refused to pay a tax that generated the revenue to pay for Boston's defense. 

We call the Tea Party protesters the good guys. 

A regular reader of this blog told me he thought that in a decade Americans will understand the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol to be similar to the Boston Tea Party, as an act of rebellion by the people. After all, the Senate had refused to impeach Trump, and the 2024 electorate, knowing what had happened. and hearing Trump insist that he had won the election and the Capitol protesters were the good guys, voted for Trump. He was vindicated. 

His predicted outcome needs just one more event to fall into place, he told me: election of a Republican president in 2028, which he said was likely because Democrats are still angry and divided over trans rights, immigration, DEI, and Israel.

Our understanding of the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s is undergoing change. There was a good cause (equality), charismatic heros (e.g., Martin Luther King, Jr.) unattractive villains (racist Southerners) and a context that forced action. Black WWII veterans felt they had earned equality, and we were competing with the USSR to appeal to non-aligned nations as a beacon of freedom, and the segregated South was a conspicuous embarrassment. We think peaceful protest, non-violence, was the magic formula that made this possible. No violence; good cause.Trump is re-writing that history: He positions the civil rights victories as mistakes that took something precious from the White majority. 

Simultaneously, there is another revision taking place coming out of the ideology of struggle and conflict voiced by democratic socialists. It is an article of faith that change doesn't happen when people ask nicely. People don't empower the disempowered out of a sense of fair-play. Justice comes from a clash of competing sources of identity and power, usually requiring violence. White people in authority needed the push that came from riots in Detroit and Watts and other cities to realize that the time for dithering had passed. 

Democratic socialists have absorbed some of the language and ideology of class struggle. Power must be wrenched from the hands of the geriatric officeholders, from the establishment, from corporations, from the elites. 

Century-old history can be kind to insurgents. In 1980 the Supreme Court concluded that the U.S. had shamefully broken the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie which placed Sioux and Northern Comanche land in the Great Sioux Reservation. White settlers and prospectors were trespassing looking for gold and homesteads, breaking the treaty and defiling sacred lands. Sitting Bull's army had a just cause. 

The short-term response to Custer's Last Stand was backlash and disaster for the tribes.The immediate response of White Americans to urban arson and rioting in the 1960s was overwhelmingly negative. 

Democrats have a political problem now. Some of their candidates who won primary elections said impolitic things about the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. They described it as the inevitable, understandable reaction to Israeli policy on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. The idea is that sometimes it takes a Tea Party, a wipeout of Custer's troops, urban arson, or a murderous incursion into Israel to send a message that gets attention.

Most American voters do not agree that Hamas carried out justice in a just and necessary attack on October 7.  Americans are souring on Israel, but their instincts are toward less violence, not targeted justifiable violence. 

Time and current events bend our understanding of the past. I suspect that the reputation of the Hamas attack will age poorly over the decades ahead, but perhaps I miscalculate. I thought the January 6 Capitol attack would end Trump's career and be a matter of endless shame for Republicans.  

But in the meantime, I think it would be wise for Democrats who said anything positive about the Hamas attack to walk it back.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Yet more corrupting grift

President Trump is selling public property and pocketing the money.

--  It corrupts the markets.

--  It steals from the public.

--  It corrupts the government.

--  Republicans in Congress could stop it, but they don't.

Trump Media and Technology Group launched a new paid data service on August 1, providing faster access to market-moving Truth Social posts. The price is $100,000 a month, discounted to $60,000 a month under a three-year contract. Donald Trump's revocable trust owns approximately half of Trump Media.

President Trump uses posts on Truth Social to announce official acts that move financial markets. Milliseconds faster access to paid subscribers seems trivial at first glance, but being first to enter trades matters to computer-driven quantitative trading firms. Wall Street firms are paying the fee. It is worth it to them.

Early access to fee-payers corrupts the markets. Our financial markets rest on the presumption everyone has the same opportunity to be right or wrong. This head-start release of information makes advantage explicit and sanctioned. Now we know. People who pay a fee get a head start.

Selling early access is theft. We American taxpayers are being robbed. If the president of the U.S. is going to announce an official act, for example, bomb an Iranian oil refinery, news that would likely raise the value of American refineries, then that intellectual property belongs to the American public, not to the Trump family. Early access should not be sold at all, but if it is  to be sold, the revenue should go to the U.S. Treasury. Those Wall Street firms are not paying $100,000 to get early access to Trump saying that he bought Melania white roses for Valentine's Day; that news would be personal. But market-moving news of official acts is information that belongs to us all. 

