At some point, even Republicans realize that Trump has gone too far

“​There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. . . .

In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.”

          John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath, 1939

John Steinbeck was writing about crushing dismay at watching food be destroyed in the midst of hungry people. The offense that something good, the product of America' fertile land, was being destroyed when it was needed. The crime beyond denunciation was cruelty of loss to so many for the benefit of so few. For Steinbeck, it was food in front of hungry people. For us it is the lingering memory of a great country based on the rule of law, one fought and died for, one that aspired to be an uncorrupted, democratic city on the hill and an example to the world, now openly, shockingly corrupted by a president.

Donald Trump has finally, finally, gone too far.

There is a context, of course. Gasoline prices, the war with Iran, midnight posts, the conflicts of interest with his family businesses, the crypto sales, the tariffs, the prosecutions of political opponents, the purges within the GOP.  Those all add up, but they were not the final straw of total capitulation to corruption. There is a one-two punch, coming together.

The ballroom is the physical manifestation of the craziness, the golden palace, Nero fiddling while Rome burned. It triggers every image of "let them eat cake" cluelessness of the wealthy and powerful, of grandiloquent third-world dictatorships with phony medals of grandeur, of French kings, Scrooge McDuck, the Simpsons' Montgomery Burns, of Captain Queeg, of Captain Ahab, of mad kings.  

The final straw though is the utter corruption of the Justice Department enabling a theft of public money for a secret slush fund that allows Trump to pay off his friends and allies in whatever way he wants. And, more amazing yet, a statement from the Justice Department and IRS never to question, investigate, or audit Trump, the Trump family, or Trump's political friends. What a deal.

Even the Wall Street Journal admits that it stinks of corruption.

By today readers would have learned the mechanism for this open theft. Trump makes a ridiculous legal claim against the Internal Revenue Service for an action an employee took while Trump himself was president. Trump-the-person sues Trump's own government. Trump's own compliant Attorney General makes a settlement with Trump for $1.776 billion dollars, for use any way Trump's appointees, serving at Trump's pleasure, wants, specifically including rewards and payoffs to people who participated in Trump's attempted coup. Trump's commission can pay people who give him campaign contributions. It can pay people to "find" 11,000 votes or to refuse to certify elections that a Democrat wins.  

Even Republicans who live in fear of Trump endorsing a primary opponent see the corruption here. By corrupting the Justice Department -- bad enough on its own -- Trump gets to help himself to free money from the Treasury, and he does it openly. He can, so he does.

This is what the Republican party officeholders and candidates have to swallow and defend. Candidates face a dilemma. Defend it and admit total capitulation to corruption or oppose it and face the wrath of Trump and his MAGA base.

Chris Beck, who handily won the Democratic primary election for Oregon's 2nd congressional district has been offered an enormous gift. Republican incumbent Cliff Bentz mumbles in inobtrusive but consistent support of Trump. He does as Trump directs. Will he oppose Trump's open theft of $1.776 billion? Is there any act of corruption that would cause Bentz to speak up?

Republican members of Congress exist in relative obscurity and get re-elected in red districts by inertia of party loyalty. But sometimes an issue breaks through. Fifty-two years ago Watergate created a blue wave. Thirty-two years ago Hillary Clinton's health proposal, along with the House Bank overdrafts, created a red wave. This is bigger, far worse, and visible. Trump is stealing from us. And it comes on top of the shiny gold ballroom.

This could be a wave year when Democrats get elected in red districts.

[Note: I make a request of Republican readers. Write a guest post defending Trump's deal with his Justice Department. Explain why is is good, reasonable, and not corrupt. I may well publish 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.]

Election results. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

Too close to call.

In the Oregon Senate District 2 contest to choose the Democratic nominee to replace Jeff Golden, Denise Krause has a 209-vote lead over Tonia Moro.

Krause, from her campaign website

Moro, from her campaign website

Here is the latest updated election tally. Votes are tallied and announced as they are processed.

Results at most recent count

Votes that were counted earlier in the night showed Krause ahead, but by a larger margin. Moro is catching up with her.

Progress report count

The first vote count was announced at 8 p.m. when the polls closed. That tally consisted of votes from early voters. Those earliest voters showed Krause with fewer votes counted but a slightly larger percentage lead. 

