Mike Pence doesn't get it

"But what a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away
What seems to be
Is always better than nothing
And nothing at all keeps sending him...

Somewhere back in her long ago
Where he can still believe there's a place in her life
Someday, somewhere, she will return"

Michael McDonald and Kenny Loggins, "What a Fool Believes," 1978

The GOP doesn't want Pence. It wants Trump.

Pence is a straight-arrow conservative.  He hasn't figured out yet that the GOP has changed. 

I spoke words of consolation to Mike Pence last October in New Hampshire, when he was one of many Republican candidates challenging Trump. I congratulated him for rejecting Trump's demand that he discard Democratic votes under the pretense that fake electors were equally valid. It wasn't difficult to get up close to talk with him. Republican voters at the convention kept their distance from him.

Theoretically, Pence should have been the perfect post-Trump president. He did every single thing except openly, publicly, and defiantly commit an illegal, unconstitutional act to overthrow an election. 

So, wasn't Pence a cleaned-up version of Trump? Trump without the tweets? Trump without Stormy Daniels, E. Jean Carroll, the Epstein vacations, and the "Access Hollywood" video?  Trump without the former cabinet officials and White House aides who say Trump is dangerously unfit?

No. Pence thinks the GOP is a conservative party, a pro-immigration party, a party of international engagement, a party of fiscal responsibility, a party that is the heir to Reagan and the Bush presidents. It is not. Trump changed the GOP. Republicans who liked Reagan, Dole, the two Bush presidents, McCain, and Romney are without a party.

Pence published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal describing the potential future for the GOP.  Unlocked article.  He describes a GOP that doesn't exist. 

He wrote, "We embraced America’s role as the leader of the free world, and avoid "isolationism and the abandonment of American leadership."  No. Trump says that alliances are unnecessary, unnatural, unappreciated, and expensive.

Pence wrote, "Republicans should pledge to deliver better trade deals that increase prosperity, not protectionist tariffs that make products more expensive." No. Trump says we need more and higher tariffs, which will mean that foreign manufacturers will pay our taxes.

Pence wrote, "Republicans should unashamedly recommit to the pro-life cause, which remains the great moral calling of our era." No.Republicans, led by Trump, are retreating from that long tradition. The position is political suicide. 

Pence concludes with, "Republicans will win by embracing traditional conservative priorities."

No. The strategy that may well bring Trump to a general election victory is the one that has been overwhelmingly adopted by Republican voters. It is nativist, isolationist populism. Trump began with Obama birtherism, kicked off his campaign saying Mexican immigrants are criminals, added Muslims, added Chinese, added Central Americans, and now in the final weeks of this campaign is vilifying Haitians who are here legally. He has "otherized" non-White Americans and linked their presence to inflation, high housing costs, crime, and job loss. Trump has a consistent, coherent, story about what is wrong with America and how to fix it. Get rid of that criminal vermin and everything will be better. It may well be a winning story.

Pence imagines a Republican party as a party of principle and policy. That is gone. The party is a tribe. It is a mix of ethnicity, religion, tradition, manliness, and patriotism. We -- we normal good Americans -- are under siege, he says. Trump creates liberal tears because he fights Democrats who would poison our tribe with outsiders. Trump's crimes are irrelevant. What matters is that he leads the tribe.

Pence defended the Constitution. He was defending a law. He wasn't defending the important thing, the tribe. That makes him a traitor.

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

Political home party events 101

The Tobias Read event went well.

The purpose of a political event is to widen the network of support for a candidate. 

The event demonstrates a positive connection with a community of interest. The event demonstrates to attendees that the candidate is well liked. The event is a catalyst for raising money. Events give attendees a chance to have casual conversation with the candidate. A news organization can turn it into a story. (In this case, KOBI, an NBC affiliate with a substantial local news operation, sent a reporter who taped a few minutes of Tobias Read's comments. The reporter is in the background, to the left of the photo.)

