Elon Musk, the swashbuckling hero

Oligarchy comes in a surprising direction.

I thought when oligarchy replaced representative democracy, it would come clandestinely. I had imagined interlocking directorships, gentlemen's agreements sealed with a nod, and Skull-and-Bones-style secret societies.

Quite the opposite. Oligarchy came in the form of willful bad-boy billionaires, today's version of the swashbuckling pirate hero.

NY Times photo of "billionaire row" at Trump inauguration 

National government has the same formal institutions as in prior years, but they operate differently now. Essentially infinite money overwhelms old-style Madisonian checks and balances. Trillion-dollar businesses flex their muscles openly and proudly. Trump doesn't hide their influence; he showcases it. Since it is done shamelessly, it must not be illegal or dangerous. Right? Besides, being a multibillionaire is so very cool.

College classmate Larry DiCara observes that Elon Musk is understood by many as heroic. That makes Musk and this current form of oligopoly more dangerous than ever. DiCara is an attorney and civic leader in Boston, and an astute observer and practitioner of politics. He was elected to the Boston City Council in his 20s, having negotiated the ethnic political divides in a city where the immigrant melting pot melts slowly and incompletely. He maintains a website, newsletter, and blog: https://www.larrydicara.com

Guest Post by Larry DiCara

Did Anyone Vote for Elon Musk?

Elon Musk is not president of the United States. He is ineligible because he was born in a foreign country. [I don’t see anybody trying to change that section of the Constitution, yet.] Nevertheless, Elon Musk appears to be acting as if he is president and using his vast fortune, perhaps the largest in the world, as well as his enormous electronic network – he has 200,000,000 followers (but then, he does own Twitter) to exercise his influence in a way that, in my opinion, has never been seen before in the history of the United States. He is also trying to influence elections in other countries! 

Over 60 years ago, Daniel Boorstin, a well-respected historian, wrote in The Image that business leaders had been replaced by television and movie stars as the most acknowledged people in America. I think it all stems from the eternal need to have heroes. I think the Greeks said, “Pity the country that has no heroes. No, pity the country that needs heroes.” They come and they go from decade to decade. Perhaps, today Musk is becoming the hero that many people need. If his rags-to-riches story is true, then is that not possible for everybody? 

Al Gore was a year or two ahead of me at Harvard and once told me that it is difficult to argue for higher tax rates for wealthy people since so many poor people envision one of their children or grandchildren becoming wealthy. America has often worshipped its richest citizens. 

As a lawyer, I question the conflicts of interest surrounding many officials of the Trump administration. I especially question Musk’s various activities, given that much of his fortune is derived from companies that have business relationships with the federal government. If he is a government employee, then there are laws governing his conduct; if he is not but he is influencing legislation, then he is a lobbyist and must register. I know, because I have registered, both with the U.S. House and U.S. Senate.

There is a myth, almost as old as the republic, honoring the self-made man. In truth, many of the great fortunes have been derived from companies having a relationship with government. Whether it be contractors paving roads on the state and local level, or those manufacturing arms for our national defense, these men and women and their firms have not risen completely on their own.

 

I also question anyone’s having such undue influence upon a president of the United States, or a governor or a mayor. I think it is unhealthy. I think it is un-American. I don’t think anybody voted for Elon Musk.

 

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

A Canadian looks at the new U.S. tariffs

We awoke this Sunday morning to learn we are in a trade war.

Canada is not going to pay our taxes for us. They have already announced retaliation with a 25% tariff of their own.

College classmate Sandford Borins is Canadian. He is a professor of Public Management Emeritus at the University of Toronto, having retired in July 2020 after a 45-year academic career. He maintains his own website where he shares his thoughts on politics and life in Canada: https://sandfordborins.com  Here is his overnight reaction to the news.