First announced result

There is no need to imagine a conspiracy to explain that Moro appears to be catching up. Some people vote early in the two-week balloting period. (I do.) Those ballots had their signatures and bar codes checked as they came in and they were ready to tally and announce. A great many people wait until later in the cycle to vote. They see the two week flurry of advertisements on TV and social media, and direct mail. It does not surprise me that Cristian Mendoza Ruvalcaba, a little-known political candidate at the beginning of the campaign, but who had a giant media blitz funded by the Oregon Nurses Association, did better with people who voted late in the cycle. The ads persuaded some people. They brought his vote percentage up from 14.9 to 17.7 percent. 

Tonia Moro kept advertising throughout the period -- more than did Krause from my casual observation -- and her percentage of votes increased among people who voted closer to election day, but only slightly. It grew from 33.34 to 34.09 percent.

The real story, for people like me who overthink these things, is that:

-- The electorate that votes early is very close to the electorate of later voters. The pattern is set early.

--  The advertising and effort spent in the last days of the campaign do matter. Kevin Stine, who was well known from his long service on the Medford City Council got early votes, but he did not have money for ads, and he did not do as well among late voters. His percentage dropped from 11.38 to 10.26 percent when the later voters were added into the mix.

  

-- It appears to me that Ruvalcaba's votes from people who saw his ad blitz came from people who, earlier in the cycle might have voted for Krause. Moro's percentage didn't change much as Ruvalcaba's grew, but Krause's dropped.

 

-- In close races, tiny changes matter. I expect Krause or Moro to win or lose by a few votes. Those extra 10 doors knocked on, or that last-minute mailer, something earned a vote that will tip the balance.

I personally prefer Krause to Moro, but based on the pattern of later voters I think it is likely that by the time the final votes are tallied, that Moro will win. Krause partisans should not celebrate early. If Moro wins, I won't cry foul and complain that Krause lost only because a losing candidate, Ruvalcaba, "took" her votes. They weren't Krause's votes; they were the citizen's votes. I don't anchor mentally on Krause being ahead and somehow deserving to win. 

This close election is a bit of practice and preparation for the midterms. Donald Trump complains bitterly about every election he loses, starting with an Iowa caucus vote in 2016 against Ted Cruz, and again in 2020. I fully expect him to claim that some early lead by him or a political ally is the "real" outcome in the 2026 midterms, and that later votes counted for an opponent are fake or illegal. He will try to void those votes and come up with pretexts for it. Don't fall for it. Early leads are not the end result. Don't anchor on early leads. We count all the votes. 

[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.]

For better or worse, Republican candidates are stuck with Trump.

 "Massie is a complete and total disaster as a congressman, and frankly as a human being."

          Trump, campaigning against Rep. Thomas Massie

Trump is making an example out of Massie.

Today is election day in Oregon, too. 

There are no polls in the hotly-contested races that I follow in Oregon: the Democratic nomination for the state Senate seat held by retiring State Senator Jeff Golden. and one for the U.S. representative in the 2nd District.

In the state Senate race, political newcomer Cristian Mendoza Ruvalcaba has raised and spent some $180,000 in direct and in-kind contributions, most of it from the Oregon Nurses Association PAC. That is three times the money raised by his two well-established opponents with active campaigns, Tonia Moro and Denise Krause. We will find out if money can equal long-established networks of supporters. 

None of the candidates for U.S. representative has spent much money on paid ads or boosted social media. All are newcomers to politics in this district. This is an utterly grass-roots, door-to-door, shake-hands-at-meetings campaign -- in a district of 750,000 people. I think the campaign will consist mostly of voters choosing someone based on the Voters Pamphlet. The winner will face incumbent Republican Cliff Bentz in a district with a 20-point Republican edge. Is he or she a sure loser? Possibly not -- and that is partly because of what is happening to Massie in Kentucky.

Bentz has been invisible and politically flat-footed over the past year. Trump is watching him. Bentz has been silent or mumbled on vote-by-mail, on the  National Guard in Portland, on ICE patrolling Oregon farms, on releasing the Epstein files, on taxes on billionaires, on making health insurance unaffordable, and on bankrupting rural hospitals in his district, Bentz has done as instructed. He is stuck taking the unpopular position, the one that presents as hurting the district rather than defending it.

Trump understands political theatrics. His attacks on Massie puts fear into the minds of potential independent voices in the GOP caucus. Trump can end careers, going back to Jeff Sessions, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Jeff Flake, and Mitt Romney up to the Indiana state senators and incumbent U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy last week, and perhaps Massie today.