Political events are sometimes primarily "meet-and-greets" and sometimes are primarily fundraisers, in which the attendees are fully told that they are expected to donate money. The Read event was a meet-and-greet. The goal was to get people to the event. In my experience high-dollar fundraisers work only for top offices, i.e. incumbent U.S. representatives and senators and the state governor.

The candidate's campaign authorizes and schedules the event. Typically, they prepare the invitation. They decide whether this is a meet-and-greet or a fundraiser. But most of the details of the event are handled by the host, not the campaign.

The primary benefit of the event is the invitation to the event, not the event itself. There is no such thing as too many people at an event. "Too big" or "too crowded" is the goal.

Here again is the Read invitation.

Notice it says right up front that the event is at my home. In the last five years or so, a pernicious and self-destructive element has become standard practice in political invitations. The invitations often say something like: "RSVP here. Location address will be sent within three days."  I consider this insulting and counter-productive. The invitation reaches out to a wider community but simultaneously telling recipients that they cannot be trusted to know where the event is. That is the opposite of open hospitality and mutual trust and respect. I told the campaign to include our names and address.

If I were doing the invitation myself, for purposes of legibility, I would drop the photo image of the lake and mountain, but keep the smiling image of Tobias Read. But the Read campaign uses this format and it isn't important enough to fuss over. Note that the RSVP phone or email goes to the campaign, not the host. It would be a nuisance to get scores of phone calls, texts, and emails a day. However, the campaign and host stay in touch about headcount.

Campaigns should pick their hosts and the event site with care. The web of associations is the message. Candidate, hosts, and hospitality all combine in a genial outreach. The Read campaign was apparently OK with having our names associated with his. 

What about security? Was I afraid to have my address listed? No. My name, address, and phone number are published in whatever phone books still exist, and they are available on line for a click. My home is visible on Google maps, Zillow has its supposed value, and county records with its supposed quality are public and available. I have had demonstrators picket an event. They were young climate activists with banners saying that Senator Jeff Merkley should be even stronger in support of climate action than he is. He is probably already one of the most committed environmentalists in the U.S. Senate, but they wanted more. The demonstrators were on the street, and they improved the event up at the house by highlighting the issues and stakes involved in his election.

What about food and drink?  Answer: It doesn't really matter. The host should provide something, but people aren't there for the food and drink. Wine and water are traditional. There is typically food placed out for people to sample. Hosts can spend money on a caterer -- we tend to do so -- but it doesn't really matter.

What about music or other background entertainment? It is totally unnecessary, but if the host has a friend who will play a little music during the meet-and-greet chit-chat portion of the event, that is a nice touch.

More important is the space. The host must be psychologically and practically ready to have a great many people be invited, most of whom will not come. Campaigns typically act with diffidence about the invitation list. They want to be cautious and don't want to overwhelm a host. Can we invite previous donors? Yes. Can we invite donors to other campaigns? Yes. What about precinct committee people? Yes. Yes. Yes. Since the invitation is the most important thing, I urge campaigns to invite as many people as possible. The invitation is the place to spend energy and money, not on food and flowers for the event. Most people who get the invitation will be interested enough to read it, but not interested enough to attend. But what if too many people attend? I say great. People will see that a great many people are interested in the candidate.

Wineries are now event spaces. If a campaign cannot find a host willing to have a thousand or more invitations sent, then do the event at a winery or some other event space. They have the essential elements: physical space, bathrooms, parking, a microphone and sound amplification. The invitation can and should list the names of "hosts," i.e. people who underwrite the cost of the venue. The host are part of the message.

What about "the ask." Every event I have ever hosted or attended has a two or three minute "ask" when someone other than the candidate urges people to donate. People will donate according to their interest and capacity. The "ask" simply reminds attendees of the stakes of the election and that their donation is part of a good cause. There is one piece of magic in the "ask." It need not be heavy-handed, and indeed must not be. But the "ask" must ask for the order. It is not sufficient to say, "I hope you will consider donating." That is asking people to consider something and considering isn't giving. A proper "ask" requests people give a donation today, and indeed now. "Please write a check and put it in the envelope at your table."

