"Climate Change Alarmists"

A lot of people think climate change is a big fuss over nothing.

People they trust are doing a masterful job persuading them. A close look at a Fox News article:

Click: Fox Website

Politicians, activists, and observers will rarely get a clearer example of persuasive technique. The article minimizes, doubts, belittles, and accuses. It assures readers there is nothing to worry about as far as climate is concerned, and that the real issue is that our team is under attack by dangerous, manipulative people.the 

Close your mind. Close our ranks.

Here is how it is done:

1. Set the stage with a headline, shown above. Opponents are emotionally wrong ("alarmists,"), factually wrong ("deny science"), and morally wrong ("misrepresent.")

2. Position yourself as reasonable and open minded. The first words of the article are: "There is no doubt that climate change is an issue that needs to be discussed and addressed." See? Aren't we fair? We agree to discussion.

3. Immediately define your opponents as emotionally and morally flawed, citing in the second sentence "alarmist headlines and personal agendas." This is the textbook definition of begging the question, the logical fallacy where one assumes the truth of an argument or proposition to be proved, without arguing it.

4. Diminishment. The article sets the frame and context. "First, many have mistakenly called it the hottest month ever recorded. What the report actually said is that it was the hottest June ever recorded, not the hottest month. Second, technically speaking, yes, it is the hottest June "ever recorded." But recordings are only officially recognized back to the 1880s. During the Hadean period billions of years ago, Earth had a surface temperature of 450 degrees Fahrenheit." After all it is only the hottest June, and we have been keeping records for only 130 years, and the heat is nothing compared to earth's early history. Warming is no big deal compared to molten lava.

5. Raise doubts about the data.  The article's next section gives readers an opportunity to throw up their hands and doubt all data, citing "margin of error" and "plus or minus" and uncertainty of past predictions by supposed experts and "variation is the spice of life."

6. Say the available data is irrelevant.  "Whether 2017 was warmer or cooler than 2015, or 2014 or 2013 really doesn’t prove anything. The only way to see a pattern is to look at long-term temperature changes spanning hundreds of years, along with many other measurements." We would need hundreds of years of data, to have data worth considering, so forget about data. We don't know anything, so relax.

7. Describe the opponents' climate position as so unimportant it can be conceded, without weakening the article's proposition. This part is cynical and brilliant. It switches the climate change argument to be about the bad morality of climate activists, not about whether climate is an issue of concern. It is about tribe, about sides. Those wacko alarmist environmentalists against us. They can concede climate facts because what is important is them. Here is how the article does it: "Yes, the trend is warming. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and we know its concentration has increased drastically since the industrial revolution. Yes, we know it is harmful. But if we are so desperate to get our points across that we embrace alarmism, we demean the real science."

Log Truck rally in Oregon

8. Redefine the issue into an accusation of immorality and zealotry.  Those crazy climate activists are mean-spirited liars, making false accusations, so our team needs to stay outraged. We don't know about the science, but we do know who are enemies are and what they are doing: "Climate change zealots vilify climate change deniers for denying science."

The Fox News ecosystem is tight, and on message. The message has consequences.

This is how the climate message is being described to Republican, socially conservative Americans. People in the Fox ecosystem don't see Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a brave woman speaking truth to power. They think climate change is a hoax, or over-hyped at the very least, and that it is a self interested power grab by AOC and other out of touch urban elites.

This happens even in Democratic, environmentalist Oregon. Twelve GOP state senators in Oregon shut down a cap-trade-rebate bill by mobilizing rural people, and defining the issue as Portland liberals running roughshod over the lumber industry, loggers and log truck drivers, and rural people generally. They didn't see climate as an issue about wildfires, drought, and the country we leave to our grandchildren, i.e. about climate. They see it as an issue of bad people lying so they could implement an unfair tax targeted at rural people.

Articles like this Fox one show where that frame comes from.

George Washington: First in war, first in peace, and in boarding group # 1

George Washington secured the airports.

Trump misspoke. What does it reveal about him?

His teleprompter screen was wet and hard to see, and he was ad libbing for a moment. Trump said the Continental Army of 1775 was named after George Washington, and then manned some ramparts and "took over the airports, it did everything it had to do. And at Fort McHenry, under 'the rockets' red glare,' it had nothing but victory."