Republican members of Congress are demeaning themselves by their acquiescence. They know better than to tolerate this, and they would not tolerate it from anyone but Trump. They know this looks wrong and is wrong. It sets a bad precedent. They are silent and cowering. 

The early-access sale reveals and clarifies something about Trump's understanding of his role. He does not consider himself a trustee, operating on behalf of the public. He is an owner. He understands his election in 2016 to have been, in effect, a successful purchase of a trophy property. Therefore, information about his public acts belong to him, not the public. It is a feudal, monarchical understanding of the presidency and the government.  L'État, c'est moi. Trump is the state. 

This helps clarify why Trump would feel entitled to tear down the East Wing of the White House. It was his to do as he chose. I have no doubt that he thinks he is improving it, but he isn't thinking like a tenant, nor a trustee of a public building. 

An owner's mindset helps explain his attitude toward the 2020 election. He acquired the presidency in the 2016 election. My 30-year experience working as a financial advisor taught me that people experience loss with five time the intensity as they do opportunity for gain. Trump did not face the 2020 election thinking he and Biden had an equal right to be elected. No. Trump had the presidency in hand. It was his. And someone --  Joe Biden, Democrats, Black voters in cities, Mike Pence, non-citizen voters, election workers, tabulating machines, corrupt state and federal judges -- took his presidency from him. 

The most dangerous thing about Trump's understanding of his role as owner, not trustee, is that his Republican enablers in the Congress are not contesting him on this subject. Their acquiescence is normalizing Trump. The public is getting accustomed to an elected strong man, with unlimited power to govern and the right to personal use of public property and the public trust. Trump is in trouble, and his power weakened, but not because he is acting like a king and Republicans object. He is in trouble because he foolishly led us into a war, we have inflation, the tariffs are unpopular, and the economy is continuing to squeeze a majority of Americans even as they see wealthy people getting richer.

The Trump monarchy is faltering, not because it is undemocratic and unconstitutional, but because he is bad at governing.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Easy Sunday: An event with Pete Buttigieg

Presidential candidates are making their moves. 

Future presidential candidates are finding excuses to get around the country to meet influential people, to field-test policies and political messages, and to raise money. They are looking to see if they catch on. If they do, they will start building a national team, with field operations in early-primary states. A presidential candidate talks about the big picture, offering a moral and political narrative about the state of the country. They are creating their brand.

Pete Buttigieg is making his move. He was in Marion, Massachusetts this week.

Chip O'Hare, Pete Buttigieg, Bobbie O'Hare

Chip O’Hare's guest post is a field report on a fundraising event for Pete Buttigieg. Chip is a college classmate. Following college, he entered the U.S. Navy, then Harvard Business School, and then his family food brokerage business, now called JOH, a private company in its eighth decade and third generation.

Guest Post by Chip O'Hare

Peter Sage's post on the Jon Ossoff event prompted me to send him a note about a similar fundraiser for Pete Buttigieg held in Marion, Massachusetts on August 4.  Pete was in our area for three fundraisers in seaside locations that also included Providence RI and Provincetown MA.  He has been crisscrossing the country speaking and raising money for his PAC (Win the Era) and has been in 31 states in the past six months, appearing with local politicians and raising money.

Marion is a sailing and golf Mecca on the south coast of Massachusetts near New Bedford, a major fishing port and former whaling capital of the US where Herman Melville wrote Moby Dick. It is a typical summer colony with large waterfront homes.  It is not a political hotbed, with little political discourse as folks set aside their red and blue labels, for the most part, in the interest of keeping things cordial in the community. Those in attendance reflected that gentility, and I'd describe the crowd as older and polite.

My wife and I found out about the event by word of mouth and signed up two weeks prior as co-hosts, allowing us to attend a post-reception dinner with a small group of donors. We like Pete Buttigieg a lot and wanted to see him in person. He didn’t disappoint.  

