I posted a video.

 I am trying out an idea: posting a short video from time to time.

Congress is so very unpopular that possibly, maybe, this is one of those windows when great changes happen.  Landslide elections, like the one in 1964, when Barry Goldwater buried the GOP and LBJ got huge Democratic majorities.  Or 1974, when voters rebelled against Nixon's Watergate and Democrats won again. Or in 2008 amid the Great Financial Crisis.

Trump is accident prone.  GOP Members of Congress are giving Trump the rope to hang himself. 

And Congress is even less popular than Trump.

Click:  It is one minute:  https://youtube.com/shorts/Re83rNYiVV4?si=kHpsyGG1EXzscbpi

Win. Win big. Run up the score.

Donald Trump is teaching Americans about how to wield presidential power.

You do everything you can get away with.

I read the news from Virginia with both joy and sadness. Reasonable congressional districts are a good thing for democracy.  Heavily gerrymandered ones are not.

Democrats fought fire with fire. That is how one puts limits on Trump: by being like Trump.

Trump pushes the boundaries of presidential power. He doesn't govern with "reasonableness"; he does what he can get away with, daring people to stop him. He claims obvious pretexts to ignore congressional power and makes pretextual arguments to the courts. The engines of constitutional opposition are slow. Laws don't stop a president. He is immune. Presidential power is political, the Supreme Court says. Presidents are stopped when they face impeachment and conviction, the countervailing political power. Raw power is stopped by raw power. Congress has power when two-thirds of the Senate says so.

Trump invaded and installed a new government in Venezuela because he could. He bombed Iran because he could, but is currently stopped because Iran turns out to have a formidable countervailing power, the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz. 

Trump enforces party discipline. Republicans say yes, or he will destroy them. Liz Cheney stood on principle. So, too, at the very the end, did Mike Pence. Trump calls them traitors. I watched Pence's attempted comeback campaign in 2024 in New Hampshire. He was a pariah. Republican voters are OK with Trump. He wins dirty, but he wins.

Democrats in my congressional district are disgusted with U.S. Rep. Cliff Bentz, a Republican. He consents to Trump hiding the Epstein files; he voted for the Big Beautiful Bill that removes insurance subsidies that makes it possible for Bentz's constituents to get affordable health insurance; and Bentz fails to defend the vote-by-mail system in Oregon that elected Bentz himself. Bentz is a toady; he must be one to survive. If Trump were to give his "complete and total endorsement" to a primary opponent, Bentz would lose. Bentz does as instructed.

The vote on Tuesday to change the Virginia Constitution to allow mid-cycle redistricting is an artifact of the Trump use of power. He demanded that Texas do mid-cycle redistricting to game the system and draw congressional districts to maximize partisan advantage. It isn't about good government. It is about power. He could and Texas could. So they did.  

Gresham's Law is in effect. Bad districting drives out good districting. Blue states that had nonpartisan commissions to draw maps are responding like-for-like. Our country is better off if there are a large number of highly-competitive districts. That maximizes good government, not partisan power. Good government is a mindset for "losers." Trump plays to win big and if there is no impeachment and conviction then America plays by Trump's rules. 

It may be that the oscillations of public disgust with politicians will mean that Trump will be replaced by a candidate who represents a different vibe. Nixon's 1972-74 Watergate crimes set the stage for ultra-clean Jimmy Carter. Republicans may not be ready for that. I saw little appetite among Republican voters for Mike Pence or even Nikki Haley in 2024.

Democrats face a fork in the road. They may demand a leader who will counter Trumpism blow-for-blow in a campaign, and then by governing Trump-style, with an expanded Supreme Court, Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico as states, and the IRS and Justice Department suing and regulating Fox News out of business. The public has seen presidential power exercised at the boundaries of what is possible, and the public tolerates it. Democratic primary voters may demand it.

My own view is that a better outcome would be a period of national remorse. Perhaps GOP lawmakers will start saying that they never supported Trump, not really, and they always knew Trump was dangerous. Democrats, too, may want a change of tone, not a reversal of polarity. A Josh Shapiro or Pete Buttigieg may want to take the good-government Boy-Scout lane in a Democratic primary. There may be room for a reform movement founded on disgust with Trump's open grift, his crypto deals, his children's businesses selling drones to government contractors, the gifts, the pardons for pals, the Trump name on buildings, coins, currency, and arches.  A reform candidate would need to exemplify restraint and public virtue. The worse Trump is, the more likely that outcome.

