Claim Victory

You won, if you say you won.

The headlines and the demeanor tell the story: “Democrats Caved”.  Chuck Schumer looked defeated but resolute.  Trump looked triumphant.

Trump calls it a "Schumer Shutdown!" and the Democrats' "Humiliating Defeat."

The message sent by all that is unmistakable.  Democrats “lost” something.  Meanwhile, Trump was crowing that he “won big.”   Trump and Republicans defined the story as “Democrats favor illegal immigrants over Americans” and “Democrats favor uncontrolled immigration.”

Democrats did not lose when they “caved” on Monday.  They lost when they allowed the frame of “Democrats support illegal immigrants over Americans.”  They lost before the battle began.

Democrats at home watching MSNBC or out at a rally make a mistake when they take comfort from a poll that says Americans support the Dreamers.  I am sure the polls are right when the question is asked.  But American don’t want “uncontrolled immigration” and they don’t want people here illegally to disadvantage them, and that is how Trump framed the issue.   Safety vs. "uncontrolled."

Why are Democrats so flat-footed in the message framing battle?   Because they let Trump’s racist appeals to his base buffalo them into considering the immigration issue as a battle between white nationalist racists vs. brown immigrants.  There is a politically safe and appropriate alternative frame:  problem solvers and law-observers vs Republican dysfunction.  But this starts with a premise that Democrats are loyal first of all to the law and problem solving, and not to their constituency groups.  And it presumes that immigration is like medicine, that because it is powerful and needs to be taken as directed.

This should not be hard, but it is. Democratic pressure groups look like groups built around identity, not legal status.  Brianna Joy Gray writes on this brilliantly in NY Magazine.  Trump trolled Democrats into this, but playing identity politics is not the way out of the mess.  http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/11/identity-politics-cant-get-us-out-of-the-mess-racism-made.html

It is pretty simple: Republican voters are happy with Trump

Democrats who are appalled and offended by Trump have a hard time noticing that Trump is popular among Republicans.

It is a common refrain: "How can GOP officeholders stand by silently and thereby enable Trump?  Aren't they appalled?  Aren't they outraged?"

Not so much.

Republican officeholders (other than Bob Corker and Jeff Flake, two senators who are abandoning their seats because they know they would lose a primary election) are generally standing by their man.  Recent Pew research polls show why.    Click Here: NPR/Pew    GOP voters are happy.  The stock market is up. (Continued up.) Unemployment is down to 4.1% (Continued down.)

Asked, "Thinking about Trump's first year in office, do you approve or disapprove of his handling of _____________?"

Health Care Approval Rating

In the conventional wisdom of Democrats and the media, Trumps handling of health care was an obvious failure. He, and Republicans, could not agree on a repeal-and-replace.  It was a disaster, right?   Not to Republican voters.  75% approval among Republicans.

Again, the conventional wisdom is that Trump's handling of immigration has been a public relations and legal failure.  He has said outrageous things, the courts have blocked him, and Congress has done nothing other than shut itself down in deadlock.  Disaster, right?  Not to Republican voters.  80% approval.

Immigration Approval Rating

Surely, in the minds of Democrats, there would be bi-partisan disapproval of Trump's taunting and name calling of Kim Jong-un of North Korea, with tweets and insults and provocations.  Surely this goes too far.  After all, there is near universal disapproval within the military/diplomatic/foreign policy establishment, and in the media.  But Republican voters apparently like what they see, with 71% approval.

North Korea Approval Rating

Trump's personal behavior, his tweets, his manner all grate on the nerves of Democrats and Independents, but not Republicans.  Either they like what Democrats consider outrageous, or they can ignore it.  It is pretty simple:  there is a partisan divide.

This has some implications for Republican candidates in state and local elections in 2018.  I observe highly motivated Democratic voters, people who feel sharply estranged from Trump and Republican thinking.  Trump is a motivator.

The GOP has moved right and purged itself of many of their moderates, but a few remain.  Those moderate Republican officeholders have a problem. They may not like Trump, but their Democratic opponents will make the point that if they caucus with the party of Trump, and vote with the party of Trump, then they are stuck with Trump, warts and all.  

