The Gathering Storm

     "Because something is happening here but you don't know what it is. Do you, Mr. Jones?"

                 Bob Dylan

Pete Buttigieg in Portland, meeting Kevin Stine

We are now at the beginning of something or the end of something. 

 In twenty years we will know what it is. 

Pete Buttigieg was in Portland yesterday. He said this was an inflection point in American history. Trump, he said, was a symptom. He said this period marked the end of the "Reagan Era" in American history, and some dislocations and problems had grown un-acknowledged and unsolved during these past forty years. Because of that distress a great many voters looked at America and just decided to "burn it down." 

They did it by voting for Trump. 

Zeitgeist. There is widespread comment that we have entered a new era, a time of intense political turmoil. Something is going on. 

Democrats fear we are entering a dystopian future of authoritarian nationalism. Investors and home buyers are voting with their money, buying long dated assets--stocks and homes--bidding up prices to new highs.

In twenty years:

Pearl Harbor, six weeks before the attack, 1941

Will we look at this era as the beginning of a new era of greater economic prosperity, brought by a pro business president, reduced regulations, and a successful trade policy?

Will this period be the last moments of the "abortion era" with a new Supreme Court in place or shortly to be reinforced, put on the court with the purpose of reversing Roe vs. Wade?

Will this period be understood as the pre-war era, that period prior to our entering conventional wars in the Middle East, North Korea, or elsewhere? (As we understand that troubled period of 1859 or 1940.)

Will this be understood as a brief ugly moment of crazy? (As we understand the Joe McCarthy period.)

Will this be the opening period of a great revolutionary era, the era before riotous street demonstrations of the kind we see in Hong Kong and Puerto Rico this week? (As we understand France in 1789 or Russia in 1917.)

Happy Days

Will this be understood as part of our spiral from democracy into authoritarian tyranny? (As we understand democratic Germany choosing Hitler in 1933.)

Will this be the happy, foolish debt-fueled boom era laying the groundwork of another economic collapse? (As we understand the Roaring Twenties, the NASDAQ mania of 1999, and the wild mortgage boom of 2005-2007)

Will this be the moment before a great apocalypse of nuclear war? (As we observe in the happy blue-sky-birds-tweeting opening sequences in Hollywood movies prior to the unexpected nuclear war.)

Will this be the period we understand as the pre-climate-change period while we ignored the signs of an environmental crisis, but did nothing? (As Churchill described Britain in The Gathering Storm or as JFK described Britain in Why England Slept.)

Youth Climate Activists, Oregon Capitol

"It's too soon to say."  In 1972 Chinese premier Zhou Enlai was asked about the meaning of the 1968 student uprisings in Paris. His answer, that it was too soon to answer, became famous because the question was mis-reported to suggest that the question was about the meaning of the French Revolution of 1789. 

We will not need two hundred years to understand the current era. 

Free to Choose

Mistake:

     "We don't need any more brown faces that don't want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don't want to be a black voice."

                  Rep. Ayanna Pressley, at Netroots Convention

Ayanna Pressley's purpose, I think,  was to urge people to act with courage, to speak up, to represent their own interests and perspective. But that isn't what she said, and it may well not be all she meant.

Her full quote was:

    "I don't want to bring a chair to an old table. This is the time to shake the table. This is the time to redefine that table. Because if you're going to come to this table, all of you who have aspirations of running for office. If you’re not prepared to come to that table and represent that voice, don’t come, because we don't need any more brown faces that don't want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don't want to be a black voice. We don't need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don't want to be a queer voice. If you’re worried about being marginalized and stereotyped, please don't even show up because we need you to represent that voice."

There are three problems with this.  

The first is that she gave detractors a club to pound her with. Trump jumped on her comment and condemned it as being a classic case of overt racism, which he says he condemns because he says he is not a racist, not like her. She is saying that race matters and that people should act their race. Of course, this is exactly what Trump said Judge Gonzolo Curiel would do, which is why Trump said he was unfit to rule on issues involving Trump or Trump University. That comment was identified and condemned at the time as "classic racism" by Paul Ryan, among many others.  The Trump strategy when attacked is to accuse his accuser of the same thing, only worse. Pressley gave Trump his evidence. 