Trump has no instinct for self-restraint. He says he will win and win and win and win until Americans are tired of so much "winning." He may be right, and that at some point we tire of his version of winning and of him.

[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.] 

If only "The West Wing" were back on the air.

I would have been very open to voting for Martin Sheen for president, had he been running in 2016.

Or Allison Janney.

Martin Sheen as Jed Bartlet

Allison Janney as CJ Craig

Martin Sheen played President Jeb Bartlett in the TV show The West Wing.  Allison Janney played the fast talking, whip-smart press secretary and then chief of staff. I would not have to imagine that they could be a wise and effective Oval Office team. I had seen them in action. 

Guest Post authors Sandford Borins and wife Beth Herst wrote Public Representations: Screen Stories, Narrative, and the Public Sphere, which examines how narratives shape our understanding of current politics and government. It is timely. Volodymyr Zelenskyy played an accidental good-guy uncorrupted Ukrainian president in a popular Ukrainian TV show. 

"Servant of the People"

He got elected to that job in real life. 

Donald Trump played a decisive, confident, competent real estate tycoon in the TV show The Apprentice. Americans could visualize the real Donald Trump making decisive, confident, competent decisions. He saw he could fire people who didn't measure up in some way. It was plausible that he could drain the swamp of cronies and lobbyists.

How might history have been different had the Netflix show The Diplomat, staring Keri Russell as a very competent diplomat in a troubled marriage with a high-powered husband been available and popular in the years prior to the 2016 presidential election?

The Borins-Herst book is for sale. It is also offered "open source." It is free to download, either as a book or chapter-by-chapter. Borins explains that this is the fair way to price the book. The research and analysis that made the book possible took place while he was a professor and professor emeritus at Canada's top public university. The public therefore underwrote the book and invested in its authors. In return, the authors work is available free to the public.  They consider their work to be a public good, like clean air, safe streets, or an insight that people are free to use or not use.

Borins is Professor of Public Management Emeritus at the University of Toronto. Originally an economist, he began to study and teach political narrative. Herst has a doctorate in English literature from the University of London, and a published thesis about Charles Dickens. Public Representations is the ultimate product of two decades of their intellectual collaboration.

Here is a link to the publication:  https://utppublishing.com/doi/book/10.3138/9781487503871

Guest Post by Beth Herst and Sandford Borins

It's not "Just a Movie"

When young children are frightened by a story they’re watching on screen, we comfort them by reminding “It’s just a movie.” An expanding body of research is telling us that’s not actually true.

Like our kids, we know that screen stories affect our emotions. Scholars are demonstrating that they work powerfully on our public memories and private belief systems too. Laboratory studies show that viewing a screen story produces physiological changes that cue our emotional reactions. It also triggers forms of cognition. The narrative “facts” we unconsciously absorb as we watch take up residence in our minds as information, particularly vivid and therefore easily recalled. And the more distant we are from the viewing experience, the more likely we are to forget the source of that knowledge. It isn’t a question of temporarily suspending disbelief to enjoy the on-screen story. The challenge is to resist the belief that the story embeds.

The past two decades have seen a boom in large and small screen productions exploring political leadership, electoral politics, and government past and present. Many of them have drawn wide viewership and generated significant cultural conversation. As shared knowledge of civics and history declines, and skepticism regarding accredited sources grows, more of us appear to be defining who we were and who we are as citizens and as nations through screen media depictions. And that means we need to look carefully at what these screen stories are telling us.

Our new book Public Representations: Screen Stories, Narrative, and the Public Sphere, set out to do just that for a selection of recent American, British, and Canadian cinematic, broadcast, cable, and streaming productions. It is now available by open access on the website of University of Toronto Press, the publisher. You can download the book in its entirety as a pdf or ePub, or chapter by chapter.

We discovered that many of these productions quickly crossed over from the domain of entertainment to that of politics. In some cases, politicians co-opted them for talking points, for cultural credibility, and/or for political branding. In others, they served as substitutes for, or direct occasions of, cultural conversations around urgent current issues, regardless of their period or setting.