Trump's purges give Democrats in Oregon an edge this November. Oregon's Democratic governor Tina Kotek is vulnerable. She comes across as a continuation of former governor Kate Brown, carrying Brown's Covid baggage. A  fresh, energetic, independent Republican would have a strong case. But a Republican candidate cannot contradict Trump on any matter of controversy, and any competent Democratic campaign will make that crystal clear. Kotek has problems, but she is more popular than Trump and a candidate carrying the specter of Trump.

Brad Hicks, the Republican candidate who will face whoever wins the Democratic primary for state Senate, has a central-casting look as a Chamber of Commerce tight-with-the-business-establishment candidate. Some will like it; some will think it far too cozy with his business funders. In either case it could be a local brand, not a national one. Not so in the Trump era. A decade ago a Republican in that district, Alan DeBoer, who won election over Tonia Moro, could offer an independent, reasonable-guy image. Friendly. Earnest. Not mean-spirited. It is a different era now. Trump puts demands on Republicans: He won the 2020 election; mail ballots are fraudulent; the January 6 rioters are patriots and deserve tax money; the war in Iran is a success; fossil fuels are better than renewables; the ballroom is a fantastic idea. I expect the Democratic winner of today's primary to have an easy target in November.

Could the Democratic primary winner in the congressional race defeat Cliff Bentz? Probably, statistically, under any conventional circumstances, no. The district is too red. But Trump is pulling Cliff Bentz down with him. Tens of thousands of district constituents will discover that their health insurance has become utterly unaffordable. Bentz is stuck and cannot free himself. Look at Cassidy. Look at Massie. About once every decade the country gets a "throw the president's bums out" election. We are due. If this is the year, Bentz will go down with the GOP ship. It could happen. 

What Trump is doing to Massie is hardball politics. He enforces a message: Obey; your future is tied to mine.

One more thing: It is just possible Massie could survive today's election. But even so, a Republican pays a price.

[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.]

I was wrong. We still need to enforce the 15th Amendment.

I have changed my mind: It isn't yet time to stop remediating racial discrimination.

There are problems with "reverse discrimination." Those problems are what I saw. But there are problems without it. I see that better now.

I was too optimistic about the state of the country.

Here is what I wrote back on May 2: 

It is OK to recognize that Americans dislike race-based preferences in everything: college admissions, hiring, promotions, and voting. Yes, voting, too. The MLK formulation that people should be judged by character, not skin color, is better principle, better policy, and better politics. Carving out congressional and state "black districts" probably made sense 50 years ago, but now is creating a backlash bigger than its purpose of encouraging fair representation. 

I wrote that shaping districts with a majority of minority residents fuels White resentment against "reverse discrimination" and removes the likelihood that a White politician in the South has electoral reason to care about Black voters. Maybe, I wrote, if there were mixed-race districts with a White majority but a substantial number of Blacks, the White politicians would need to moderate on issues important to Black constituents to get votes in a contested election. 

I had my eye on the current rise of "White Power" as a reason to stop creating Black-majority districts. White people saw that there was advantage to identity consciousness for Blacks, women, and other identities. Instead of thinking of White people as the neutral, default, status-quo group, Whites, and especially White men, began defining themselves as their own aggrieved underdog group. Trump was brilliant in making this a point of grievance and political mobilization. Democrats ignored the growing White and male backlash, and made it easy for Trump.

I thought it was better to stop competing over victimhood. I still agree with that sentiment, but I was naive, too. I ignored history and practice.

Historically, the South's successful effort to keep Black people from voting was about maintaining political control in a White-on-top society. When necessary to be deceptive about it, politicians did it with pretense and subterfuge: grandfather clauses, poll taxes, discriminatory exams, discriminatory policing, and informally sanctioned intimidation. It worked for them. Very few Black people in the South could vote, as recently as 1964.

The purpose was partisan control by the "White" party, i.e., Democrats until about 1966-1968, then the crossover realignment to Republicans as the party protecting White political power. 

When the Supreme Court said that partisan gerrymandering was OK, I neglected to see that maintaining partisan control wasn't incidental; it was the mechanism for confounding the 15th Amendment and empowering the White political party. I saw what happened as soon as the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act: Southern states did not create my imagined multi-racial, elect-moderates districts. Silly, naive me. They redistricted to decrease the influence of Blacks as much as humanly possible. We are still in a Jim Crow world.

This Supreme Court protects freedom -- the freedom to speak and act on feelings of racial and religious prejudice. It is a freedom-of-conscience right, even if it is unlovely and contradicts our country's founding documents and creed. But the Court is asymmetric. They do not protect, as the 15th Amendment directs, the freedom to be protected against those acts. This gives Trump and the current GOP the power they need to return to the historic pattern of suppression of Black political influence.