The Democrats are so racist! They are the racists! Look at them!

The second is that it further imbeds the visible spokesmen of the left in identity centric politics. It de-legitimizes and divides, rather than unifies. If people have identity-based voices, then only women can truly speak for women, and only blacks can truly speak for blacks, Mexicans for Mexicans, Cubans for Cubans, Muslims for Muslims, and so on then can be no unifying voice. It makes frauds of everyone hoping to create a Democratic consensus with a male being presumptuous in trying to speak for reproductive rights, with a white person presumptuous and appropriating an identity to speak about issues relating to blacks or Latinos, any woman attempting to represent white working people.  Every voice becomes illegitimate as one includes broader constituencies. 

Voters hear exclusion. Identity politics pushes away more people than it draws in. We watched this happen in 2016. White people generally, and white males in particular, felt excluded. They voted for Trump.

The third is is that Pressley's thought presumes to tell people who they are and how they are supposed to be. It reduces individual choice. There are many ways to be black in America: Martin Luther King's way, Malcolm X's way, Cory Booker's, Barrack Obama's, Eddie Murphy's, Dr. Dre's. The notion that a person is supposed to "be black," with some underlying idea of how to be black, and not "acting white," is a kind of social tyranny, a requirement to conform or be thought disloyal to the group.

People can be themselves, on their own terms.

Pete Buttigieg came under criticism from an article in The New Republic--an article since deleted--because it accused him of not being sufficiently gay, to be homosexual without having actually participated in "gay culture." Buttigieg came out in his early 30's, and settled down and got married. The lived experience for Buttigieg didn't fit a stereotype and was therefore called illegitimate. He wasn't a "queer voice;" he is his voice.

Democrats risk trading places as the moral scolds in the culture war. For decades that role had been played by the self righteous political Christian right, the Moral Majority. Those disapproving moral prudes still exist, but they have made peace with Donald Trump, strong evidence that they can avert their eyes, live and let live.

Now it is the Democrats's turn to do the same. Let people be themselves, speak their own voices. 

Naughty joy: trolling the libs

Transgression delight.

Trump fundraising email: "Make Straws Great Again."

Trump mocks what his base resents. He revels in being the bad boy. The rule breaker.

They love it.

This week's big news was Trump mocking and denouncing the four congresswomen. Trump doesn't just disagree with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, he says they "hate America." He attributes false quotations to them, and then condemns them. 

They are a perfect target for him.  Polls of Republicans show that AOC is the single most disliked Democrat, and Omar is number two. Evaluations of Fox News coverage shows that AOC is the overwhelmingly most frequent subject, with ten times the coverage of House Democrats in actual leadership. Omar is number two in coverage.

In the current polarized political environment Republicans are less unified in what they like than in what they don't like. They don't like the caricatured version of AOC, Omar, the Squad, and the Green New Deal. So when Trump makes up quotations and Lindsay Graham calls them "communists" it is understood to be exaggerated, unfair teasing and bullying, and that is the point.  You don't have to be fair. Or nice. 

It is actually better that Ivanka is rumored to have told Trump to tone it down. It is acknowledging that Trump was being nasty. 

Trump is showing gleeful showing of contempt for polite norms because this is a signifier of status, position, and entitlement. It is our country and we can do what we want in our own home. You can't tell us what to do, and if you don't like it pound sand. Or go back to wherever.

It is trolling, provoking, bullying. It is being naughty.

Official Trump Collectables Store

There is a market for products that demonstrate open, joyful flouting of rules to encourage socially responsible behavior. Republican voters don't need actually to favor plastic buildup in the Pacific Ocean. They don't hate the environment. Still, plastic straws--a plastic straw that they themselves might have used at a Dairy Queen--seems like a vanishingly trivial contributor to it. 