Three examples from many we analyze: In 2002, during an expensive promotional campaign for the CBC’s docudrama miniseries Trudeau, members of the cast and creative team were introduced in the House of Commons after Question Period. They were loudly booed and heckled by Bloc Québecois MPs. The action, likely concerted, operated as an expression of their political brand. Québecois actor Raymond Cloutier, who played Gérard Pelletier in the series, took it as such. He was quoted in an interview furiously demanding “This is what the sovereigntist movement is about now?” Trudeau attracted one of the largest audiences ever for a CBC drama production. It also reopened debate regarding Pierre Trudeau’s legend and legacy and his relation to Québec’s past and present political culture and aspirations. It was a debate which lasted well beyond the two-part series’ airing.

Hillary Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, her tenure as Secretary of State (2009-2013), and her failed 2016 presidential campaign coincided with a suite of long-running and very popular American broadcast and premium cable productions featuring female presidents or presidential aspirants. These included Fox’s 24 Hours, CBS’s Madam Secretary/President, NBC’s Scandal and Parks and Recreation, HBO’s Veep, and Netflix’s House of Cards. On the eve of Clinton’s 2016 presidential announcement, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, the star of Veep, commented to a reporter that should Hillary choose to run, it would be good for the show. But, she added, “I’m not sure we’re good for her.” Louis-Dreyfus wasn’t alone. Professional critics, political columnists, bloggers, and online communities all debated how this sorority of “alt-Hillaries” and “Hillary avatars” would affect public perceptions of Clinton. All were convinced they would influence her electoral fortunes. These fictional female presidents also became a feature of the larger cultural conversation regarding women, political leadership, and political ambition that Clinton galvanized.

Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster IMAX epic Dunkirk was released in Britain during the protracted domestic political stalemate over the terms of Britain’s exit from the EU (“Brexit”). The leading anti-EU politician Nigel Farage, a vocal advocate of a “hard Brexit,” posed beside a poster for the film and tweeted his encouragement for all “Leave” supporters to see it and take its message of British exceptionalism to heart. The film’s usefulness for Farage’s brand of nostalgia politics was clear. But, as numerous critics noted, Dunkirk erased the presence of the non-White colonial soldiers, who were central to the story, providing essential support for the British on the beaches of Occupied France. More than one commentator analyzed the film as “superb Brexit propaganda” and used its reception, including by Farage and other public figures, as a lens to examine the differing visions of England and Englishness informing both sides of the bitter Brexit divide.

As these examples indicate, the lines between popular culture, screen entertainment, and politics are becoming increasingly blurred. Screen stories have long influenced our collective, public memory. They increasingly appear to be filling a void in our civic education too. They even seem to be shaping the way political figures understand, and play, their public roles. For all these reasons, it’s more important than ever to realize that the screen entertainment we’re consuming is never “just a movie” and to look more closely at what our movies are telling us about ourselves.

[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.] 

What's a California Democat to do?

Eric Swalwell is out.

In Swalwell's absence, the California gubernatorial contest has no clear Democratic frontrunner.  

California has a "jungle" primary, not partisan primaries.  Everyone from any party enters the race. The top two finishers face off in a general election. Two Republicans and seven Democrats are in the race. This sets the stage for a vote split so evenly among Democrats that the two Republicans win the California primary election. The clock is ticking. Some Democrats need to drop out. Somebody needs to push ahead. 

Tony Farrell was a classmate at college, then spent four years in the Navy before getting an MBA at the Harvard Business School. He had a successful career as a brand strategist at The Gap, The Nature Company, and The Sharper Image. Tony lives among the comfortable people in the San Francisco Bay Area who play an outsize role in funding the campaigns of candidates. The future of California depends on Tony and people like him. But which candidate?

Tony is photographed with his wife Kathy in San Francisco's Chinatown. He asked that we notice the clean streets.

Guest Post by Tony Farrell

Letter from a Californian

Good grief. The fall of East Bay Congressman Eric Swalwell has awakened interest in a boring, chaotic and confusing contest among virtual unknowns, each wanting to be the governor who replaces Gavin Newsom.