Sandford Borins wearing the King Charles III Coronation Medal for public service, which he recently received

Guest Post by Sandford Borins

Emperor Donald I 

When Justin Trudeau had dinner with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago last November, Trump asked what the impact of tariffs would be. Speaking as an ally and a friend, naively it now appears, Trudeau said they would have a severe impact on the Canadian economy. Since that dinner, Canadian governments have responded to Trump’s original complaint to justify tariffs, working assiduously to harden what was once called “the longest undefended border in the world” by putting in place Blackhawk helicopters, drones, and patrols. Since that dinner, Trump – showing himself to be no friend of Canada -- has been telling people that the leader of Canada admits that tariffs would greatly damage the Canadian economy. Yesterday, despite our work to respond to the complaint about the border, we got tariffs.

What are the Facts?

Not that facts matter to Donald Trump, but in broad strokes these are the facts. Very little of the fentanyl illegally entering the U.S. (approximately 1 percent) is coming from Canada and very few of the people entering the U.S. (approximately 1 percent) are coming across the Canada-U.S. border.

Canada and the U.S. have a two-way trading relationship of approximately 1 trillion dollars annually that, overall, is balanced. Canada exports more natural resources (oil, gas, minerals) and the U.S. exports more intellectual property (Hollywood films, streaming and network television, computer software). Manufacturing is essentially balanced (the tightly integrated automobile assembly industry). In Trump’s first term, Canada, the U.S., and Mexico renegotiated NAFTA, the worst trade deal in history according to Trump, renamed a slightly changed agreement "USMCA," and gave Trump a big win.

Shock and Awe

The first fourteen days of Trump’s second presidency have seen a flood of measures intended to shock and awe Trump’s perceived enemies, domestic and foreign. They have included attacks on political enemies; rule by executive order; the imposition of tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China; threats of tariffs against the E.U.; and threats of military action to seize strategic assets such as the Panama Canal and Greenland. Externally, Trump seems to be intending to convert alliances such as NATO into an American Empire, in which the U.S. uses economic and military threats to dominate.

The U.S.’s real adversaries – China and Russia – are undoubtedly looking for opportunities in this weakening of the western alliance. China will be offering closer economic co-operation, and Russia will be considering military action along its borders.

A History of Cooperation

Though Donald Trump ignores history, it is essential to recall the close history of military, cultural, and economic cooperation between the U.S. and Canada. We have fought side by side in every major war since World War I (though Canada did not participate in Vietnam and Iraq, two wars we regarded as overreach, a judgment borne out by history). Key moments in this history of cooperation include:

· Canadian assistance in bringing American hostages safely out of Iran after the Iranian revolution, celebrated  by the film Argo

· President Clinton’s expression of support for a strong united Canada on the eve of the 1995 Quebec referendum on sovereignty, a message noticed by Quebec voters

· Canada sheltering airline passengers diverted from U.S. airspace on 9-11, dramatized by the musical Come from Away

· Canadian assistance during the Los Angeles fires last month, including sending the only water bombers able to use seawater.

The Canadian Reaction

Donald Trump seems to think that because Canada’s prime minister’s popularity is low in the waning months of his mandate, Canada will collapse like a house of cards. My reading of public opinion here is very different. Canadians, while feeling betrayed by Trump, are united and determined. There is very strong public support for the tariffs that Canada announced last night. Public reaction, in effect boycotts of high-profile American goods, may intensify the impact of our tariffs. And we will be looking for trade and investment partnerships to increase our independence from the U.S.

The political scene in Canada is changing as I write. With the key political issue being the relationship with the U.S., Canadian voters are asking themselves which of the candidates to replace Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party and, soon afterwards, which of the candidates in the general election, can best stand up to Trump.

The End Game

What is the end game of the trade wars that Trump is initiating with Canada, Mexico, China, and, coming soon, the E.U.? The U.S.’s allies are open to an honest and truthful discussion of ways to build a better alliance. Trump seems to be intent on building an American Empire, in which the U.S. dominates economically and seizes territory as it pleases. The U.S. will face economic resistance, as Canada and Mexico are demonstrating, and Europe will follow suit. There will be growing opposition to this costly imperial vision within the U.S. As a Canadian from birth and an optimist by nature. I will bet on the alliance.