Some will defend him.  Some will oppose him.  Some will mumble and speak in generalities and platitudes and manage to come across as accommodating and moderate. But it might come across as wishy washy and confused.  I predict that will be the message challenge that moderate Republican candidates will face.

Trump's Evil Genius

People disgusted and appalled by Trump are blind to Trump's political skills.  He plays Democrats for suckers.

Trump trolls Democrats into being unable to discuss an issue that is on the minds of voters.   Voters would rather vote for Trump than be considered deplorable.

Click: fivethirtyeight.com article

Draw Play.  Democrats keep falling for Trump's version of the football "draw play."  They rush into a bad position because they cannot resist what looks like an easy quarterback sack.

By junior high school players have wised up and are alert for this.  But even grown up Democrats get fooled by Trump. They get drawn into bad positions, but for the very best of reasons.  They are anti-Trump and anti-racist.

Trump is doing it again and again, including right now.  

Trump says offensively racist things.  Some of Trump's supporters don't hear it, or ignore it, but Democrats hear it loud and clear. That is the "draw." His stated preference for Norwegians instead of people from "shithole" countries is a recent example.  Democrats are trolled into defining immigration as a matter of race and racism, not how best to do immigration. Trump forces Democrats to think in black and white. Progressives take a hectoring tone:  how dare you cite problems with immigration or immigrants!  

Some things cannot be discussed without triggering defensive alarm.  You must not understand the pernicious effect of racism.  You must not understand sanctuary cities.  You must not understand assimilation.  You must not understand labor markets. You must not care about DACA kids.  You didn't say what Trump said, but you must secretly mean what Trump says, so you must be wrong.

Democrats become captive of people who speak with conviction and righteousness.  They are the gatekeepers of orthodox thought. After all, you cannot compromise with Hitler or David Duke, or Trump. You are either good or you are deplorable.

Voters don't like being told they are deplorable.

Donald Trump won election in part by taking the nastiest, least compromising immigration stance among all candidates.  But it wasn't just Trump who won; the message and tone of his Democratic opposition was rejected.

Trump was unlovely, but a censorious Hillary was considered even worse. Trump had policies all over the map from rally to rally, so people could hear what they wanted to hear.  Democrats and progressives had a less persuasive message, because a central element of it was that Immigration could not be discussed lest one be considered racist, wrong-headed, or deplorable. 

Voters do not want to be called racist when they think and talk about immigration. 

A close look: Palm Springs Rally

Mellow. Optimistic. Scornful of Trump. Women. Vote.

There was a mood: joy and hope.

I attended a Woman's Rally and March in Palm Springs, California on Saturday.  It was one of many nationwide.  The mood I saw was not one of anger or frustration.  It was joyful and confident.  The forces of resistance to Trump were on a roll.  There was a sense of momentum, motivation, and joyful anticipation of great vindication in the impending victory.

Who was there?  More women than men.  Planned Parenthood.  Democrats.  Liberal Candidates.  Gays. Transgendered people. Baby Boomers.

The event differed from the immediate post-election rallies.  There was less anger. There was more focus on the upcoming vote in 2018.  Barbara Boxer urged people to vote.

People were looking forward to 2018.  They think it will be Christmas morning.


 

People were urged to bring signs.  By law, signs at a rally cannot be attached to sticks. People held them in their hands.  

Message War on Shutdown

Who will get the blame?  Who will "win" the message war?

Trump has a strong message, but Democrats have a Trump card.

Trump:  Democrats like illegal immigrants to you.

Trump is getting his message out:  it is all the fault of the Democrats, and for the politically worst of reasons.   It is the "Schumer Shutdown", Trump says.  And they are doing it because they are dedicated to helping "illegal immigrants."

Trump is positioning Democrats in the role of protecting others, not protecting voters.  Some 65% of  voters say they favor allowing DACA children to be able to stay in the US, but this is an appeal to American generosity, not American voter personal self interest.