Pete arrived on time with a small retinue and stayed at the reception for 90 minutes. I was struck by the lack of security, other than one local cop who directed traffic and a burly driver who I’d guess was a bodyguard of sorts, though he was not actually in the event space. As a result, the event had an air of informality, in which Pete fit well. He came across as personable, with an intense look when speaking to you. He focused on each person with whom he spoke, and I never saw him look over a shoulder to spot who was next. He was well advanced and very comfortable in the crowd. His clothing was on-brand, as he wore his usual navy/royal suit, open collar white shirt and brown Oxford shoes. (I must admit that as a 76-year-old, I’ll never understand wearing brown shoes with a blue suit!)  Anyway, Pete looked and sounded sharp. His ego was not on display, as he comes across as a quiet leader, knowledgeable of the details of government and very comfortable speaking on policy issues. 

Pete spoke about the seriousness of our times and the effort it would take to reverse the Trump agenda and Project 2025. He spoke of affordability, grocery and gas prices and the lack of housing. He expressed concern about the election and the attempt to lock in red districts through gerrymandering, which he would like to see ended with a constitutional amendment. He described the political environment as a war where the MAGA element is dismantling the old paradigm which calls for a much stronger response from the Democrats. He didn’t mention the DNC or its issues but stressed the fundraising strength of individual candidates and PACs. When asked about the democratic socialist movement, he expressed hope that the party could operate as a big tent where everyone focuses on the task of replacing the MAGA agenda with one of honesty, transparency and accountability, with no room for corruption. He didn't mention Israel or Gaza, the issue where the big tent is straining now and will likely strain even more in '28.

After the reception, about 20 of us walked next door to a private dinner where Pete took turns joining the three tables of sponsors. Being in the produce business, I brought up the cyclospora issue during our salad course (Yikes!), and Pete emphasized the importance of the FDA and other government agencies under fire from the Trump administration. We all ate the salad anyway, as it was made up of CEA (Controlled Environment Agriculture, i.e. greenhouse/safe) lettuce grown nearby by Little Leaf Farms, a company I represent in my food brokerage business. 

Whether Pete Buttigieg is electable in '28 is the question as we head into the midterms and on to the '28 presidential contest. My feeling is that this cycle will not favor a gay candidate, as the trans issue will remain a negative for Democrats, especially with the '28 Olympics being held in LA, where the trans/sports issue will be in the spotlight, barring a solution agreed upon by the IOC. The issue is a millstone for Democrats.  

Pete Buttigieg is the type of politician who is thoughtful and competent, and his time may come to lead the country, but I see someone rising from relative obscurity to lead the party in '28, as Carter, Clinton and Obama did in their times. If that person is a democratic socialist, however, independents like me and my wife will have a decision to make. Right now we see Jon Ossoff, Mark Kelly and maybe Andy Beshear as candidates who could bring us together and lead us out of the mess we are in. There may be others, but they better get started, as things are going to move fast after the mid-terms.

The event was quite successful and raised over $200,000 for Win the Era, and Pete Buttigieg showed the contrast between thoughtful politicians and those now running our country.

 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Epstein's corrupt bankers

Senator Ron Wyden "followed the money" on Jeffrey Epstein.

Epstein's bankers knew something was very wrong: money laundering and cash for very suspicious behavior with very young people. There were "red flags" everywhere. The banks broke the law by doing nothing.

This week Wyden issued a 67 page report.

Wyden's report showed that the largest, most "respectable" financial institutions in the world --  bent the rules, broke the law, and tolerated the intolerable to accommodate a very large and profitable client. Jeffrey Epstein was such a client. He kept hundreds of millions of dollars in the banks, and he was a connection to other big clients. 

Wyden's report names names: JPMorganChase, Deutsche Bank, and Bank of America. The banks didn't pretend not to see what they saw. They saw "red flag" behavior. The banks internal compliance officers, up to the highest levels, knew that Epstein was a legal and reputational risk. They discussed it, weighed it, and decided the money was worth the risk. Eventually they were caught and paid fines and settlements (p. 56).

Wyden's  report shows that bank officials were aware that the unusually large cash withdrawals were likely for the purpose of paying for "massages" with underage girls. Epstein had already been adjudicated as a sex offender and the presence of very young models -- "nymphettes" -- was openly acknowledged in JPMorgan's internal emails (pp. 27-28).

The large cash withdrawals week after week, presumed to be for paying for these massages, needed a pretext. Epstein and JPMorgan's bankers settled on withdrawals from an "Aviation Account," as if jet fuel for Epstein's plane would be paid for with U.S. currency (p.38). 