So who are Democrats to tell people to use a paper straw?!!

People in Trump's data base get an email every single day. This week one arrived promoting plastic straws marked "Trump" and carrying the official Trump logo. They are 100% made in America.

     "Friend, I'm so over paper straws, and I'm sure you are too. Much like most liberal ideas, paper straws don't work and they fall apart instantly. That's why we just launched our latest product - Official Trump Straws."

The text: "failed liberal overregulation." 

The subtext: The libs can't make me play by their fussy rules. I'll show them!

The straw issue is an inexpensive way to rebel, although sellers on E-bay will re-sell the same packet and send it to buyers for $40, plus shipping, for the ten straws in "like new" condition. There is a market for this rebellion.

Some truck owners make a bigger statement: "Rolling Coal."

Prius Repellant. Rolling Coal is the term for trucks whose exhausts have been modified to allow them to emit giant plumes of black smoke on demand. This is a form of protest against pollution regulations. They call it "Prius Repellant." The game is to release the giant plume of smoke in the presence of walkers, joggers, bicyclists, and small Asian cars. 

Done on purpose. Take that, environmentalists!!

A New York Times reporter quoted a diesel truck owner who had modified his vehicle saying "Why don't you go live in Sweden and get the heck out of our country. I will continue to roll coal anytime I feel like and fog your stupid eco-cars."

Again, this is a form of naughty rebellion, a push back against the implied bullying of pollution rules made by the kinds of people who jog and ride bicycles and drive fuel efficient cars--those overbearing liberals.

Again, the subtext, I'll show them!!

Trump, in his rallies, mostly adopts a face of cruelty. He communicates disdain and contempt for the people he opposes. But there is an element of humor in Trump, seen and appreciated by his audiences. Trump knows he is being startling and outré' which is what makes Trump fascinating to watch. Watch me provoke those ninnies! I'll say they hate America!

When the North Carolina crowd shouted "Send them back" they understood that they were being naughty, too, that they were transgressing American norms, that in fact Omar and the others would not actually be exiled. 

They were a pep rally, not a lynch mob. They were happy bullies, celebrating their unity and power, not murderers. 

They were having fun, just picking on an outsider, a nobody. 

Re-elect George Wallace

"If you really love your country here's what you'll do.

You'll stand up for America, you'll vote to keep it free.

And help to make a much better land

For folks like you and me."

        Campaign song for George Wallace for President 
         Campaign jingle

George Wallace

George Wallace carried five southern states in the 1968 presidential election, but his appeal went beyond Deep South open segregationists. He also did very well among blue collar workers in the Upper Midwest. One in three union workers supported Wallace. David Frum's book on the 1970s reports that Wallace was more popular than either Hubert Humphrey or Richard Nixon among young men. His loss in 1968 did not end his political career. In 1972 he won the Democratic primary in Michigan.

Wallace had a history as an open segregationist, so he came to the 1968 campaign with a history and reputation. 

I heard him speak on the Boston Common in 1968. He knew better than to talk about race directly.

He talked about crime, especially urban riots.
He talked about patriotism.
He talked about states rights.
He accused his political enemies of being socialists and communists.
He baited students and talked about long hair and hippies and spoiled student elitists.

He said his opponents hated America and that the average hard working American taxpayer was sick and tired of people like lazy welfare chiselers, liberal officeholders, and clueless entitled young people spitting on the flag of the United States of America.

George Wallace had the mixed blessing of a southern accent. It gave him credibility as a spokesman for white America as distinguished from black and brown America. His southern accent made it unmistakably about race.

Patriotism

Trump, with his tabloid New York accent and manner, can say what George Wallace could not say, and has some arguable credibility when he says he is the least racist person in America. He says it with indignation and apparent confidence. 

Besides, some Mexicans, he assumes, are good people.