This is dangerous for Democrats for two reasons.  It continues the meme that Trump is fighting to protect us, Americans, while Democrats are the soft hearted generous party that places the interests of foreigners above ourselves.   Moreover, it confuses and muddles the big message of Trump incompetence and chaos.  They have stepped on that story.  Worse, they have given opportunity for an alternative explanation for the chaos.

The avalanche of news coming out of the White House had a simple focus: Trump was a screwup.  The Fire and Fury revelations, the Bannon firing, the Meuller investigation, "shithole", the mental illness story,  the payoff to the porn start, etc., all together created a simple story: Trump was the bull in a china shop, and it was all about Trump.   Trump knows how to deflect.  He points the blame elsewhere.

Trump: Give me operating majorities

There is a new story of government dysfunction: the Senate partisanship created gridlock.  Maybe Trump isn't the problem after all.  Maybe Trump is the victim, not the cause.  The big Democratic message had been that we needed to elect Democrats to put a brake on Trump, thereby restoring good government..  The shutdown invites an opposite message: that Trump needs even bigger majorities so that he can finally overcome the gridlock, get things done, thus restoring good government..

Will the Trump message work?   Will Trump "win" the message war?   

Trump has a problem, and it is Trump's very nature.  Trump wants to be the center of attention, and Trump likes to make news.  Trump is positioning himself today as the victim with Schumer driving the agenda, but that isn't who Trump will be comfortable being.  Trump will stay on center stage.  He can vigorously sell any message, except one: that the story isn't all about Trump.

Protecting immigration by regulating it

Democrats need to figure out how to be pro immigrant and pro diversity.

Regulating immigration is what saves it.  Unregulated immigration creates populist revolt.   But currently Democrats are captured by their constituency groups.

Democrats' progressive base has dug in.

Democrats are in a dilemma.  The government might shut down at midnight.  Democrats are supposedly the party of good government, of "government that works to help the people" and yet Democrats are about to risk being blamed for shutting down the government.  Trump is unfairly saying it is "all the Democrats' fault."  

He may win that argument  What every American will see is "government dysfunction" and that is enough to undermine the Democratic message.  "Government doesn't work.  See, we told you so" is the Republican message.  Shutdowns and chaos make their point.

Democrats have made the fatal error of letting their strongest constituency groups dictate policy.  (Of course, people inside those groups won't see it as error at all.  It will be seen as having principles.  That is why this is a dilemma.)

Democrats' urban, educated liberal progressive constituency is saying that enforcing immigration laws is cruel per se, so they complicate Democrats' ability to take an "obey the law" position.  This constituency supports sanctuary cities and criticize enforcement that facilitates enforcing a border.  They criticize a wall, criticize deportations, criticize border patrols.  

Hispanic base has dug in.

The Hispanic constituency for Democrats is proving a disappointment.  Democrats are attempting to win them--and Trump is openly insults them--yet fully a third voted for Trump and a Zogby poll said 40% are supporting him now.  What is wrong?  Hispanic citizens live closely enough the problems of immigration that they, too, want order and enforcement.  The "leaders" represent activists, not voters.

The two countries that have not seen populist revolt against immigration have been Canada and Australia.  Both countries allow immigration, but have strict enforcement of immigration laws that focus immigration on high skilled workers, not on people who take entry level low skilled jobs that compete with the less-skilled native work force.  Countries where immigration has appeared out of control have seen the rise of populist authoritarian parties.

America elected Trump.  (This blog is fully aware that Hillary won the popular vote.  She did.  While doing so Trump carried Iowa, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Those states went for Obama twice.  Something happened.)

Click for the NY Times article

Would it offend Democratic or progressive principles to adopt a policy similar to Canada's and Australia's?   Not to my mind.  That was, in fact, the stated policy of Democrats in the recent past, including President Bill Clinton.  It was advanced in part as a way to address the concerns of the then-central Democratic constituency group, struggling native born workers of all ethnicities.  A progressive Democrat can assert that he or she is defending the protections the law gives to the weak, and a progressive Democrat can assert that regulating immigration is the price one pays for having it at all.  Regulated immigration allows immigration.  Unregulated immigration causes the backlash that elects a Trump.  These are not racist or conservative values.  These are liberal values.