Rain on the parade

No speechwriter wrote that. 

Trump was winging it, perhaps trying to find his place on the scrolling teleprompter script, keeping up the patter.

Democrats are joyfully doing what Republicans and Fox News did constantly--and now again--to Obama, showing Obama accidentally saying he campaigned in 57 states. See what Obama said! Obama is either stupid, or badly educated or dishonest, and actually trying to con us into thinking he visited 57 states! 

Obama just misspoke, and Republicans jumped on it. Trump just misspoke, and Democrats are doing the same, joking and teasing. One way to look at this is that it is meaningless partisan teasing and we shouldn't overthink this.

Or maybe we should. Cracks are how the light gets in.

History professor John Leung, now emeritus from Northern Arizona University, argues there is insight to be gained by looking at the mistake of this national leader. Mistakes are windows into in the shell of curated presentation, and slips of the tongue reveal the thoughts and presumptions actively rumbling around top of mind, but silenced and hidden under the facade of respectable presentation. Citizens need to know what thoughts are rumbling below the surface of their national leaders.

John Leung was born in Macau, was educated at Northwestern and Brown, and had a long career as a scholar of American and East Asian history. Leung brings an interesting lens to the task of considering the thoughts and aspirations of America's own charismatic leader. Leung's scholarship and teaching gave particular attention to the words, behaviors, and intentions, some revealed and some hidden, of China's Mao Zedong.

Trump watchers advise us not to take Trump's patter and tweets literally, but take them seriously. Leung does that.

John Leung, in Hong Kong

Guest Post by John Leung

Mental Mistakes and Linguistic Lapses--a far darker aspect.

     "Trump’s utterly ahistorical “gaffe” in his “Salute to America” speech yesterday about the army taking over the airports during the time of the American War of Independence has rightly been taken to task in the press today for how much it reveals of Trump’s general ignorance and lack of simple, common sense about our nation’s history. 

     Nonetheless, we must also not fail to notice that, aside from and in addition to being a tragi-comedic bit of anachronism, which has become almost banal in its common-ness within Trump-speak (now easily rivaling if not surpassing the language-errors committed by G.W. Bush,) there is a far darker aspect to this particular mistake on Trump’s part. I believe that, far from being a slip of the tongue or a lapse of awareness of history, what could very well lurk behind this statement in Trump’s subconscious mind (and possibly, in his case, only very shallowly beneath his conscious will,) is an actual imagination of the US Army, under his own presidential command, taking over our nation’s civilian airports. 

     This would be a mistake of historical recall if, at some point in our nation’s history, the US military had in fact “taken over the airports,” and Trump had merely misplaced the time and occasion. But that, in reality, has never happened; not even during 911. And the only way in which something like that could happen, one could surmise, would be if Martial Law was declared and imposed on our country, as it has been done in other countries. Let us put this Trump statement in the context of several imminent things: Trump has openly articulated his fascination with the display of military prowess in other countries as an expression of the total control of might and power that those countries’ head of state wields. He has already arbitrarily militarized the nation’s southern border. He expressed a fervent desire, at any cost, to have a similar “show of force” in the nation’s capital on this Independence Day. And he has cast this “Salute to America” overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, in terms of the aggrandizement of the role that use of military force could play in the conducting of the nation’s affairs. 

     Is it too much, then, to think that in this president’s mind, a scenario of the US Army taking over the airports of this nation, predicated by a declaration of martial law following a Trumped-up national emergency, may be considered a possibility if not a historical reality? It does not take a lot for this president to confuse the two!

     We cannot afford to gloss over the President’s mental mistakes and linguistic lapses; they could well be imbedded much more deeply in his psyche, and have much more serious consequences than we initially think."

Tsunami Alert!

     "If you are in an inundation area, you must head to high ground immediately when the shaking stops. Do not wait for a warning. THAT IS YOUR WARNING that a tsunami is on its way. You have approximately ten minutes."

                 Tourist information: City of Langlois, Oregon.