Until this scandal, it was hard to follow this race, or care. People favored Swalwell from afar, especially as foil to Trump. He did a good job for Pelosi on the January 6th committee; performed well for her in both of Trump’s impeachments. Swalwell once served in the Alameda County DA’s office, cradle of stars like Earl Warren and Ed Meese (covering all bases). Leading significantly, this was Eric’s race to lose. Then, for shameful behavior that would barely nick Trump’s ear (so to speak), Swalwell takes a headshot. 

Notably, California’s savviest politico (Pelosi) did not endorse Swalwell (nor anyone else). Kamala passed on a winning opportunity, saving herself for a losing chance at the White House, again. California voters are left with Democrats Katie Porter, Tom Steyer, Matt Mahan, Betty Yee, Xavier Becerra, Antonio Villaraigosa and Tony Thurmond. (Yeah, exactly. Who?) Only nerds can keep up with California politics; I’m nerdy but typically bail out of endless voter surveys that relentlessly probe for my thoughts on people I know nothing about, on issues I’m ignorant of. To an embarrassing extent, I rely on endorsements. A local politician-friend recommends the moderate San Jose mayor Matt Mahan, so I’ll go with him.

The race is now so scrambled there’s concern among pundits that the two Republicans running could emerge from the nonpartisan top-two June primary to run against each other in November. One is Chad Bianco, the sheriff who seized, as fraudulent, 650,000 Riverside County ballots from last year’s Prop 50 vote on redistricting; and Steve Hilton of Fox News, endorsed by Trump. That is bad.

I still believe everything I wrote here (March 23, 2023) in support of Newsom for president. Widely mocked as “a guy you’d like to have a glass of Chardonnay with,” some opine Gavin is unelectable. But if both Obama and Trump can get elected twice, everyone should exit the prediction game. 

Seen as a centrist in California, Newsom projects leadership as a world statesman, in effect representing the U.S. at climate conferences in Brazil and economic gatherings in Europe. In just four months from start to an astounding 60-percent victory, he was masterful at initiating and funding Prop 50 last year, permitting California to redistrict if Texas does. He drove the 2025 laws that override local zoning and environmental hurdles, forcing every community to build housing to help make living more affordable. He strongly opposes the so-called billionaire “wealth tax” initiated by a service-workers’ union (and endorsed by Bernie Sanders).

 

$6.69 gas in a station near Tony's home

California is easy to bash. The Republican presidential campaign message against Newsom would write itself: Do you want to live in a West Coast hellhole? If Newsom’s so great, how come his cities are dirty and crime-ridden? Housing unaffordable? Population shrinking? Corporations leaving? Taxes too high? Gas over $7 a gallon?

I drive my late mother-in-law’s 2004 Acura, which requires hi-test gas, now costing $6.99 and 9/10ths cents (not quite $7.00, but close). Our gas is costly for many reasons, including a formulation that reduces the smog that once choked Los Angeles.

California is not perfect, but it has so many singular achievements: a spectacular thousand-mile coastline, open to the public and protected from development by the powerful Coastal Commission (1972) after the Santa Barbara oil spill (1969); the world’s greatest public university system (1882); practically inventing community colleges (1907); leading the way for democratic citizen initiatives (1911); pioneering environmental protections and the first national park. (The state boasts, separately, the tallest trees and the biggest trees and the oldest trees in the world.) California is the world’s fourth-largest economy (after the U.S., China, and Germany), leading with Silicon Valley technology; Central Valley agriculture; aerospace; entertainment. Food is great; weather’s great. It’s unbelievably beautiful; and the streets are clean enough.

Arguably, California takes bold, thoughtful action to address major concerns, and to seize big opportunities (e.g., electric vehicles), earlier and with greater positive impact any other state. In many ways, the U.S. is already led by California.

Biggest questions now are, who fills Newsom’s shoes? And who fills Trump’s? Might be related.

[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.] 

Europeans agree with Trump: Their governments are losers

Field Report from Europe: Europeans know they have a problem. 

Donald Trump is a bully, sure, but he's not all bad. 

Guest Post author Thad Guyer offers a report that may surprise consumers of America's mainstream media. Europeans understand their governments have been incompetent. Trump isn't wrong when he insults them, and they don't hate him for it. 