 

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

 

What systemic racism looks like

Trump:

"We do not know what led to this crash but we have some very strong opinions and ideas, and I think we’ll probably state those opinions now.”

Nothing triggers my Republican-oriented readers so much as my writing that racism exists in America and that Trump appeals to that racial animus.  

Republican frustration with me is not ameliorated by my saying Trump is very skilled at it. His racialized message puts him in sync with the American electorate. Democratic readers get frustrated with me, too, because my saying Trump understands American racism better than do Democrats is a criticism of Democrats. 

Democrats think Americans are better than we are -- or should be better. Trump takes Americans as so many are -- a little bit racist. Or more than a little.

I lived in Boston during the busing era, 1973-1975. Tribal thinking was rampant. The Irish -- and by that I mean the great-great grandchildren of mid-19th century Irish immigrants -- disliked their rivals, the Italians -- the grandchildren of early 20th century immigrants from Italy. Boston self-segregated into ethnic neighborhoods. People profiled each other: Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish, Black, and Brahmin (the old New England gentry WASPS.) I was an outsider within this system, a visitor from Oregon, a noncombatant nobody.

Under the locals' veneer of equality and a pretense of respect for everyone as individuals, I saw widespread profiling, stereotyping, and prejudice. There were two big divides that cut across ethnicities. Christians were in a different tribe from Jews. Whites were in a different tribe from Blacks.

Trump is simultaneously cynical and toxic while being politically very effective. Trump appeals to tribal grievance with his attacks on diversity. Underlying this is his presumption that Black people are intellectually inferior. Therefore, attempts to recruit Black employees means that Whites are injured and that standards must have been lowered. The premise is that we cannot have both diversity and merit. A great many people are not offended or surprised by Trump's "common sense." It sounds about right to many people -- which is why he felt comfortable saying it and it was his top-of-mind thing to blame for the crash.

Reporter question: “You have today blamed the diversity elements but then told us that you weren’t sure that the controllers made any mistake. You then said perhaps the helicopter pilots were the ones who made the mistake.”

TRUMP: “It’s all under investigation.”

Q: “I understand that. That’s why I’m trying to figure out how you can come to the conclusion right now that diversity had something to do with this crash.”

TRUMP: “Because I have common sense. OK? And unfortunately, a lot of people don’t. We want brilliant people doing this. This is a major chess game at the highest level. When you have 60 planes coming in during a short period of time, and they’re all coming in different directions, and you’re dealing with very high-level computer, computer work and very complex computers.”

Trump is threading a needle and winning in both directions. When Democrats observe Trump's overt racism, Republicans call it Trump Derangement Syndrome. When Democrats observe --as I am now -- that he is appealing to widespread tribal prejudice, Trump calls it an attack on Americans. How dare Democrats say Americans are racist. (It's just that Blacks are too stupid to compete fairly and everyone knows it, so it is about merit, not race.) 

Trump is letting systemic racism work for him. He can both use it and deny it. He provides a pathway for fellow Americans to do the same. We aren't prejudiced against inferior tribes. It is just merit. It is just common sense.

Trump is getting praised for scrubbing American history of signs that the majority culture is prejudiced.  We can relax and feel good about ourselves. America is okay. We are okay. 

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

"A prescription for long-term disaster"

Today's guest post warns that I am dead wrong. 

Currently Trump dominates the message war. That can change. Voters know he is a blowhard.

I have written that Democrats will become a majority party when a media-savvy, self-confident leader emerges to command public attention by providing a credible counter-narrative to Trump's. That role won't be given to them by party leaders. Indeed, it must not be. I write that a spokesperson's credibility must be won amid open competition among other Democrats and against Trump. 

Herbert Rothschild disagrees. He sees a role for an interim party spokesperson while Democrats are the party out of power and before they identify their 2028 presidential candidate.