So I was wrong. We have the 15th Amendment but we need to enforce it.

Trump understood the country better than I do. He panders to prejudices, and he found his constituency. It isn't everyone, but it is enough.

[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.] 

Field Report: Chris Beck last-minute push

Chris Beck, Democratic candidate for Congress in Oregon's second congressional district, takes stock.

Beck took a moment from the job of meeting voters to wonder: Will I win? What are my chances? 

(He says an opponent said Beck had a 98.5 percent chance of winning. Beck thinks that is wildly optimistic.)

A screen shot from one of his Facebook videos

Field report from Chris Beck:

I have been knocking on doors in Ashland, where the majority of Jackson County Democrats reside. People are friendly, and those who have time to talk will do so.  Some people open the door and exclaim, "I voted for you." I've asked a few people why, and they say my experience, my endorsements (Governor Kitzhaber and former Ashland Mayor, Cathy Shaw) mattered to them. Other people simply say they have voted, not indicating who they voted for, which may mean one of my opponents.  Alas. . . . 

  

The most repeated desires on the doorstep are about defeating Cliff Bentz. Bentz is deeply unpopular with Democrats, but the 45% of non-party-affiliated voters will need to be appealed to, a job I would enjoy taking on.   

 I've worked hard, dove into social media (with some good content I believe), and drove nearly 10,000 miles across the vast district. My late entry into the race has made it a challenge to meet as many people as I would have liked, so if I lose I will conclude that I might have done better had I entered in early January, rather than late February. Also, some voters are uncomfortable with the fact that I had not been living in the District boundaries, even though I have been an Oregon resident my entire life and have had a career that has often involved rural communities and economic development. If I had met more people and had deeper conversations, I am confident that my life experience in Oregon, as a legislator, as a committed public servant, including six years with the Obama Administration, would have allayed most of their concerns.   

Overall, I have a strong statement in the Voters Pamphlet demonstrating my deep experience, and this may be the only information most voters see, so that might be why I eke out a victory.  One of my opponents said they think I have a 98.5% chance of winning. I think that is wildly optimistic, and I'd say it's more like 50/50.  Other opponents bring other worthy lived experiences, as a medical doctor and teacher. It's an interesting stew of people and personalities. Soon we will know, and one of us will have the honor or taking on Mr. Bentz.  

 

[Note: I invite other candidates to send in a quick field report describing what is on their minds and what they are doing. If it is short and interesting, I will publish it. People are still voting. Send it to me at peter.w.sage@gmail.com]

[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: My GLP-1 experience follow-up

"GLP-1 drugs are going to be a more impactful technology than AI.  

        I think GLP-1s are dramatically under-hyped and AI is dramatically over-hyped."

     Scott Galloway, investor and public intellectual

UPS delivered a styrofoam box that contained four of these little bottles of a GLP-1 drug. I have almost completed three four-week cycles, and I was ready for my next four-week batch. GLP-1 vendors set up a regular schedule of deliveries.

So far I am a happy customer of a GLP-1 drug, Zepbound.  It immediately changed how I thought about food.

These drugs are being marketed on social media and TV about as casually as any over-the-counter drug. There are dozens of vendors. Answer a few screening questions at their website, get approved by their in-house licensed provider, enter your credit card number, and you begin getting the drug. A shopper can now get the drug in various doses for about $200/month, all things included.

The drug changes something that I had presumed was my essential nature and personality: my appetite for food. I had a big appetite which, on reflection, was never fully satiated. Within hours of taking my first dose I realized it was dinnertime and I didn't particularly care. I wasn't hungry.  The drug changed how I thought and felt! And food didn't cross my mind as something particularly interesting or desirable. I liken it to the drug turning off an irritating itch. I feel relief.

The Wall Street Journal this week reported "More than 12% of Americans reported taking GLP-1 drugs for weight loss last fall, up from 6% in early 2024, polling firm Gallup found. Women and people ages 50 to 64 reported higher usage rates."

Wall Street Journal gifted article

I first realized I was part of a movement when I attended a little neighborhood gathering where the hostess had set out some food, which I politely refused, mentioning that I was taking Zepbound. "Oh, so am I," the hostess said. "Isn't it great?" Then the woman next to her said, "I am, too. It is such a relief, isn't it?"  The cheese, crackers, and fancy cookies sat untouched.  