The Send-Them-Back message was an attempt to hit the sweet spot in racial messaging, handled as he is handling it. He says it, then he backs off from it, then recants back. He puts it out there as an unmistakable message, but give listeners who are uncomfortable with it a way out.

So he switches focus to crime and patriotism, as did George Wallace. He isn't against the race or religion of the Four Congresswomen, it is that they are communists, that they hate America, that they are anti-semitic and hate Israel, that they support terrorists over Americans, that they want to destroy the economy, that they want to tax the hard working and productive people and give it to undeserving outsiders. 

People who do not want to hear prejudice do not have to hear it. They hear patriotism and law and order. 

The Trump theme of love-it-or-leave-it has a subtext: we versus they, inside versus outside the group. He implies the Squad are are houseguests here getting from "us" the hospitality offered to "them," and yet they criticize America. How presumptuous. People like Trump--insiders who belong--we can criticize, but houseguests should be respectful. They are lucky to get what they got.

Democrats considering the 2020 election who take comfort in popular vote totals nationally need a reminder of the electoral college reality. It does Democrats no good to run up the vote in California and New York. A Democrat almost certainly needs to win back the Upper Midwest and that requires the votes of working class white males, who create the marginal voters in those states that tilted toward Trump. Democrats have been abandoning them in favor of college educated urbanites. 

They want the woke vote. The feminist vote. The people comfortable with the word "socialist."

During the Trump presidency those working class whites have not recoiled from Trump. They have moved toward him. They have pick up trucks, with a flag sticker on the rear window. They don't want their tax money going to subsidize people who have come here illegally to work under the table to take their jobs. They live in the states Democrats need to win.

Up Close in New Hampshire: a Guest Post

The candidates come to you.  

To sit up front, arrive early.

Candidate Survey: New Hampshire

They don't want your money. They want your vote.

In a small room in New Hampshire four years ago then-candidate Lindsay Graham, in what was clear to everyone, including him, was a failing campaign for president, gave a name for my presence: "Peter, you are a political tourist." 

I was, indeed. Candidates don't care much about Oregonians because our primary election is in May. To survive until May they need to get votes in New Hampshire. They want to see locals. This week alone seven Democrats, plus Republican William Weld, are in New Hampshire with multiple events. One doesn't need to give money or be on someone's special invitation list to see them. They advertise to see you. There are compilations of upcoming events, called "Candidate Trackers" for ones convenience. Here is this week's calendar: 

Candidate Tracker. It uploads to ones calendar

In New Hampshire, you just show up. In Oregon, you have to pay. Oregon influences the process only slightly and indirectly, through its affect on candidate fundraising totals, because by May it is likely the nomination is wrapped up for someone. In August, 2015 I attended Hillary's only trip to Oregon, a fundraiser. Next week I will attend a fundraiser for Pete Buttigieg. Both these events are ticketed, private, and in very nice homes in Portland. It is for donors, not the public, and candidates fly in and out. There is no use for Oregonians to complain. It is the realistic, practical approach for candidates, given our nomination process.

College classmate Christy Day lives in New Hampshire and has been taking candidates up on their offers to get up close. 

Christy Day

Guest Post, by Christy Day:

What a wonderful problem to have – choosing among so many qualified candidates.  

These are the candidates I have seen in person:

Pete Buttigieg - 2 public events – 3/8/19 & 7/12/19 (Portsmouth & Laconia) 

Kamala Harris – public event – 7/14/22019 (Somersworth) 

Elizabeth Warren – house party – 4/20/2019 (Amherst) 

Cory Booker – public event – 7/13/2019 (Nashua) 

Amy Klobuchar – house party – 7/4/2019 (Amherst) 

Tulsi Gabbard – public event – 9/22/2018 (Keene) 

Joe Biden – Summer of 2007 (Milford) 

Bernie Sanders – Many times in his 2016 campaign (Nashua & Manchester) 

Tulsi Gabbard, John Delaney, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar walked in the Amherst 4th of July parade. There was a strong presence of supporters marching with signs for Buttigieg, Warren, Harris, Booker, and O’Rourke.