Click: Explanation of earthquake and tsunami

A California earthquake is in today's news. Oregon didn't have an earthquake, but Oregon, too, is in the news. 

The Oregon legislature passed and the governor signed HB 3309.  

What? Me worry?

The new law allows buildings of emergency services, hospitals, schools, and nursing homes in the tsunami inundation zone along the Oregon coast.

Oregon has a problem. The Atlantic Ocean is spreading, which pushes North America to the west at a rate of about as fast as fingernails grow, an inch a year. It is pushing into the Juan De Fuca plate that is part of the Pacific plate system, and the Juan De Fuca plate is sliding under Oregon. It creates the Coast Range and the Cascades, along with intermittent earthquakes. They happen irregularly, at an average rate of one every 300 years. The last big one was in the year 1700--319 years ago.

Earthquakes cause damage from shaking as we are seeing on TV today from the southern California 6.4 Rchter scale event. They also cause tsunamis which inundate low lying coastal areas. Tsunamis are not just big, surf-able waves--a big splash. They are a mix of water and debris--houses, trucks, trees--wiping out everything in their path. They killed tens of thousands of people in Japan and Indonesia in recent years.

Inundation

"There aren’t many injuries in the tsunami zone,” one seismic expert told The New Yorker writer Kathryn Schulz. “People just die.”

Schulz has just published a follow up of an earlier story about the risks to the Pacific Northwest of another "Cascadia Event," which is the term in common use now in Oregon for the eventual earthquake/tsunami event. North America's westward move is real and measurable from GPS satellites. 

Pressure is building up. Something has got to give. And when it gives it will be a major disaster. We don't get small, frequent trembles. We get nothing, then a big one.

Oregon had regulations in place to restrict building in the coastal inundation areas. Those restrictions were an impediment to coastal development, which was no accident. It was the very point to stop development in dangerous places. It was bad for business. Shultz quotes Oregon coast legislator David Gromberg asking: “Who will buy a house in a neighborhood too dangerous for a police station? Who will start a business in an area where fire stations are not allowed?”

Tsunami awareness is bad PR and bad politics. It runs counter to what people want, and where the coastal towns have developed. People who live on the coast want to be on the coast, not inland. No one likes to think that their dream house could vanish in a moment, with them inside it. So coastal legislators requested the Oregon legislature to end the ban on building hospitals, jails, schools, and emergency services facilities in the inundation zone. The lack of those facilities were awkward for town planning.

Besides, there was a workaround: when an earthquake comes, move uphill. Simple.

Moving to high ground immediately may not be possible. Tsunamis come in the aftermath of a disaster itself, the earthquake event, and earthquakes come without notice. Children and the elderly cannot be moved quickly. Roads uphill will be congested, and those roads may be damaged. Power lines are down and will cause panic and block exits. In the aftermath of an earthquake, with damaged buildings, people may be injured or trapped. Under the best of circumstances, people will all want the same thing at the same moment: get to high ground.

Click: 2015 Wake up call

Think of stadium traffic after a sporting event. The people, public safety organizations and facilities that are most critical to deal with the  disaster may be subject to the disaster themselves. 

Schulz's 2015 article, The Really Big One,  caused a stir as it reminded Pacific Northwest residents that we live under a threat of the loss of life and tens of billions, possibly hundreds of billions, of dollars of loss if--when--the inevitable happens. But it hasn't happened yet, and preparing for something that has not happened is expensive and inconvenient and feels pointless in the moment. Buildings need to be retrofit. Infrastructure needs to be reinforced--for no apparent purpose. 

And on the coast, people are told to do expensive, un-intuitive things, like build their towns away from the very thing that makes the towns desirable. 

Click: The New Yorker

A transfer of wealth is taking place, which should be acknowledged. People who live and build schools and hospitals in an area that will be damaged are getting the present value of the superior location. They get their view and beach access now, and that amenity is theirs. If they sell their property they are selling view-site coastal property, at the premium such property gets. The value is personal to them.

When the inevitable happens, the devastation will be enormous. Some will die, and pay the highest price for the coastal amenity they enjoyed. Some will face injury and thousands will have property losses which will overwhelm personal and community resources. 