Guyer was a legal services attorney for 30 years before transitioning into doing complex litigation defense of employee whistleblowers. That work took him to Europe, where he talks with politically engaged citizens. Immediately after Trump was first elected in 2016, Guyer was surprised to learn that people he spoke with were not as appalled by Trump as were American liberals. In a guest post dated November 15, 2016 he wrote:

I am lawyering in Geneva, Switzerland now, and was in Paris last week. I was ready for it again, the “what’s wrong with America” questions, this time about Trump rather than Bush. But I’m not getting it not now. 

Since 9/11, Europe has been repeatedly traumatized by radical Islamic terror, its borders overrun by millions of “irregular immigrants”, the loss of national identities and currencies as the EU and euro dissolved borders and sovereignty.

Donald Trump himself is not popular here, but “Trumpism” is. It inspires considerable awe and the spirit of self-determination. Trumpism is the story of American democratic grit, American power, the proof that Americans can innovate from moon shots to the internet to populist revolution. Europe remains steeped, and some here say trapped, in cultural and political tradition, but “those Americans” can just rise up one fine morning, say enough is enough, and cast off the political malaise and established political order.

Europeans have watched Trump for a decade. They have had lots of opportunities to be appalled, disgusted, and angry at Trump. He has been a bull in a European china shop. Guyer says that Europeans aren't as unhappy about Trump as Democrats in America may expect them to be.

Guyer

Guest Post by Thad Guyer 

A Report from Europe: What My Conversations Reveal About Trump, the U.S., and European Self-Loathing

I recently concluded a one-week trip through Europe, stopping in Belgrade, Paris, Marseille, Vienna, and Italy. I made a point of asking people I met—both friends and new acquaintances—simple questions about how they and their countrymen truly perceive Donald Trump and the United States.

What I heard was a fascinating mix of resentment, practical calculation, and a deep-seated sense of continental inadequacy.

Here are the key takeaways from those conversations: 

1. The U.S./Europe Friendship Will Survive

While many agree that Trump is a bully and is currently abusing an important friendship forged since the First World War, no one I spoke with is worried about the friendship actually ending. They view Trump as simply a politician who does not have the power to destroy the deep connection between the cultures and economies. This core relationship, they believe, will survive any political leader. 

2. Contempt for Their Own Leaders Runs Deep

There is an almost universal disdain for their own leaders, held in equal measure to their dislike of Trump. In fact, many agreed with Trump’s criticisms and verbal attacks on European politicians.

• French President Macron is viewed as weak and feckless.
• The leaders of Austria and Italy, in contrast, are seen as having learned to keep their mouths shut and avoid fighting Trump.
• The common view is that the European Union is always in disarray and will always be pushed around by the USA. Fighting Trump on tariffs is necessary, but fighting him on anything else is seen as stupid, given that he has all the power. The EU has no military, and Trump controls NATO.

3. The Iranian Conflict is the U.S.’s Problem

Europeans have nothing to say about the ongoing Iranian war. They hope the U.S. wins because Iran is viewed as sponsoring vicious and brutal attacks on European populations. The sentiment is that radical Islam is murderous and they would feel much safer if it could be wiped out. 

4. Oil Prices Are a Non-Issue 

Nobody in Europe gives a care about oil prices. If gas gets too high, they simply leave the car at home, thanks to incredible public transport infrastructure. European gas prices are always high, and they never expect the ridiculous $3 a gallon seen in the U.S. Americans, with their "big cars and trucks," are viewed as getting what they deserve for owning such gas guzzlers. 

5. Immigration Policy: The German Lesson and the Future

U.S. attempts to interfere with European immigration politics are seen as irritating, destructive, and destabilizing. While French and Austrian cities are filled with Muslim immigrants, the preference is to avoid upsetting these situations (the original email described these as "wasp nests").

There is a strong favor for strategies like quiet deportation, quiet arrest, weeding out the bad apples, and deterring illegal entry. The former German chancellor, Angela Merkel, is held in strong negative regard for "welcoming" a bunch of enclave immigrants who, it is believed, have zero interest in assimilating and only want to re-create their own countries within European borders. Enforcing rules against religious garb in schools and public places is considered crucially important. The long-term hope is that a couple of generations from now, everything will be okay — if they just keep the new ones out. 

The End Result: Collective Shame and Self-Loathing

My overall impression is that Trump and the U.S. political/economic dominance have fostered a kind of self-loathing in Europe.