The White House, the Treasury Department, and the GOP-majority Senate did not assist this investigation. They obstructed it. Wyden persevered. (pp.54-57).

Wyden's report is important as a stand-alone document revealing a dimension of the Epstein matter: the fact that this was not just a failure involving the unique and private character of Jeffrey Epstein. The "Epstein crime" involved a large group of people and institutions who knew something transgressive was happening. These powerful people tolerated it, snickered over it, were put off by it, and some participated in it directly or indirectly. These people included Donald Trump. Wyden published what is purportedly Trump's birthday greeting to Epstein, which references their shared secrets. (Trump denies he created it.)

Trump is doing more than changing our constitutional practice with a dramatic reset of the balance between executive and congressional power. He has also reset our norms regarding financial and sexual corruption. Wyden is doing what James Madison thought senators would do. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."  Wyden is doing what Democratic voters are demonstrating in primary election that they want. They want a fighter, someone who names names, calls out lawlessness and corruption, and points an accusing finger at the financial and political elites who have been consolidating power in Trump's second term. 

I will repeat an assertion I made yesterday in my comment about Wyden and Democrats. Wyden's busy week advanced policies that have widespread popular support. It is not clear to me that the median Democratic voter has shifted "left." Maybe they have. I am confident, though, that Democrats want to see some results, some change of a tangible kind to deal with the top-heavy distribution of national incomes. I also think Democrats are still unhappy with the inarticulate and weak leadership they got from President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. They want a narrative of a better Democratic future. Wyden comes across as willing to confront Trump in a smart, aggressive way. I think Wyden is in the sweet spot of what works for a Democrat.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Senator Ron Wyden

 "Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?

A nation turns its lonely eyes to you"

     Paul Simon, "Mrs. Robinson," 1968

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden still has his fastball.

A player "still having his fastball" is an expression about aging and effectiveness. Senator Wyden is old enough to have slowed down. Instead, he is more active and effective than ever. In an era of frustrating political news, that makes me very happy.

Wyden has been in the news this week because he taped a long interview with Sharyn Alfonsi for the CBS News show 60 Minutes. In it, Wyden described the results of the investigation by the Senate Finance Committee of the banking records of Jeffrey Epstein. It revealed that Wall Street banks knowingly broke laws to continue banking services to Epstein notwithstanding "red flags" of both money laundering and sexual exploitation.

CBS, under the new ownership control of the Trump-allied family of mega-billionaire Larry Ellison, hired a Trump-friendly executive editor, Bari Weiss. She has been firing CBS News people to create a Trump-friendly news department. Weiss fired Alfonsi, and did not broadcast the planned news show on how Epstein's banks enabled him. Wyden protested, calling it self-censorship.

Senator Wyden posted a report on that investigation on August 4. I will comment on it in a future post.

For today, I have a different point. I have written often about the aging of politicians. I was early to warn that Biden needed the crutch of a teleprompter, even in 2019 campaign speeches. I have been critical of both parties for rewarding seniority so much that politicians hang on too long. Too many federal legislators spend their last months in office absent from the job, and sometimes in hospice or memory care. Yesterday I wrote that the rise of young, activist politicians was less a lurch to the left than one toward the energetic vibe of generational change. I suspect median Democratic voters want new and results more than they want left.

Locally in Medford, I am happy that Jeff Golden, a state senator, (and as chance would have it, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a college classmate) after a period of back-and-forth indecision, decided not to run for re-election. Good. I am a fan of Jeff, but I think he had gotten curmudgeonly in his frustration with Oregon politics. People who embraced change in policy and personnel in their 20s and 30s have been part of the process that shaped the intervening 50 years. There is an implied insult from priorities voiced by new people and in the emergence of new people they themselves did not select. Jeff did the right thing by letting go. I hope Chuck Schumer does the same. Schumer, from his very being and position, cannot help but represent rigidity and the status quo. People age 76 have a hard time coming across as agents of change and reform. 

Senator Wyden is an odd case, and he represents for me the flaw in overgeneralizing about age. He is the exception. He is a dynamo. He isn't the image of change, protest, reform, and activism, but he is an example of it. Here is the output from Wyden's Senate Finance Committee in the first four workdays of August:

Day after day, Wyden is setting up roadblocks to the worst parts of the Trump presidency. He is doing what Congress is supposed to do: be an equal branch of government. Wyden is raising issues that have widespread bipartisan popular support. 