Those costs will be socialized. Everyone will be asked to pitch in, via insurance costs and taxes.

The public has an interest in prohibiting people from building on flood planes, fire zones, and inundation areas. Some of the lives that will be lost will be "innocent" ones, children who trust adults not to let them play in traffic, eat poison, ingest lead, breathe asbestos, or drown in a tsunami. They have a right to life.The state has an interest in protecting them.

Some of the costs will be paid by fellow Oregonians or fellow Americans, who taxes will be used to repair the damage that could have been avoided or mitigated, but was not.

Shaming the Liberal Past

LBJ used the word "Negro."

After the assassination of JFK and Lyndon Johnson's landslide victory over Goldwater Congress was in a position to move the goalposts on civil rights. 

We passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act in 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. These ended legal segregation and discrimination by governments and the public, in places of public accommodation, in voting, and in housing. 

The arc of history bent toward justice. We celebrate the progress and watch the recordings. LBJ said the word "Negro" in speeches. So did Martin Luther King. 

When we see Martin Luther King say "Negro" it sounds to the ear as old fashioned. When we hear white Texan LBJ say it it seems vaguely racist, certainly odd, and severely un-woke. No one says "Negro" now, certainly no white politician.

Videotape freezes LBJ into an unacceptable past. 

Democrats are in a war against the past, and it is a war Democrats will lose. Indeed, they are fighting on the wrong side of that war. 

Kamala Harris won support by taking on Biden on the issue of court ordered busing of the early 1970s. You opposed federally mandated busing, she said. The Biden position on this issue--supporting busing, but saying he wanted it to be shaped by local school districts, not by federal judges--was near the forefront of liberal thinking at the time. Few, if any politicians of any party, were saying that busing decisions created by federal judges was the best way to do it. Busing was disruptive. Kids rode buses past their own neighborhood school to attend one across town. There were protests. It created the 1970's version of the Tea Party revolution, and it helped get Reagan elected. It was divisive and unpopular.

Populist revolt in Boston

"Unpopular."

Woke, populist, leftist Democrats of today might take a moment to reflect on their own language and politics. They defend their positions by saying it empowers the people. That their positions put the interests of the average citizen--working people, the proletariat-- over that of out of touch established elites in authority. Working class populism of the 1970's existed, and it was anti-busing.

The busing issue is now remote enough that current leftist populists can condemn the leftist populists of the past. Biden was wrong, Harris said. It was hurtful, she said. 

What was populist progressive liberal then, and probably the most forward position an elected official could take, isn't progressive liberal anymore. 

Click: History.com

We see it on other issues, too. On homosexuality, what was acceptable, forward-thinking, daringly progressive thought in the 1980's and 1990's is condemned now. Don't-ask-don't-tell used to be the most forward thing an elected official could advocate in any jurisdiction other than the West Hollywood and Castro neighborhoods in California. 

Twenty five years ago left, progressives would get in trouble for advocating toleration and acceptance; now the only acceptable position is celebration and pride. Civil-unions used to be progressive; now people get married. 

It is progress, and attitudes have changed. As they have on racially mixed marriages. As they have on unmarried couples living together. As they have on marijuana. As they have on women in positions of authority in the workplace, on smoking in public places, on the acceptability of divorced politicians or ones who don't regularly attend church. 

Democrats are looking back and seeing change and progress, and condemning past thinking. That process punishes longevity and experience. It diminishes their support with older voters because the approach is to shame them, not for what they think but for what they thought.

Democrats are the party of progressive change. There should be no surprise or shame in observing that the mores and beliefs of the past were different. 

But Biden swung and missed. He could have hit a home run. He had not planed for the trap nor have a rhetorical way out of it. That is evidence Biden would be a weak candidate against Trump. 