Rothschild left Harvard with a Ph.D. in 1966, shortly before I got there. He is a retired professor of English. His avocation was justice and peace work, beginning in the Civil Rights movement in Louisiana in the 1960s. He ran nonprofit organizations in Louisiana, New Jersey, Texas and Ashland, OR, some of which he founded. Since 2014, he has published a weekly column, first in the Daily Tidings, now in Ashland.news, which he started in 2021. The Bad Old Days is his memoir of the Civil Rights era.

Guest Post by Herbert Rothschild

In his blog on January 29 about still another of Trump’s egregious public lies, Peter bemoaned the current lack of an effective spokesperson from the Democratic Party to counter them. In the instance he cited, it was the California Department of Water Resources that issued a public statement setting the record straight, but obviously it commanded a small fraction of the attention Trump did. 

The problem is real, and it’s difficult to solve because, as Peter pointed out, there are no longer news sources that the majority of Americans who follow public affairs look to for reliable information. They exist, but the info universe is far more fragmented than it was when the three broadcast networks—CBS, NBC and ABC—dominated the news field along with responsible print journalism at the local level. Further, all too many media outlets are geared to specific and politically homogenous audiences. 

Anyone can now put out information on digital platforms, not just on niche ones but on those for the general reader such as X, Reddit and Instagram. So, there is enormous competition for our attention. 

As Tim Wu wrote in The Attention Merchants, “The business model of the internet is the seizure of attention.” The President of the United States has an enormous advantage in that competition. His pronouncements aren’t transmitted only by the siloed media that favor him; they are also transmitted by news outlets that still try to keep us abreast of what’s happening despite the personal politics of their owners, reporters and editors. How can the POTUS advantage be challenged by his/her political opponents? Specifically, how can Democrats rival Trump for attention? Peter looks to the emergence of an articulate and media-genic Democratic politician from somewhere out there who, on his/her own initiative, becomes the public face of the party whether other Democratic leaders like it or not. Even if someone emerges quickly enough to help us when we need it most, we need only remind ourselves that Trump became the public face of the Republican Party in exactly that way to realize the undesirability, if not the danger, of that solution. 

There is another solution. It’s for the Democratic Party to function more like the opposition party in a parliamentary system. In Great Britain, each party has a leader whether it is in or out of power. That leader speaks for the party, and if s/he deviates too much from the policy positions of the party, s/he is replaced. In that way, the party maintains a relatively stable identity and public presence. I know that our system is different. Also, I know that our two major parties no longer have the institutional apparatus they formerly had before nominees were chosen by popular vote in primaries rather than by party pros in convention. 

However, we have one precedent for both major parties to choose a national spokesperson. Beginning in 1966, when Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and House Minority Leader Gerald Ford officially responded to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s State of the Union address, both parties have designated someone to respond on their behalf. The media that cover the address usually also cover the response. I see no reason why this practice couldn’t be extended to other occasions. 

I don’t want some charismatic leader to become the public face of the Democratic Party if there is no check by other party leaders on what s/he says. The Republican Party today is the Party of Trump. He has led it to temporary victories, but what will it be after 2028? Peter’s emphasis on personality rather than policy, style over substance, has important implications for campaign strategy—candidates would do well to heed much of his advice—but by itself it is a prescription for long-term disaster, not just for Democrats, but for our nation.

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

Trump causes D.C. airline crash. Sixty-seven dead.

First major tragedy from Trump mismanagement. 

This was a totally preventable accident amid Trump-chaos at FAA and the Defense Department.

Blame Trump.

Yes. Blame Trump, and do it by name.

It is, after all, what Trump would do if Kamala Harris were president. 

Trump's goal was to create shock and awe in the minds of the American public and in the federal workforce. He is a wrecking ball. His MAGA base voters wanted that, and they are getting it. Federal employees witnessed day-one firings, demotions, and loss of security protections for people who got in Trump's way. Of course it was a distraction for them.