What will stop Democrats from adopting immigration policies that will both protect immigration and allow their political survival?  Internal division.  Activist progressives and activist Hispanic leaders won't stand for it. Democrats who move in that direction will be called sell outs and Trump-lite.  They risk losing support on the left, and it will peel off to a third party.  In the Virginia governor's election we saw it happen when the Democratic governor "sent soft" on sanctuary cities.  

(And yet, against much worry, he won. Possibly there is a message there.)

Democrats looking at a presidential campaign are figuring out their policies and messages.  Can they afford progressive and Hispanic activist heat?   Possibly the Democrat who can win the primary will have to adopt the very policies that will cause him or her to  lose to Trump..

Democrats will either find a candidate with the communication skills to bridge the gap.  Someone needs to be able to sell immigration enforcement as an expression of progressive, compassionate inclusion, rather than a denial of it.

I am a Helen Reddy feminist.

Men and women are all in this together.

I had the temerity to advise women in a recent blog post.   I was called an "old white man talking his shit."

Click to go there.

This blog was critical of a sub-text in the MeToo announcements of the past three months.  Feminine power and equality should not express itself in after-the-fact complaints about past  bad behaviors endured by women, I wrote. It was female victimhood, finally getting payback.  

I said I liked a feminism of empowerment from the get-go.  I cited the NY Times comments by feminist author Bari Weiss who said that at least some of the time women are not helpless in the moment of their being subjected to bad behavior by men.  Speak clearly right then, she advised.   I agreed.

She wrote that women shouldn't think of themselves as helpless.  They should think of themselves as powerful.  Yes, I thought.  That's good feminism.

This was in my blog post of January 16, 2018.  Two days ago.  

I got pushback. "Easy for YOU to say, Peter," one woman said on Facebook.  

Another reader wrote saying I didn't understand women:

     "Kind of like reading a play written by a man trying to write dialogue for his women characters, stilted,clueless, out of touch, awkward, flat, emotionless, sounding just like,
     

     In other words men don’t walk in women’s shoes or know how to wear them. Nor do they have periods and deliver babies or have breasts that are desired and touched without permission. Nor do think that getting a job and holding it has something to do with their lips eye shadow or prominent bulge in their pants." 

I was not attempting to walk in Hillary's shoes nor channel the point of view of someone else nor in any way think like a woman.   My comments channel me, my own point of view as a citizen and voter.  I watched the debate.  I saw Trump being a bully.  I watched Hillary intimidated.  I felt angry with Trump, and I felt sorry for Hillary.

I did not want to feel sorry for the political leader of my country.  I wanted her to triumph, not endure.

Mine was not an "undecided vote"--I supported Hillary--but my observation at the time and on reflection was that this was a preview of future interactions between Hillary and other opponents.  I thought she looked weak in a conflict.  Senate Republicans will bully her.  Russia or China will bully her. 

Click Here: Helen Reddy, 1972. " I am woman!"

I wanted to see different, more exuberant kind of feminism--especially in a political leader.  I wanted a strong woman candidate who communicated confidence and power and joy.  

I wanted one who said that challenges made her stronger and that no one could keep her down.  One where Hillary demanded respect in the moment of conflict.  

I wanted Helen Reddy. I wanted the exuberant feminism of my youth.  It was a feminism of empowerment, not revenge for insults endured.  

Click the link.  Helen Reddy says it better than I can.  The song was not anti-men.  It was pro self-respect.  She roared.

"I am woman, hear me roar, in numbers too big to ignore. . . 

You can bend but never break me, 'cause it only serves to make me more determined to achieve my final goal.  

But I come back even stronger, not a novice any longer, 'cause you've deepened the conviction in my soul.

If I have to I can do anything.  I am strong.  I am invincible.  I am woman. I am woman. I am invincible. I am strong.  I am woman. I am invincible. I am strong. I am woman."



I share an opinion on Feminism.  Feminism does not belong solely to women.  It belongs to all of us.  We are in this together.