He should have turned his past into a positive. He should have been ready with something like this:

     "Senator you are right, and I thank God we have made progress, and a strong powerful black woman Senator is the proof of it. Back in 1974 I was at the front end of progressive political thinking on busing and I caught hell for it, just like people today catch hell for "Medicare for All" and the Green New Deal. Progressives are always a step or two ahead, catching flack, but making progress, pulling the people along with us. What was possible back then was advocating for community-run busing. I supported busing, and I was fighting for community buy-in. We got it done, so now it looks easy, but at the time I was ahead of the country a little, just like you are now, maybe a step or two. Good. In thirty years I hope we have made so much progress on health care and the environment that people will be saying what you are saying and believing is old fashioned, and you could have done more. Progressives like us keep pushing what is possible. Well, I pushed and I am still pushing."

In short, Joe Biden should have leaned in, thanked her, and taken credit. 

The right candidate will know what to do in a political fight.

Consumer Confidence

Kamala Harris

What if people feel optimistic?

Democrats may have a problem. Consumer confidence is up. Investor confidence is up. Farmer confidence is up.

It is a noteworthy thing when investment companies express worry. Investment commentary by money managers and brokerage firms have a bias toward things looking up. They manage investments. Pessimism isn't in their interest and it isn't their nature.

They are congenital optimists.

Morgan Stanley: "US Consumption Leading the Way."

It is curious to me that Morgan Stanley and others are putting up warnings that a recession is ahead, while warning that investors are optimistic and that markets likely too high because of it. Consumer confidence is high and markets going up because of it.

Americans are spending

They write: "Ominous headlines suggest growing risk on corporate balance sheets, but don't forget about broader strength in the U.S. consumer." Then they list the many things that could go wrong, then continue: 

    "Lost in the headline noise surrounding the demise of corporations is this important fact: the U.S. consumer continues to function as the largest economic force in the world, representing approximately 17% of global GDP. This is greater than the entire GDP of China and more than the aggregate GOP of Japan, Germany, and the UK combined."

Farmers, too. Perdue University's Center for Commercial Agriculture is sharing a poll that reports the same curious sentiment among farmers. Notwithstanding the heavy rains that have delayed planting, and the trade disputes that that damaged the export market in soybeans, they report farmers are optimistic and their optimism is rising. 

Click: Perdue

     "The improvement in farmers’ sentiment occurred in the midst of this spring’s corn and soybean planting delays in the nation’s mid-section, which is expected to lead to unprecedented levels of prevented planting claims for both corn and soybeans. The prospect of large prevented plantings, combined with expectations for yield reductions attributable to delayed planting, pushed both corn and soybean prices up sharply since the May survey was completed, which contributed to the sentiment improvement."

Farmers expect prices to be better, farm income to be better, and farm land values to be much higher in five years. Things are looking up.

CBS Headline

Democrats have another message. People are hurting.

Kamala Harris was the big winner in the Democratic debates. She looked strong to many Democrats, she looked like she could take on Trump, and she had a message people seemed to like. 

She had a message on race, but also on a message of American economic fragility. She cited a statistic that is now a frequent element of candidate speeches for all Democrats, that some 40% of Americans are one paycheck or one $500--or $400--automobile repair from disaster. Democrats have a message that Trump has helped the rich but not the average person, and that the economy is both weak and fragile.

Harris put it this way in April: "It's clear in our country right now, almost half of American families are a $400 unexpected expense away from complete upheaval."

It is entirely possible that it is all true, that American consumers are feeling very confident and, simultaneously, they are only one paycheck away from financial disaster. It is the nature of bull markets for people to be foolishly comfortable with risk. Optimism. Confidence.

Click: U of Michigan Consumer Confidence Survey

That is the problem for Democrats, if the current period of hightened optimism persists. Democrats do not need the economy to get worse. They don't need a recession, but they need voters to start worrying about it. They need consumer confidence to falter. They need voters to quit trusting the "Trump economy."

Democrats who take comfort from Gallup polls of Trump's Approval/Disapproval number are looking at the wrong thing. Look at the consumer confidence number. People are feeling pretty good about the economy, even in the face of trouble. 

I trust what they do at stores, restaurants, and car dealers more than I trust what they tell a pollster.

The Boring Old White Guy Lane

Politics is reality TV. 

Voters are deciding which show to watch.

The star needs to hold our attention. Hickenlooper? Bennet? Moulton?  

Who?

The news today regards the campaign of John Hickenlooper, former Governor of Colorado. 