The day before yesterday, the Office of Personnel Management sent out notice to two million federal employees titled Fork in the Road. It warns of a substantial overhaul of the Civil Service, with policy alignments for senior employees and a new "streamlined" work force subjecting employees to "enhanced standards of suitability and conduct." It gives employees 10 days to resign or expect substantial changes in their work life including termination if one doesn't meet Trump's new, undefined expectations. This mirrors what Elon Musk did at Twitter when he fired 80 percent of the Twitter employees. House Speaker Mike Johnson said that "drastic times require drastic measures."

Turmoil in the federal ranks was not a bug. It was a feature. How else to get substantial turnover? This shake-up has consequences.

Yesterday, an American Airlines flight with 64 people aboard collided with a Black Hawk helicopter with three aboard. It occurred during a routine landing at Ronald Reagan National Airport in Washington D.C. It was a clear night and a standard approach, with no mechanical or other issues.

It was an entirely preventable accident, caused by human error. The new secretary of transportation, Sean Duffy, admitted it, saying:

“We are going to wait for all the information to come in from this vantage point, but … what I’ve seen so far, do I think this was preventable? Absolutely.”

Trump set the stage for this accident. Hegseth was sworn in as defense secretary with an agenda that includes personnel change. His record on managing an operating bureaucracy was troubling. He was fired from two previous jobs that required those skills. But an operations bumbler was Trump's pick. Moreover, Trump fired the entire membership of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee as part of his demolition of the Department of Homeland Security.

The president golfed on the two days before the crash.

Democrats, who are accustomed to being the target of wild, unfair accusations by Trump, are not as reckless in casting blame. Isn't it a stretch for me or anyone to suggest that Trump is to blame? Here is my response: Was it a stretch to accuse Biden of failing to anticipate that a suicide bomber would hide and then explode a bomb next to 13 American servicemen amid the 170 Afghan civilians? That didn't stop Trump from blaming Biden.

And in this case, the line of causality is straight. Trump is the bull in a china shop, shaking up Civil Service and military personnel, both bragging about it and getting praised by MAGA for it. He created the context for human error and 67 people died because of it. Absolutely blame Trump.

Over the upcoming posts I will discuss the requirements of the next Democratic leader. The test has already begun. I want someone to step up and connect the dots. Which Democrat will meet with the grieving families in public? Which Democrat will demand an investigation of the people who ordered the helicopter to be on that path. Which Democrat will show up?

Of course, Republicans will say that such a Democrat would be "politicizing a tragedy." The right Democrat won't wimp out. He or she will say that Americans died a horrible death because Trump is a chaos agent and there are consequences for his malfeasance. He or she will point an accusing finger at Trump on the golf course. Golfing while Americans die because of people under his supervision.

Trump is on TV right now blaming Barack Obama and DEI in the military for the crash. He is naming names: blame Obama. The right Democrat  will reverse the polarity of blame. Trump caused the chaos in personnel under his leadership. That is real. Human error caused the accident. Therefore, blame Trump. He is, after all, the president and the Black Hawk people report to him.

Take charge of the narrative.

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

Donald Trump did not send in the military to reverse gravity.

Donald Trump has a profound misunderstanding of geography. 

Or he is simply lying.

Or both.

Here is what he wrote:

No, he did not send in the U.S. military.

No, he did not turn on the water to L.A.

No, the water from the Pacific Northwest and beyond does not flow to Southern California.

No, there is no "Fake Environmental argument" valuing nature over the people that is denying Los Angeles water from the Pacific Northwest.

The staggering ignorance would be funny if people weren't taken in by him. People cheered the news on social media.

 ---"Figured out who is boss yet, Gavin Newsom?"

      --- "We voted for a leader and we got one MAGA!"

Elon Musk tweeted:

"Congratulations to the administration and DOI's Bureau of Reclamation for more than doubling the federally pumped water flowing toward Southern California in less than 72 hours." 