The drug isn't a diet drug, in my experience. It is an appetite drug. Weight loss takes care of itself. It is easy to cut back on food intake when you feel "full," even when you haven't eaten.

It prompts me to reflect on the chemical and hormonal nature of personality. I had considered myself mostly-rational. I had agency. There is an "I" inside my head that controlled my choices. 

Well, maybe not so much. I have a new perspective that hormones and chemicals shape that thing I call "I." I have new empathy for a Medford-area MAGA Republican troll who writes me daily complaining about this blog with angry references to his top-of mind-subject, homosexual pedophilia. He may not have genuine volition about what is on his mind. It may not be "him," exactly. It may be out-of-whack brain chemistry doing the talking.

A giant medical experiment is taking place in America. If there is a hidden health time bomb in the drug, it hasn't shown up yet. Maybe the time bomb is that the drug works so well it becomes a near-universal adjustment for people who need it, as eyeglasses are for people who need a different refraction. Then maybe Americans as a group end up living a few extra years and Social Security goes broke sooner than we had planned.

We Americans have gotten heavier over the past 50 years. Maybe this is an era-linked phenomenon, like iron lungs for polio or people living with big goiters in the Upper Midwest "goiter belt." Maybe 50 years from now children will ask their teachers why photographs of people in this 1970-to-2030 era showed so many people looking so big. Teachers will have to explain that it was the style back in the olden days before the invention of certain medicines..

[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.] 

Quick update: Field Report by Denise Krause

Denise Krause is going door to door looking for last minute voters. 

It is too late to mail the ballot. Now Oregon voters need to bring their ballots to a dropbox. 

A Report from the Campaign Trail by Denise Krause

Phoenix. Talent. Medford. Ashland. Jacksonville. A swing through Ruch and the Applegate.

Here is some of what I found.

In Phoenix, a woman in her late seventies walked me out to the spot where her original house had stood before the Almeda Fire came through. She lives in a manufactured home on the same lot now. The insurance fight alone took eighteen months. She told me she still doesn’t sleep well in August and September. Then she pivoted, without losing a beat, and asked me what I planned to do about pharmacy benefit managers. She had the acronym right. She knew her grandson’s insulin had gone from $30 to $140.

She wasn’t venting. She was interviewing me.

In Talent, a nurse who had worked at Ashland Community Hospital told me the birth center closure hadn’t surprised her, but the inpatient closure had. She wanted to know how many of the legislators who voted on the last health budget had ever spent a Saturday night on a med-surg floor.

I told her I didn’t know.

She said, “That’s the problem.”

In Medford, a man in his sixties opened the door, looked at my literature, and said, “Krause. You ran for commissioner. I voted for you.” We talked for 15 minutes about Jackson County’s charter reform. He invited me back to meet his neighbors.

I’ve spent 25 years working as a population health scientist. When I told people that most of them said "good." Then they moved straight to the next question: What do I think about Asante? About Southern Oregon University’s financial situation? About drought and wildfire preparedness?

The conversations were never really about me. They were about the work that still needs to be done.

One idea I shared resonated: partnering SOU with Oregon Health and Science University to build a medical program alongside the existing nursing program, and repositioning Ashland’s hospital as a teaching hospital. It would anchor institutional investment in a region that has been watching its healthcare infrastructure quietly disappear. The full proposal is on my website. www.denisekrause.com

I keep coming back to the woman in Phoenix, standing on the lot where her house used to be, asking me about insulin pricing, not sleeping well in late summer. 

[Note: If any other candidates want to send me a brief field report or observation about their campaign, send it to me at peter.w.sage@gmail.com. I may publish it if it is interesting and short.]

For local readers: Drop box locations in Rogue River, Eagle Point, Phoenix, Ashland, and two in Medford:

https://www.jacksoncountyor.gov/departments/elections/ballot_box_locations.php

He's stealing from us.

     "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up."

               Lilly Tomlin, 1985. 

Let's enjoy a happy thought: 

We will look back at this era of Trump as a strange, wild, short-term aberation. A mistake. An idea that went very bad. Like Prohibition.

That happy thought embeds a premise that the changes Trump is making to our system of government and our norms and values reverse themselves. It presumes that voters decide they won't tolerate from anyone else the level of crony capitalist grift that Trump does openly and proudly. 