Who cares?

Apparently his campaign failed to "gain traction" as the people at CNN put it. Politico said that his campaign finance director "flees to Beto." The Hill said the staffer "leaves." CBS says it is a "shakeup."

The problem isn't the finance director. It is the star of the show. Hickenlooper.

A group of candidates fall into the same mental category: white guys with experience and proven managerial and electoral competence, who project a moderate bipartisan ability to make the levers of government work.  Sensible guys.

Yes, they have a chance to break out, but it looks grim for them--not because they would do a bad job, because in fact they appear to be well prepared for the job-- but because they are un-interesting and undistinguishable as messengers of a national vision. 

They are the political equivalent of C-SPAN in a world of politics as high drama entertainment. They are steamed broccoli: good for us. Trump is pizza.

This blog mentioned Jay Inslee yesterday. He exemplifies my point that it is not a failure of policy content or message. Inslee's singular focus on climate is as courageous and out of the box as Alexandia Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal, and he preceded her in saying that climate was a crisis, not a problem. When she said it, people paid attention. Fox News condemns her; Democrats climb on board; the words "Green New Deal" become a talking point. 

Recognize John Delaney?

Inslee creates no excitement or drama.

John Delaney doesn't either, and I saw him working his tail off to meet voters twenty to fifty at a time in New Hampshire, with three or four events a day. Nor does John Hickenlooper have it, nor Michael Bennet, nor Steve Bullock, nor Tim Ryan, nor Seth Moulton, nor Eric Swalwell.  

None of them are particularly interesting, not even Eric Swalwell who parlayed his position on both the Judiciary and Intelligence committees to be on cable TV repeatedly, saying things his audience welcomed hearing, that Trump was a crook. It didn't matter. He wasn't a star, either.

Donald Trump exposed the simple reality of American politics that it is, in fact, a form of reality TV.  Donald Trump understood and exploited the current media environment better than did the political/pundit class. The ideal preparation for winning election was to be the executive producer and star of a contest-oriented elimination themed reality TV show. And that was Trump.

Trump was mocked this week on news and comedy shows for showing irritated impatience when his Chief of Staff was heard coughing in the background while Trump answered a question posed by a journalist.Trump wanted his answer re-shot. This was a powerful revelation of Trump's understanding of the job. It is a show. He is a performer.

Celebrity Apprentice

Trump in North Korea, stepping over the boundary line, was not "mere photo op" diplomacy as opponents and pundits observe. It is powerful communication of movement toward something.  Peace? A setback? Future missile attack on Japan? We don't know. Trump doesn't know. Something. A cliffhanger. Staying tuned is the point.

The Trump Show is not the only show. He has competition, though not from the boring white qualified guys. His show could get cancelled for a different and better one.

Bernie Sanders is interesting, saying controversial things with hoarse-voice urgency. Possibly we are ready for populist jeremiads.

Biden has a story with drama: will the old guy hang on, can he get the youngsters interested?

Elizabeth Warren speaks with urgent enthusiastic sincerity. Will we want to hear her cheerlead us toward structural change?

Kamala Harris has the mixed-race prosecutor tough smart woman character down pat. We see characters like her on TV: How to Get Away with Murder and Scandal. We watch that type of character.

Pete Buttigieg has the smart, mature, self-accepting young gay guy schtick. He would be interesting counter programing to Trump.

American voters are deciding now whether to keep watching the Trump Show. It isn't that good a show, but its mistakes and blooper reels keep late night TV comics busy. We will not replace the Trump Show with the Hickenlooper or Bennet or Bullock Show. 

We want something more interesting than broccoli.

Fundraising Panic

Jay Inslee, the Climate candidate

June 30: My email inbox is inundated by appeals from candidates.

We need it now!

I got a phone call from Jay Inslee last night. 

There is no mystery here. Candidates want money. The quarter ended Sunday night and it is the fundraising report deadline.

The campaigns need the credibility that comes from getting money. It proves to the media, to supporters, and their own campaign staffs that their candidacy is viable. The 2nd quarter report is a report card. 