Trump's claim notwithstanding, Oregon and Washington rivers flow west into the Pacific Ocean. Even the Klamath River, which starts in Southern Oregon and then flows into California, flows mostly west, and enters the Pacific just south of the Oregon border, 700 miles from L.A.

The Rogue River from my farm, looking downriver. Downriver is west. The river's mouth is 750 miles from L.A.

Water is complicated in California, but put simply: Sacramento River water feeds Central Valley agriculture, not urban Los Angeles fire response. The fires in Los Angeles did not spread because there was a lack of Northern California water due to environmental concerns. The problem was the size and capacity of the urban infrastructure -- the capacity of the water mains and hydrants. The wind-whipped fire overwhelmed their system.

The California Department of Water Resources put out a statement 

"The military did not enter California. The federal government restarted federal water pumps after they were offline for maintenance for three days. State water supplies in Southern California remain plentiful.

Trump is good at selling a narrative. He has the presidential microphone, he is energetic, and he tells a story that fits an existing mental template that explains the world as he presents it: An out-of-control fire in L.A. happened because woke crazy-progressive California loonies, with lesbian fire chiefs, were hobbled by environmental extremists who diverted water L.A. needed to fight fires to protect a tiny fish no one cares about.  But don't despair. Trump is the hero who rides in with the cavalry to carry out a rescue. Thank God for Trump.

 Trump has Fox, conservative talk radio, and Twitter/X to broadcast and amplify that simple, clear message. 

The water that flows into the San Francisco Bay and keeps the smelt alive also keeps salt water from entering and inundating some of the most productive agricultural land in the world, and the source of much of America's food. That reality needs a spokesperson as loud, vivid, and persuasive as Trump. 

Democrats need to wake up. There is no credible neutral truth-teller in the form of Walter Cronkite or newspaper reporters and editors to explain press releases and complicated realities. Those neutral "explainers" have lost their audiences and their nerves. Facebook, Instagram, Reels, and YouTube have given up content moderation. 

Biden -- even when he was president and a candidate -- was overwhelmed by Trump's louder, clearer voice. Biden's profound communication incapacity trained Americans, including the remaining news media, to go to Trump to hear from the newsmaker or to fellow citizens to hear what the latest rumor is. Trump tells preposterous, easily refuted lies, but they can be believable ones, and he tells them with bluster and apparent confidence. 

Dishonesty is not a requirement for a counterargument. The truth can be interesting and persuasive, and it has the advantage of being congruent with observable facts. This will be the political Era of Trump until a Democrat emerges who can tell a counter-story as well as Trump. The position is open and available. 

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

This is where your strawberries come from

Strawberry pickers at work.

Take a minute: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT2FEtSCq/

[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.]

National ID card for Americans

     “I want to see two things in Los Angeles. Voter ID, so that the people have a chance to vote, and I want to see the water be released and come down into Los Angeles and throughout the state.”
          Donald Trump to reporters in North Carolina

Statewide ID cards? How about national ID cards?

In the 20th century, the people most actively opposed to national identification cards were people with a libertarian bent. They worried that a national ID card would mark Americans as slaves in an oppressive tyranny. A national ID card is associated with a tattoos on the arm given to prisoners at Auschwitz.

Now it is Democrats who oppose identification documents, mostly focusing on voting and legal presence in the country. That opposition to photo identification feeds the MAGA assertion that Democrats intentionally allow non-citizens to vote and that Democrats tacitly support and enable illegal immigration. 

I put up an "extra" post yesterday, showing farmworkers. It reflects my respect for them and their work. They are probably -- who knows? -- here without documentation of legal status. Their current "underground" status is demeaning to them and a source of political opposition and discord. I am pro-immigration. I would prefer they be brought out of the shadows. Give them legal status of some kind and give them proof of that status.

College classmate Erich Almasy wonders what is so objectionable about a national ID card. He is an expat, living in Mexico, and has written guest posts about retirement in San Miguel de Allende. 