It could happen. Voters seem to keep a close eye on self-serving behavior of state and local politicians, and those politicians get in trouble for it. The big, flagrant self-serving corruption -- the financial grift, the sale of pardons, the open conflict of interest in the billions of dollars -- is mostly a Trump phenomenon, trickled down to the federal agencies, but stopping there. And since Trump has his secure base of support, and appears to be impeachment-proof, Trump can get away with things that neither a blue-state nor red-state governor or state legislator could. Maybe our federal system has a stop-loss provision. That is a comfort.

But guest post author Bruce Van Zee sends up a warning that I may be too sanguine. Trump-style fearless open grift is an infection spreading through the culture, he argues. Van Zee is a retired physician who, like me, writes a blog post from his home in Medford, Oregon. He is an insightful, self-described "Never Trumper." He publishes three times a week. He writes less about the optics of politics than I do, and more about the big trends in our culture, and especially about medicine. He tends to show his work with links. Read him at: https://bvzcvz.substack.com

Guest Post by Bruce Van Zee

Corruption is infectious

There is some evidence that during the Trump years, there has been an increase in sports betting, prediction markets, and insider trading (here). And it is obvious that crypto, markets that clearly are favored by unscrupulous traders and money launderers, have proliferated under his watch – in no small measure because the Trump regime has favored them and even started crypto markets of their own (here). We learned last week that Trump’s meme coin, $TRUMP, has earned he and his family millions at little to no risk (because he profits from either sale or purchase of the coin) while his investors lost 96% of their investments (here).

A further insult – 600,000 eager MAGA folks who put $100 down payment a year ago for a soon-to-be-released “gold-plated” Trump cell phone, are still holding the bag. Quietly, the release date has been deleted and there is no promised return of the down payments. Here’s a 30 second video by one of Trump’s victims explaining the con job. It’s sort of funny unless it’s your $100, but I’m not laughing – because it’s our president who is behind these schemes.

Instagram video: ripoff!

And that’s the point of this post. The cell phone scam is minor compared to the systematic grift and corruption that permeates Trump’s presidency. Mona Charen documents the details here. The list and shear amount of corruption is mind-boggling. The Trump family is at least $1.4 billon richer since 2025 because of some of these schemes. But because this con man is our president and leader, his grift and corruption rub off on those who follow him and those who have shaky moral compasses. Trump sets the stage for corruption. And if you’re part of his team or have something to offer, you can count on a pardon if you’re caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

Since the Iran war started, the crude oil futures market has gyrated like a yoyo. There have been well documented large purchases and/or shorts just before presidential announcements of events in the Middle East that would affect the market (here).

I’d be surprised if there is vigorous investigation into these occurrences, in large measure because Trump fired most of the Inspector Generals, internet watchdogs, consumer financial protection agencies, and other built-in governmental protection against fraud and abuse shortly after taking office in January 2025.

It all speaks to a dark moral center of Trump’s mind and what he values. Folks, it’s all about money and power – his, not yours. I really think Trump values little else than wealth accumulation and power. Altruism and empathy are for suckers. Patriotism is good to talk about to get votes, but no self-sacrifice for the Trumps. Remember “old bone spurs”? And Trump’s disparagement of wounded or dead soldiers. Speaking about John McCain who was shot down over Vietnam, captured and tortured, “He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured”. And you can rest assured that Barron will not be enlisting anytime soon and that the “Trump Foundation” was not a philanthropic institution.

Unfortunately, his grifting and moral depravity have become infectious because he happens to be president; hence the increase in these dubious schemes – insider trading, crypto, sports betting, gambling, prediction markets like PolyMarket and Kalshi. Because he’s the leader, people think it’s okay. It’s the mantra of “get rich quick” schemes that is spreading. A little may not be so harmful to society, but when productive work is sacrificed for these schemes, society may suffer as well.

At his core, I don’t think Trump believes in the concept of white collar crime, at least not if he’s the one committing it. His pardons speak loudly to that belief.

Based on analyses of his two terms in office, President Donald Trump has used his clemency power extensively, with white-collar offenders making up a significant portion of his pardons and commutations. Reports indicate that over 50% of his 88 individual pardons during his second term’s first year were for white-collar offenses. This includes at least 27 individuals in his second term, with over 70 allies and donors with fraud convictions benefiting from clemency across both terms. (here).

We see this same mindset in our tech tycoons where wealth accumulation to an obscene degree seems the only value that matters. Mark Zuckerberg plans to lay off 8,000 Meta/Facebook employees in the name of “efficiency” while having the audacity to say, “People will be more important in the future, not less”. For more on Zuckerberg and the failure of his company’s once aspirational promise, see NYT , “Meta is Dying. It’s About Time.” And then there was Musk, decimating USAID, among other government agencies, all in the name of efficiency. Perhaps 500,000 children, mostly in Africa, have died as a result of the cessation of nutrition and medicine (here). USAID was less than 1% of the government’s budget and represented enormous good will and “soft power”. And the cruelty did not result in lowering of the national debt.