I have desperation emails today from Warren, Beto, Harris, Booker, Buttigieg, the Democratic Party, Ted Cruz, and from Don Junior, and Lara Trump, Mike Pence, and two from Donald Trump. Being able to raise money is proof of viability. Not raising money is proof of failure.

Beto email: "Peter, This is it, the final hours before the FEC deadline. . . ."

Warren email: "If we don't hit our fundraising goal by midnight tonight, we'll feel the consequences. . . ."

Emails like these.

Jay Inslee telephoned me at 7:00 p.m., Oregon time. 

I suspect he got my name and phone number from a New Hampshire event I attended. It is too late to call potential donors on the east coast, but his staff would have seen my Oregon area code and zip code and put me on his call list. I attended one event in New Hampshire. I have not contributed, not even one of the many $25 dollar donations I made to most of the presidential campaigns so I could be on their lists. Maybe his staff cross checked my name against names of people who donated to Senators Wyden or Merkley.


In any case, it was a desperation long shot, essentially a cold call, made by the candidate himself. 

"Peter, hello, this is Jay Inslee." 

Inslee website opening page

I recognized his voice and thanked him for the call. 

I said I knew he was busy and on deadline and that, of course he was calling to ask me for money. 

I said my wife and I were undecided about whom to vote for, but that I would immediately send $1,000. I said that by gosh, if the candidate himself calls me, I will send $1,000. I told him that this had to be the worst part of being a candidate.

(I like to handle these calls this way. Get the money talk out of the way immediately and volunteer an amount of money I am willing to give. Then, we can talk about other things for a few moments.)

I said I had seen him up close in New Hampshire and that I had posted a selfie with him on Facebook. I asked if his campaign was viable. 

He said it most certainly was, and the campaign was about more than just him. He said his presence puts climate change into the center of the presidential campaign. I said Oregon was just in the news for the abandoned cap and trade bill that stalled out in the State Senate. He said he followed it and that it was a shame that the bill got shut down, but that he would do what he could as president to make it a national issue, not a state-by-state matter. 

He went on to do what candidates do, look for a point of personal connection. "I went to law school in Oregon, you know."

I said I did know that.  "You went to Willamette." He said he loved Oregon.

In New Hampshire in April

I told him I would go to Act Blue and do the donation right then, so it would count for him for this quarter. He said thanks, and rang off. 

Is his campaign, in fact, viable? 

Possibly. Climate has some potential as a policy--not identity--point of differentiation and motivation for progressive activists. Climate is Inslee's niche. 

Jay Inslee, the climate guy. 

Inslee is largely unknown to a national audience. He does not meet even the "seven things people know" test. Most voters don't know that he is a former Congressman, first from the Yakima area, and then from a Seattle suburb district, that he is now Governor of the State of Washington, that he is an attorney, that he is very tall, that he went to Stanford then University of Washington, that he is 68 years old. 

Maybe they know three things. Jay Inslee is a white male, and his big issue is climate. That's it.

From a branding point of view "Jay Inslee climate" might be enough to get him noticed to emerge from out of group of indistinguishable white, male candidates: Bullock of Montana, Hickenlooper and Bennet of Colorado, Swalwell of California, Ryan of Ohio and Moulton of Massachusetts.

(Beto O'Rourke of Texas has a national identity: the young-acting skateboarder pro-immigration guy from El Paso, who raised a lot of money running against Ted Cruz. Pete Buttigieg isn't part of the anonymous scrum, either. He is the young, gay, Rhodes Scholar small town mayor who seems emotionally mature, a stark contrast to Trump. Each have an identifiable niche.)

Within the Democratic primary electorate, climate is understood as a pro-job issue, with jobs in solar and wind development and in retrofitting buildings for conservation. It's a good brand, for a Democrat. Not every Democrat thinks it is the most important problem facing the nation, but few disagree that it is important. 

To succeed, Inslee needs to raise money while his white male competitors fail to raise money, and leave the race. If the late summer survivors came down to Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, Warren, Harris, and Inslee, then Inslee would have both a brand and a lane to himself.

I don't expect it, but it could happen.

My wife and I have a standing offer. We will give $1,000 to any candidate for president who personally calls us. We did it for Inslee, and fair is fair.