The U.S. is seen as racing ahead in everything from military domination, unrestricted AI empowerment, and SpaceX, to moon missions, unrestrained oligarchy, and blessedly low taxes. They see America's leader, even if viewed as an "asshole," as powerful and selfishly caring only about his own people.

Meanwhile, Europe remains "old Europe" — a balkanized world where one can be arrested for a Facebook post labeled as hate speech, and with no strong leaders. The overwhelming sense is one of collective shame in being so weak and having so little to say about anything on the global stage.

 [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: Gasoline prices in a world of hurt

Think it would be great to get away from it all?

Do you think a cruise vacation to South America would take you far enough away to avoid hearing complaints about Donald Trump?

Nope.

Jennifer Angelo and husband Jack Mullen got an earful about gasoline prices when they were in Chile earlier this month. Their guide said Trump threatens his livelihood. The guide considers Trump "crazy."

Angelo is a retired federal attorney. She and Jack live in Washington, D.C.

Jennifer Angelo with Chilean guide

Guest Post by Jennifer Angelo

Peter titled a recent blog "Americans Don't Want $5 gasoline." On our recent trip to South America, we got a first-hand account of how much Chileans don't want $6.50 gasoline, but that's what they're paying, thanks to Donald Trump's Iranian adventure.

In late March, we hired a guide, Chris, to take us the 75 miles from Santiago to Valparaiso, where we embarked on an expedition cruise. Along the way, Chris told us about Chile's fruit, vegetables, wine and copper exports, along with the sights of Santiago and Valparaiso (including a tour of poet Pablo Neruda's hillside home). But what has stuck with me is his eye-opening perspective on the economic upheaval United States policy is having in his country. As an independent contractor who drives tourists for a living, his income depends on how many tourists need his services and how much it costs to provide them. I can best describe him as distraught as he talked about how Trump's war was upending the lives of ordinary Chileans. Chile imports almost all its oil and the price spikes from the Iran conflict were immediate and steep. While most Americans are paying between $4 and $5 per gallon, the price in Chile is about $6.50, a more than 30% increase, and diesel prices are up 60%.

Chilean TV; Prices in liters.

 

The effects of these increases were already apparent in food costs because the cost to transport it has spiked. Costs of mining and exporting copper, Chile's major export, are up. Taxi drivers, commuters and people like Chris, who already had little to fall back on, are feeling the pain. We were with Chris on March 28, and he told us in a panicked voice that if the war wasn't over within a week, it was going to be disastrous for him.

Chris was no lefty. He leans right politically, and he called Gabriel Boric, the last president of Chile, "the little boy" (Boric was 35 at the start of his term in 2022). Boric rose to prominence as a student government leader, joined forces with other left-wing organizations, and was described as "woke." He had a majority-female cabinet, hiked the minimum wage and imposed a 40 hour work week. Nevertheless, his popularity plummeted because of rising crime and a stagnant economy. Chilean voters replaced Boric last fall with Jose Antonio Kast, who has been described as the most far-right Chilean president since Pinochet. His platform was Trumpian: Deport illegal immigrants, mostly Venezuelan, tackle crime and lower taxes. His inability to deal with the economic shocks caused by Trump has already shown up in plummeting approval ratings. Rather than electing a more moderate government, Chileans seem to punish the party in power by swinging from left to right. Sounds familiar.

Chris wasn't only upset that Trump had threatened his livelihood. He despises him. He considers him "crazy," and wonders how we can rein him in. I couldn't give him much encouragement and, not for the first time, wished we had the parliamentary option of a "no confidence" vote. I told him we would have elections in the fall. That's a long way off and who knows how much a Democratic Congress can stop the Trump train when there are no guardrails left and Trump appears erratic and demented. I can only imagine how the majority-Catholic countries of South America feel about Trump's feud with the Pope.

All of this got me thinking about our USA-centric view of Trump's policies. Until I hopped into Chris's van, I hadn't given much thought to how Trump was upending the lives of Chileans. I searched for articles on Chile in The New York Times, and there were a few about the right- wing political shift there and elsewhere in South America. On Apple News, Bloomberg and Reuters mostly covered President Kast's tax cut plan. Only the French newspaper Le Monde had any in-depth coverage on Chile, and even that was mostly political.