Every single one of these candidates gets it. They know what the issues are for our country and our planet, for world community, and for the environment. In my opinion, they need to explain their position on the reality of climate crisis, the gross inequities of our economy, the wretched condition of detention on our border with Mexico and other immigration and border issues, further reform to our health care system, a multitude of women’s issues, the frightening disruption of our voting process, the minimum wage battle, the need to update our infrastructure, and how to restore our democracy to reflect our American hopes and ideals. 

Here’s my take on each of the candidates I have seen in person. 

Pete Buttigieg: His brilliance, his focus, and his ability to learn from his mistakes (and own his mistakes) help make up for his inexperience and his age. I very much worry that black voters will not go for him.

Kamala Harris – Hers was the largest crowd by far and it was racially the most diverse. She was bold in her discussion of what the issues are and how she would address them. She is warm and friendly, and the crowd clearly loved her energy. I was interviewed by NHPR at the event and I spoke of her courage. She is on the Senate Committee on Homeland 

Security and Government Affairs, as well as the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence. 

Amy Klobuchar -  She’s funny and she’s smart, but I am troubled by particular stories about her treatment of her staff. I didn’t warm to her.

Tulsi Gabbard - Despite her voting change of heart, she worked with her father and church in being vehemently anti-LGBTQ. That one just kills the deal for me.

Cory Booker - I was pretty sure that as a mayor, he would get it. When I said at his event, “Climate crisis,” he looked me in the eye and launched with policy, issues, problems, reality, funding, the future. He is impressive and he walks the walk.

Bernie Sanders: He is old and he hasn’t changed his rhetoric at all. He is an Independent. There are plenty of younger Democrats to choose from.

Joe Biden: I heard him speak when he ran for President in 2007 (he also ran in 1988 and ran afoul of himself). He is a tired old man with tired old ideas. Again, there are plenty of excellent younger candidates. He is a bit confused and he has a mixed and troubling voting record. I fear that he would be a train wreck in debates with the incumbent. 

Elizabeth Warren - She, too, stands on her convictions and is brilliant with economic issues. That she read the entire Mueller report on an overnight plane within hours of receiving it and landed in Washington knowing that the right thing to do was proceed with impeachment is much to her credit. 

Your huddled Masses: What would Jesus do?

No one wrote me to say Jesus would build a wall.

     "If we can start by recognizing the humanity and needs of 'the other', it will go a long way towards our faith being realized within ourselves."

               Judith Edwards, retired minister in the United Church of Christ

Muscular Jesus

Some Christians are liberals, some Christians are conservatives. Both try to be moral, as they see it. Morality for liberals mean two things: be fair and avoid being cruel. Morality for conservatives are those two, plus others: loyalty to the home team, respect for authority, and avoiding outside impurities or invasion.

The migrant issue falls right along the political fault line. It makes sense that liberals, including Christians, might have an orientation toward empathy for poor migrants and refugees and be open to sharing America with them, and therefore feel the Old and New Testament direction to provide welcome to the stranger feels moral. Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

Conservative Christians, though, have a kind of conflict. Their morality calls both for avoiding cruelty and protecting against adulteration by an impure or dangerous outsider. Trump calls them hoards, with rapists, drug dealers, and Muslim terrorists hiding within those masses, of the wrong people from shit hole countries.

A political conservative wrote this blog saying every Christian will fall short of emulating Jesus because humans are weak and have faults. There was a "practical and humanistic" realm and a heavenly kingdom realm, and one would inevitably fall short of the other.  "Just because some dogmatic radical American 'evangelicals' are politically motivated or are using the public pulpit to express their views does not mean they are necessarily following Biblical teaching." He disagreed with evangelical Christians who had become too politically aligned with Trump.