August 3: Working Americans are losing health insurance, putting them at risk of medical bankruptcy and closing rural hospitals.

August 4: Wyden exposes the tie between big money elites and Epstein, another issue with bipartisan popular support

August 5: Wyden exposes a cosy deal: Immediately after a $5 million dollar campaign contribution to the MAGA campaign fund, Trump made three phone calls, and the FDA promptly switched positions to allow the sale of candy-flavored nicotine vapes. I would like to think that even Republican supporters of Trump are uncomfortable with that kind of quid pro quo money in politics, as well as the risk of candy vapes as a gateway to nicotine addiction.

August 6: Wyden presents a way to finance Social Security into the future -- a giant issue where Congress had dithered.

And so on, day after day:  Click here to read the details. It is exhausting to try to keep up.

Wyden isn't part of the schism between liberals and progressives, or "regulars" and Democratic Socialists. He is both a Democrat of long standing, and a change agent. I was ready to assume he had slowed down. He hasn't.  See his day-after-day output. Click the link. See for yourself. 

Ron Wyden has his fastball and is pitching every day. 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Trump did something smart.

     “Chevron, too much money. ExxonMobil, too much money. They’re going to give some of that back to the public and they better cut the retail price, the consumer price.”
          President Trump, from the Oval Office

"Oil prices DOWN, NOW! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT"

          Truth Social Post

I get negative feedback from readers when I say something positive about Trump. So let me be clear: Trump is corrupt, a sexual predator, and a constitutional scofflaw. Trump is a lying, narcissistic, sociopath.

I credit Trump only with being skillful, not with being good. We can learn from bad people.

Voters see Trump breaking his usual alliances to fight for them. People understand this one: The oil companies didn't do anything to deserve higher margins on oil, but they are getting a windfall and consumers are paying the price. That feels unfair and Trump is doing something about it. It is as simple as that.

Trump does not say what they should do. He demands they do it, even though he has no power to force them to do what he demands. People read that as being strong, decisive, and on their side. 

Democrats who wonder how it is that a corrupt sexual-predator sociopath like Trump can win elections, should take note.

Trump shows he can be flexible when it is in the interests of voters. Trump has established that he is pro-oil company. He empowers them; they donate to him. He sabotages clean, renewable, cost-effective energy technologies to direct federal resources toward fossil fuels. He scoffs at Democratic fussing over climate change and carbon footprints. Trump is the oil companies' guy -- any voter paying attention knows that. So he is doing a version of that "Sister Souljah" comment of Bill Clinton having the courage to call a foul within his own team.  We love you, oil companies, but don't get carried away!

Democrats could learn from that, too. Correcting excesses within one's team reads as courage and integrity.

Trump demonstrates that government can interfere with free enterprise. The general rule is let markets work in a capitalist society. Trump openly and proudly breaks that rule when it is in the public interest.  Activist government is supposedly the brand of Democrats in the FDR tradition. Trump is stealing the Democratic brand.

Democrats could take note and reclaim it. And maybe they are.

I do not see the rift in the Democratic Party between the "moderates," or "establishment" Democrats and the "Democratic Socialists" as a division between left and more-left on a continuum. There is something else at work, too: bold energy. The rise of Democratic Socialist candidates springs from Democratic voters desire for the party to look active, alive, alert to the problems in America, and to accomplish something tangible, to use government to make lives better. They aren't primarily more left. They are bolder, better looking, and more articulate.

Trump can get away with telling oil companies to lower prices and not be attacked for being a communist. If a Democrat says what Trump said, then The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and Republican politicians would shout how this is proof that Democrats have become communist tyrants in the mold of Mao, Stalin, and Castro. Democrats should do it anyway. Being criticized for going to bat for consumers is a net positive for Democrats. Just make clear that they aren't doing it because they hate capitalism. It is because they care about consumers.

The public wants change. Populism in both parties shows this. Some things in our economy aren't working well. Here is a look at one reason why:

So far Trump has done a better job of voicing worker frustration than have Democrats, but that is changing. The energy of change among Democrats is generational. Their activist candidates are young. They are wrenching the torch from the hands of the old guard. Republicans are not so lucky. The change agent for Republicans is not just deeply flawed in matters of character and judgment; he is 80 years old.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]