In my mind I multiplied Chile's economic pain by the number of countries that are watching helplessly as Trump - the man with no clear plan, no empathy, little knowledge of history and an impulsive and narcissistic personality - wreaks havoc on the planet. When Trump says America First, he means America only. If he's willing to bust Americans' budgets with his reckless policies, he cares even less about the people of Chile. Not his problem.

 

Note: Coming up, a different perspective. Another friend, this one travelling in Western Europe, says that Europeans are accustomed to the occasional bad leader.  Be patient, not surprised. This too will pass.

[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.]

Oregon Senate District 3: Candidate Jim Crary responds

Jim Crary says he's trying to win.

Crary is a candidate for senate in Oregon's Senate District 3. He is one of five Democrats in the race.

He says I got it wrong.

Crary, on his forest property on Highway 66

A Democrat has an excellent chance of winning in this district. The party has a registration edge: Democrats: 31,748. Republicans 25,188. Non-affiliated: 36,708. And this should be a good year for Democrats nationwide. Trump is a drag on Republicans and a turnout-motivator for Democrats. 

I wrote on Thursday that Jim Crary's campaign listed only two contributors after a month of active campaigning. I thought I was being generous to Crary by not presuming his campaign was floundering. I wrote that his campaign probably had another purpose: It is a platform to pitch his idea of higher alcohol taxes. I watched Andrew Yang in 2020 use the platform of running for president to introduce the idea of a universal basic income. The third-party candidacy of Robert Kennedy, Jr. gave him attention that led to his being put in Trump's Cabinet. A candidacy is a proven device for getting attention.

Crary's campaign introduced the alcohol tax idea to me, and having heard him make his case, I decided it makes sense.  Alcohol causes social problems that cost taxpayers. Alcohol should pay its own way. As I saw it, Crary's plan worked.

Crary wrote me to say I misunderstand him. He said his campaign is for real and his lack of contributors is a feature, not a bug. His campaign website is: https://www.craryfororegonsenate.org

Comment from Jim Crary

Your statement about my campaign contains several inaccuracies that I’d like to correct.

First, my campaign is not narrowly focused; rather, it is focused on solving two of the biggest challenges facing Oregonians: affordability and infrastructure. My proposal for funding my solutions to those challenges is straightforward: update Oregon’s beer and wine taxes (currently the lowest in the nation and unchanged for over 40 years) and use the resulting new revenue to fund $125 million in income tax relief for lower-income, working Oregonians and $100 million dedicated solely to repairing and maintaining our roads and bridges. Today, Oregon’s tax on a 12-oz beer is less than a cent (.79¢), and on a 5-oz glass of wine just 2.6¢. Updating those rates to 25¢ per drink would generate $306 million annually, in new revenue. So, the affordability and infrastructure funding would not require cutting any existing services or programs. It would also only move Oregon to the middle of the pack nationally on beer and wine tax rates.

Second, your inference that I am not making a serious effort to win is simply not correct. Offering specific, fully funded solutions rather than broad platitudes and slogans is definitely not the norm but I am doing that because I respect voters enough to be clear about what I will do and how I will pay for it.

Third, my campaign is intentionally built around direct voter engagement. Unlike most candidates who ask only for votes and donations, on my website, as you well know, I actively invite and answer voter questions publicly. That approach carries political risk as clear, direct answers won’t please everyone, but I believe voters deserve transparency and the opportunity to compare candidates based on substance.

As for campaign contributions, I have been very fortunate to have friends who agree with my positions and are willing to support me. They are not special interests seeking favors but truly altruistic friends.

I am running for State Senate for the same reason I’ve stepped forward before, because I believe public service is about solving problems, not building a career. Like Cincinnatus, I believe in doing the job and then returning to private life.

If you (or others) have questions, please call/text me at 541-531-2912; I would welcome the conversation.

Best regards,
Jim Crary

He later specifically addressed my question of why there wasn't evidence of typical campaign fundraising. He wrote:

Answer: That’s a fair question, but it reflects a difference in strategy—not a lack of seriousness. In addition to my own contributions, I’ve received support from five donors, which has allowed me to spend less time dialing for dollars and more time earning voter trust. 

 

[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.]