What should a Christian like him do regarding current migrants  Ultimately, he wrote, what is ultimately moral and Christian is unknowable. "As we all know, belief in, or an understanding of God can not be explained logically or be understood through erudite didactic reasoning. I believe God is controlling this country and Obama and Trump both were elected for reasons only known to Him."

A political liberal wrote this blog and addressed the same issue of "compartmentalizing" between faith and practicality, but she starts with a premise, that we ought to demonstrate "caring behavior" even though the problem is far beyond any one person to solve. In the face of an overwhelming challenge, faith creates a journey, she wrote, with questioning and uncertainty, and the answers to moral quandaries were personal. Her own words are below in the Guest Post.

This blog received a dozen comments. No one voiced a short direct answer on my question what would Jesus have us do regarding our borders. No one wrote me arguing for a pugnacious, muscular, America-first Trump style Jesus. Nor did anyone say borders were morally wrong and un-Christian. A pattern emerged. Readers told me faith involved mindful contemplation of the question of what Jesus would do. Faith took place within themselves.

Here is the comment by Judith Edwards, a retired minister in the United Church of Christ.  I have edited and reduced her submission.

Guest Post by Judith Edwards

Judith Edwards

First of all, I definitely agree that the majority of our denomination, and especially the leadership and clergy, do believe we have that Christian duty to welcome migrants, even when inconvenient or expensive.  

You referred to one example from each the Hebrew and Christian scriptures of our Bible. Expanding the one from Matthew is Matthew 25:34b-36, in the story where Jesus says (NRSV), “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.”

This is a prime example, though there are many in both the Hebrew and Christian Scripture sections of our Bible, of what we believe is expected of us as followers of Jesus. And it’s not an “exclusive” list of examples.  This is a parable, a story to guide our behavior towards each other… towards all, not just his followers.  If one wants to limit what he says to those who claim Christianity, or even “belief in God”, then that reference (“you that are blessed”) is in regards to the one exhibiting — or not exhibiting — the caring behavior.  The ones to whom they are expressing care could be anyone.  So we feel that this calls on us as Jesus’ followers to welcome as Jesus welcomes — and as we would presumably welcome Jesus.

I think our biggest limitation in acting as Jesus calls us to do is not compartmentalizing.  It’s a sense of helplessness. . . . We do what we can on a one-on-one basis. In Jesus’ time, they didn’t have the communication or travel options we do. In a way, we know too much.  It’s not just those folks in our neighborhood, our town, our state. It’s the world. We believe we are to be, in effect, the “hands of God” on earth.  “They’ve got the whole world in their hands.”  Many of us are now more comfortable with saying that we’re “followers of Jesus” than “Christians”, since we don’t feel that a more vocal form of Christianity represents us.

When we pray, we believe we need to do more than think or say words. And yet, sometimes that’s all we have. Our call to help and protect those in greatest need becomes so wide that most of us feel our efforts to be lost in the tide of the fear of “the other” from so many. When people who have more conservative views hear us sound critical of them, they may miss the fact that we’re also critical of ourselves, for not finding ways to do more. 

As far as that “compartmental thinking” and “in-group identification”, I’d like to suggest a thought that comes from psychology.  I spent two years in a doctoral program for Community-Clinical Psychology. What I found that was particularly interesting was research on (Christian) “religious orientation”.  

For years there was research distinguishing two orientations: Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Questioning. Intrinsic orientation was the relationship to their faith that was related to that faith directly, the things that faith taught. The Extrinsic was for other ways a church person found value in the church, like being a proper member of the community. Questioning was an orientation towards “faith” and “church” as something related to learning, personal growth, taking responsibility for their own actions.  

A major focus of related studies were about prejudice and religious orientation. When appropriate experiments were done for the two orientations, it was found that the Intrinsic orientation related more to lower indications of prejudice, and Extrinsic to higher. But when the researcher made the “discriminatory choice” less obvious, they were both about the same.  The people who wanted to be “good” were more comfortable with a discriminatory (and non-hurtful, by the way) choice, when they didn’t had an alternative reason for their choice.