Almasy

Guest Post by Erich Almasy

Donald Trump says California must establish statewide ID cards if it wants disaster relief funds. Nearly all 192 countries have national ID cards; only about eleven, including the United States, do not. The cards are usually mandatory, and non-conforming people are fined. Increasingly, these cards are fully digital, allowing immediate database searches for identity.

Mexican Driver's License

In México, each citizen is registered with a digital ID card when they turn eighteen. The card entitles the holder to vote in elections and registers them for health care and social security. The registration includes retinal scans, fingerprints, and voice prints. There are penalties for not having and carrying one. While I am not a citizen, and my municipality/state issues my Mexican driver’s license, it is a national document that requires the same input. As you can see, you aren’t supposed to smile. 

If DJT is serious about ID cards, he should propose a nationwide digital ID card with multiple forms of identification --  including DNA.  After all, even President Clinton had to provide his DNA. (In contrast, Trump refused to provide his DNA in his E. Jean Carroll trial.) The problem for Trump is that his base of MAGA supporters would altogether reject any capability of the federal government to track them. Visions of confiscation of guns or the rounding up of right-wing activists would make such a program dead on arrival. 

Is a digital national ID card the ultimate manifestation of Big Brother as envisioned by George Orwell? Should Americans reject them as an infringement on their freedom despite the benefits of accurate censuses, verified elections, and enhanced criminal prosecution? I would favor their use, if only to end the ridiculous claims of conservative pundits about widespread fraud. 

[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.]

Farm work

Here is why you can afford carrots.

Stoop labor.

Pull, snap off green leaves, place in box pointed the same way, move box. Repeat.

Watch for a minute: 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT2FY3cga/

and this:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT2F28M4S/

A secular Sermon on the Mount

The secular left has a stand-in for religion: social justice.

My post yesterday likened activist Democrats to the "good girl" sitting in the front row in high school. She is empathetic, considerate, and does her homework. Republicans are the rowdy boys at the back.

It was a mixed compliment for Democrats. A great many people perceive that "good girl" as a know-it-all and a punctilious scold, too quick to direct what virtuous thing classmates should do. In student body elections, the class might prefer the earthier boys who better reflect the class's honest emotions of restlessness, frustration, and horniness. The class doesn't want to be good. They want to be their honest selves.

John Coster has thoughts on yesterday's post. He supported Bernie Sanders and has a left orientation, but not the secular left that shapes Democratic policies. He identifies as an Evangelical Christian. Over his 40-year career, he owned and operated electrical contracting companies. That evolved into work overseeing the design and construction of multimillion-dollar projects for Amazon, Microsoft, and T-Mobile. 

Guest Post by John Coster

Sunday’s post got me thinking about the intersection of masculinity, virtue, and politics.

Over the past 50 years, technology has reduced or eliminated jobs that required physical "masculine" strength. When I was an electrician apprentice in 1976, I was required to carry 80-pound pieces of four-inch steel conduit up three or four sections of vertical scaffolding -- without safety tie-offs. You would never see that today, and that's a good thing because it was very unsafe. Advancing technology has allowed prefabrication from automated factories to eliminate many skilled "craftsman" jobs. Many commercial buildings are now assembled. Car mechanics are now called "technicians," who use computers to diagnose problems and replace the part. My EV is a computer on wheels. The old NPR show "Car Talk" would seem quaint and irrelevant to young people today.

Technology has democratized labor. It now rewards the "good girl" student who can figure out the problem and automate it. In fact, even the "knowledge-worker" jobs are dropping along with wages, as AI takes over many of those tasks. As physicality becomes increasingly irrelevant to the economy, men have experienced a loss of their social standing, sense of identity, and even attractiveness to women.