During the Trump era we have seen the uber wealthy move to the right politically. Maybe because it was politically and personally expedient, or because the stigma of being a modern-day robber baron was removed a bit by the cover of Trump’s favor. And we have seen “Christian Nationalism” adopt very unchristian tenets, like “empathy is a weakness”. Then there were the companies, previously proud to offer diversity, equity, and inclusion in their organizations until it became politically risky. All under the influence of our Grifter-In-Chief.

I am not an anti-capitalist. Like everyone else, I want to have enough income to live comfortably and not worry about my next meal or shelter or financial security. But, come on, this absurd quest for ever more wealth to where three mega billionaires own more wealth than the bottom half of American families has got to stop. There are other important values in life – kindness, empathy, compassion, fellowship, honesty, fairness, freedom, enjoyment of nature, health and wellness, art and music, and so much more. America needs a reawakening to the fullness of life. And ask yourself, do Trump, Musk, Zuckerberg, Theil, and others like them represent people you want your children to emulate? And do they seem happy, fulfilled individuals?

Ultimately wouldn’t it be nice if American capitalism morphed a bit to include other values than shareholder earnings? How about a little respect and value given to the employees and their service over time and that they are not easily discarded like yesterday’s trash. Japan, for instance, has a deeply-rooted allegiance between corporate employees and employers leading usually to life-long employment and good job security. Does that make Japanese companies less efficient than American ones? Possibly, but again, that is not the only, or even most important value that counts.

[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.] 

Party brands: Democrats are "weak." Republicans are "extreme."

Neither political party has a popular brand.


-- April polls showed Democrats with a net favorability of minus 21.

-- April polls showed Republicans with a net favorability of minus 26.

Yikes!

My May 2 post was titled "How Democrats can win elections." I said that some of the positions that were identified with the Democratic brand should be abandoned because they did not express the party's core values. Moreover, they were unpopular with voters. Democrats, I said, had adopted positions that even most Democrats don't like. Get back to its roots, I said. Get real. Get popular again, and win elections.

Mark Dennett commented on that post and then agreed to share his observations about the parties's brands. I consider him an expert on branding and product positioning. He developed America’s first frequent flyer program (1980) while he was a senior airline executive. He was a founding partner of Medford’s Laurel Communications, a respected Northwest ad agency. Mark’s career also included being an author (Powershift Marketing), an adjunct college instructor at Southern Oregon University, an award-winning broadcast writer/director/producer, blogger, and a successful internet entrepreneur. Today, as a semi-retired marketer, he still conducts a limited number of research projects (www.DCGResearch.com).

Guest Post by Mark Dennett

 

Peter asked me to give my thoughts on the current brand of the two major political parties. I am certainly not a branding guru, but over the years I’ve worked with dozens of firms on branding, and I have been fascinated by why it is so hard for a business to create and maintain a brand.  

 

First, it is pretty easy to create a brand. You just need to understand positioning. This term, invented in the 70s by Al Ries and Jack Trout, is simply a statement of why the public should support you. As they state in their book, it is “a brief written description of the customer benefits offered and the value position to be occupied that makes your brand clear and promotable.” It’s hard for me to discover the positioning of the current Republicans and Democrats. 

 

Some of us are old enough to remember Republicans’ historic brand: small government (stay out of our lives), live within your means (balance the budget), welcome immigrants, and support free trade. Well, that brand is gone. Vanished. In fact, in 2024 the national Republican Party couldn’t even come up with a platform, which is basically a very long-winded positioning statement. They simply stated that whatever Trump wanted was what they wanted. Bye, bye Republicans. 

 

So now the Republican brand is the Trump brand. Of course, if you read Peter’s blog (May 2 post), that shouldn’t surprise anyone. Trump has always been a better marketer than politician. He knows that marketing in its purest form is just finding out what is important to people (their hot buttons), then promising it. In politics the promise is always more important than the delivery.   

 

Trump understands positioning. While he may be tainted, besmirched, and in every other way discredited as a human being, he is very consistent with his positioning: “The world and America are in trouble, and I alone can fix it.” This may reflect more of a cult identity. Many MAGA believers see him as above human, and thus beyond the reach of pesky "facts". That is called charismatic authority. He worships his brand and keeps building monuments to it. (Spoiler alert: The Iran War might become his “Waterloo.”) 