Adding in Questioning — they consistently exhibited less prejudice in the experiments. When the choices were about different races, the Intrinsic folk seemed to feel their religion told them not to exhibit prejudice, and so tried not to. The Questioning folks exhibited minimal prejudice. Their faith was not in a “church” or a specific direction from the faith group. It had to do with their asking questions about their faith and their responsibility in their faith.  

In many UCC churches, we say “No matter who we are, or where we are on life’s journey, all are welcomes here.”  For Communion, it’s “Everyone is welcome at the table: believers, seekers, and doubters.” Though of course there are a range of beliefs within our denomination and any individual congregation, we’re rather heavy on “Questioning”. That allows us to be minimally judgmental about differences, less likely to judge others. This rather naturally allows us to think of all those “different than ourselves” to be no more to be feared than we would fear others in our own “in-groups”.

We care about safety. We care about “law and order.”  We are as diverse in our degree of being practical about policies and processes as any other group. We don’t need a lot of walls.

It’s hard for me, even as one trained in both psychology and religion, to be terribly sympathetic to people who took their discomfort as more important and needing to be catered to than other folks’ lives, fairness, justice.  Change happens.  I think we all tend to be bothered by changes, even if they’re not serious, because they’re comfortable for us.  But change is also a challenge that helps us grow as people.  And if we can start by recognizing the humanity and needs of “the other”, it will go a long way towards our faith being realized within ourselves.

Young women of color

"Trump is not racial.  He is against bad folks. Crooks. People that want to kill all of us.  Get over it.  You think too racially." 

                   Comment by a prominent southern Oregon car dealer 

What if he is right? Maybe it's about more than race. Maybe it's about age. 

Young

Today's news is digesting the story of Donald Trump in North Carolina. The crowd chanted a response to Trump: "Send her back! Send her back!"

Political commentary is settling in on a conclusion: It's really all about race. People of color aren't really Americans, in the eyes of Trump Nation. 

Hillary Clinton said that racial prejudice was endemic, and condemned it.Trump took the smarter, more cynical approach. He denied people were racist--certainly not him--and then profited from exploiting what he denied. In this understanding, Trump is the symptom, not the problem. The crowd loved what Trump was feeding them.

But notice something: 
Trump kicked off his re-election campaign in Florida. And now he is attacking four young women of color. Four young women.

Florida is Trump country. The Silent Generation--people over age 75--are Trump voters. Boomers--especially age 60-75--also skew toward Trump. Make America Great Again means great like Trump's post WW2 youth, the 1950's:

   When coal and fossil fuels were just dandy.
   When this was an unquestionably white dominated country.
   When men were strong and aggressive and women were submissive.
   When darker skinned people were out of sight and in low status positions.

   When the US had overwhelming manufacturing advantages.
   When people didn't worry much about industrial pollution, and certainly not "climate."
   When blacks knew their place.
   When immigration numbers were small, and primarily from western Europe.
   When Christianity was the assumed, default American religion.

Trump is governing toward the mindset and interests of older Americans.. 

He opposes Medicare for the young. His tax cuts create a budget deficit to be paid by the next generation. His climate denial has risks for young people later. He opposes reorganizing college loans. He jawbones the Fed for low interest rates, which inflates asset prices, including homes owned by older people at the expense of young people trying to buy them.

Young people grew up in a different world, where there were black people on TV, both in shows and in ads, and where Reagan-era changes in the immigration laws created growing ethnic diversity. The young do not see the four congresswomen of color to be as "foreign" as does Trump or his base of older voters. To the young, the Squad does "look like America." 

Trump defines their policies as socialistic and anti-American. There is another way to look at them. The policies benefit young people. Medicare for all, a New Deal on climate, affordable college, wealth redistribution, and a higher minimum wage are the concerns of the young. 

The Squad is more than the voice of racial justice. They are the voice of a new generation. Trump is betting they won't turn out to vote.