The challenge of the "shoulds," as Peter says, is that there isn't a common moral framework anymore. The Left uses biblical concepts of love, acceptance, kindness, compassion, and stewardship, but ignores or even has contempt for the very religion that brought those values. Tom Holland's book Dominion presents how the advent of Christianity grew over the centuries to become the most powerful cultural force ever known to humanity. He says, for example, that the very idea of human rights, that humans are sacred, did not exist as a social concept before Christianity. When you think about it, human sacredness is the common concept at the heart of the Pro-life/Pro-choice debate; the only difference is whose life is the most sacred?

The left goes further with its secularized "religion" to promote, normalize and force the celebration of ideas like gender theory (i.e., that biology and identity are separate), and shames those who disagree. People on the Right feel helpless, for example, when laws are passed like here in the State of Washington, that take away a parent's right to even be informed that their child is seeking gender-affirming care or help with gender dysphoria in school. Essentially, the Left claims its own moral authority. For conservatives who see their identity, purpose and values tied to more traditional (Christian, Muslim and Jewish) teaching, these Left-leaning agendas are seen a fundamental assault or existential threat, even if those on the Right are not particularly devout or literate about the theology of their faith. Those also tend to be the ones who embrace Christian nationalism.

The folks on the Right I talk to, see the acceptance of a deeply flawed leader as the only way to stop the erosion of their core beliefs.

The honeymoon of technology companies that want to own your mind and automate everything, with the hard-right political leadership (for now) that envisions a return to the past, is an interesting paradox. I predict it will be a troubled marriage. The technology titans will outlive Trump of course, so he is useful to them for now, but their loyalties will be as sticky as are his.

 

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

 

Easy Sunday: Goody two shoes.

Democrats are the "civilized" party. We are seeing the backlash.

It is probably a stretch, but I think these three items are related:

1:

     "But I reckon I got to light out for the Territory ahead of the rest, because Aunt Sally she's going to adopt me and sivilize me, and I can't stand it. I been there before."

        Huck Finn's final words in Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

2: 

     “Masculine energy is good, and obviously, society has plenty of that, but I think corporate culture was really trying to get away from it. I think having a culture that celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits that are really positive.”
     Mark Zuckerberg, interviewed on Joe Rogan

3.

Lauren Sanchez, fiancé of Jeff Bezos, at the Inauguration:

Here's my quick "Easy Sunday" point: Democrats have become the party of "should." That caused a backlash. The rebellion against "should" is so strong that Americans chose a sociopathic, narcissistic, pussy-grabbing felon over a Democrat.

Democrats are the party that is earnest and conscientious about climate change. Democrats say America needs to "own" the ugly parts of our past. Democrats are the #MeToo-adjacent  party. Democrats recite land acknowledgements. They announce their preferred pronouns in their emails. Democrats want to be sure that the rights and sensibilities of everyone are respected, even if -- especially if -- those people are in a group of people who have suffered prejudice, including people who have committed crimes. 

Democrats are the "goody two shoes" party. Personally, I am pretty much okay with the values of Democrats. If we are going to have a free, multiethnic culture then those values need to be the norm. 

But Democrats have become preachy. They err by valuing equality more than individual differences and choices.  Democrats have become so open-minded and relative that they have disconnected from biology. From emotion. From tribalism. (Go Ducks!) Democrats got out ahead of the public. They wanted to be right more than they wanted to be understood and popular. 

Democrats can be characterized as the good girl, sitting near the front of the class, with her hand up with the answer because she did her homework. In this era of Trump, Republicans are the restless and disruptive bad boys in the back, who think the class is boring and the girl with her hand up is a prig.

I include the image of Lauren Sanchez, with her lace bustier front and center, to make the point that women are part of the backlash. She isn't letting her sex or age constrain her earthy sexuality. There was a tiny gender skew in the 2024 election -- far less than Democrats had hoped -- because a great many women -- including those in the cool tech crowd -- voted alongside the spitball throwers in the back. 

The right charismatic leader can get Democrats back in touch. It will require a new mindset for Democrats. Female energy need not be negative. It can be bold and disruptive. And popular.

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