 

Now let’s look at the Democratic brand. Their historic brand focused on protecting the working man, and supporting unions, environmental regulation, green tech developers, and guaranteeing a social safety net. Even the perceived Bernie conflict is overstated, as many of his ideas were in Kamala's platform.  But I do believe that the Democratic brand has been hijacked by infighting, which makes their brand look weak and ineffective. Aging (some would say ancient) leadership is focused on personal power and wealth. They appear in constant conflict with young liberal elitists who are even more out of touch with the mainstream. 

 

A recent NBC Poll shows that Democrats are not happy with their brand. Republicans are not happy either. 

 

·      Only 62% of Democrats questioned viewed their party positively. 

 

·      Only 37% of Republicans questioned view their party positively, with 51% seeing the GOP in a negative light.  

 

·      Overall, 30% of registered voters view the Democratic Party positively, compared to 52% who view it negatively. Hard to win a national election with those numbers. 

 

Peter outlined four ways that Democrats could pivot their brand (May 2 Post) to better match Democratic voters. I agree with Peter. But because of the brand failure of the two established parties, wasn’t he really providing a blueprint for winning the third force in American politics: Independents? 

 

For purposes of this discussion, I am grouping Independent, Green, and Libertarian party members with unaffiliated voters who register to vote without joining any political party. Today this is the largest voting group in America.

 

In 2024 Edison Research did a national survey of 22,900 respondents that is representative of the national electorate in terms of gender, age, race, and geography. It clearly shows that people are turning away from the two party system. Many are just not voting.  

 

·      There were 4.3 million fewer votes cast for president in 2024 than in 2020. 

 

·      Republican voters decreased by 3.5 million.

 

·      Democratic voters dropped by 11.2 million. 

 

·      But 11 million more people who identified themselves as Independents cast ballots in 2024. 

 

Independents are not really a voting bloc. There is a lot of diverse political thought in this group. It goes from green to libertarian, which is left to right in the extreme, and then it includes the center, which is different from either of them. These inconsistent characteristics make it hard to call this a “voting bloc.” Could they be? Well, they do share one belief: They reject the two-party duopoly system. But this does not unify them in any identifiable way. 

 

To explore if they could become a brand, I looked at some research from The Independent Center – THC (https://www.independentcenter.org/insights). While not exactly peer-reviewed research, it does provide some interesting discussion points. 

 

After analyzing Independent voters with their proprietary AI technology and polling techniques, THS believes they have discovered recurring themes and words. THC believes Independent voters are more cohesive in their worldview than either Democrats or Republicans. Meaning, Independents take a holistic approach, connecting issues and thinking deeply about tradeoffs. So, if you are going to build a voting bloc, according to THC research, your brand needs to recognize the following:

 

Independent Voters are Fiscally Focused – Words like competition, equal opportunity, merit, fairness, and choice arise repeatedly. In their own way, Independents seem to navigate between the left and right views of the market economy. 

 

Independents Voted with Affordability and Inflation in 2024 – The candidate most capable of addressing these two key issues got their vote. That turned out to be Trump. They will pull support if affordability and inflation are not prioritized.

 

Independent Voters are Socially Tolerant – Their take on social issues is distinct. They favor gay marriage and LGBTQ+ rights, but they take them as a given. They’re settled. And they don’t think men should compete as women against women. 

 

Independent Voters Believe in Maximizing Choice – Independent voters view choice as an essential part of their belief system. When asked what could make government more effective, the answer is always the same: more choice and competition. THC got the same answer when they asked about choice in politics. People want more choices. 

 

Current Pew Research also supports these THC assumptions. Their research shows that Independents tend to believe in autonomy, fairness, and tolerance. They value the freedom to pursue personal and family goals while respecting others’ choices. 

 

One last thought. Years of doing marketing research has taught me that few people really have brands they love. So they are often forced to choose the “least objectionable” one. It is like watching TV. You looked through all your streaming choices and TV channels (if you still have TV channels) and can’t find anything you really want to watch. Do you turn the TV off? No, you choose the least objectionable program and binge watch. 

 

As long as Democrats and Republicans struggle with their brands, the battle for the “least objectionable” brand will add power to Independents. If they vote. That is the big question. Since neither party has enough base support, Independent voters are in a powerful position. Yes, current gerrymandering battles are certainly hurting our democracy, but Independents if they vote will determine the midterm results. 

[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.]