I like holding events because I consider them the cleanest, best example of democracy in action. Amid all the transactional donations by special interests, and amid all the second-hand methods of influencing government in advertising and social media, there is nothing more wholesome than a candidate meeting and greeting voters and getting voluntary campaign help from people.

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

 

A bomb in your pocket.

     "On 17 and 18 September 2024, thousands of handheld pagers and hundreds of walkie-talkies intended for use by Hezbollah exploded simultaneously across Lebanon and Syria in an Israeli attack."

        Wikipedia's summary of the event

We just learned a whole new way to kill people.

This isn't over.

The Economist

I hadn't thought to be afraid that some object I or fellow Americans carry could be sabotaged and made to explode. Now I do.

Israel did more than fire a weapon to injure and kill people, although it did that. It also sent a powerful message: "You thought you were safe, but you weren't. We can get you in this extraordinarily clever way." 

The attack on September 11, 2001 was not an attempt to kill a few thousand people, although it did that. It was primarily a message to tell the U.S. to get out of Saudi Arabia or pay a price at home. The message was a complaint that U.S. businesses and troops were unwelcome in and around Saudi people and holy places. You don't belong. Your culture and behavior disgust us. The message may have a hint of familiarity, especially this week. Americans don't eat cats and dogs but we eat pork, which is unclean and disgusting to traditional values in much of the Middle East. Americans drink alcohol, which God forbids. American women are grossly immodest by Saudi standards. Americans disrupt Saudi traditions and way of life. It is a message political and spiritual leaders employ to rally support: defend "our kind" against an invasion of the "other." If some people are hurt, it is okay. Sudden death sends a message. 

The Israeli attack was so successful and shocking that I expect it to inspire copycats. Israel disrupted future attacks by eliminating Hezbollah leadership and destroying their communications network. But most important is the psychological effect on Hezbollah through the powerful message of "you are not safe." The explosions will sow suspicion and division. They will increase cost and friction of their operations. They will need to expend resources defending against an attack that could come from anywhere.

The pager explosions cause me to rethink the risks Americans face. Consumer products can be sabotaged and set off with a signal, i.e. a phone call. Bombs can be placed inconspicuously nearly anywhere, either inside a connected device or connected to one via Bluetooth. Nearly every adult American carries a phone. They are part of our lives. Our cars are tracking devices. So are "smart" appliances in our homes. So are doorbells and alarm systems. So are our electric meters. Alexa is listening and she knows where we are and where we plan to go. So does Siri. 

We need to rethink the vulnerabilities in modern American life. Targeted explosions on high-profile people -- people who represent a cause or institution -- send a message. Regular Americans, living with no thought whatever that they might be a target, will get on airplanes or attend crowded public events where an explosion sends a message. 

 

The 9/11 attack sent a wave of changes in American laws and behavior. Flying became more complicated and expensive. Mail slowed, as it got inspected for anthrax. The Patriot Act made financial transactions slower and less private. I expect TSA screening to adjust to a higher, more cumbersome, more expensive level of security. Supply chains of hundreds of connected devices will need to be hardened. That will be expensive and it will be incomplete. These will be factories making toasters or suitcases, not nuclear weapons. Bombs need not be inside the connected device. Devices connect. A bomb can be secreted inside something larger and presumably innocuous, set off by a signal. One does not need thousands of targets to send a message. Five executives at JPMorgan being killed on an otherwise-quiet workday would send shockwaves. Was it the loan they announced to an Israeli tech firm? A new round of security would emerge if a  U.S. senator were killed. Or employees at the Pentagon. Or bombs going off in school lunchboxes.

Israel did not create Pandora's box. It has been here all along. But this week we saw a demonstration run, a proof of concept. But I don't expect this to be a one-off and I don't expect the U.S. to remain a bystander. The opportunities for disruption are too great to ignore. The 9/11 plot required finding 19 people willing to die for their cause. Secreting bombs into objects owned by targeted people only requires burglars who can sneak into a space, insert a device, and disappear. There are more burglars than suicide bombers.

This happened to Hezbollah, but there is no reason to think it stops there. Life in America is going to get more dangerous and expensive.

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