Ungodly masks. My body, my choice.

COVID switched the message. Now Republicans are "pro-choice."

Republicans say God isn't so much pro-life as pro-freedom. 

Love-thy-neighbor is socialist slavery.

Body autonomy had been primarily a Democratic message. There are anti-vaxxers on both left and right, but most of the energy defending body autonomy comes from Democrats. 

They are the ones protesting police searches of body cavities, the ones defending self-identification of gender, and the ones defending a woman's right to choose her own contraception, her own decision on sexual consent, and--the big one--her own right to choose abortion.

No one advocates for abortion as good per se. Abortion is defended as a sometimes-necessary thing, a serious decision to be made by someone, and the best person--the person with the right to make it--is the woman herself. Her body, her decision. 

The response by many Republicans is that her body isn't hers alone anymore. She carries another person inside her and she has to protect that other person. If she doesn't choose to do it then government will require she do so. She gave up sole autonomy when she got pregnant. Life is precious, designed in God's image.

Abortion is the great issue that combines politics and religion. It has been a very successful political marriage for bonding many religious people to the Republican Party. 

Then along comes COVID. Trump and Republicans have been the COVID-skeptic party and the populist party of mask-resistance. Democrats have been the social-control party, less reluctant than Republicans to impose restrictions on assembly and to require mask-wearing around others. Protests over masks and enforced closures have sprung up all around the country but a consistent characteristic of them is that they are associated with Trump. I have never seen mask-protesters carrying Biden signs, but Trump signs are common, nearly universal. This makes intuitive sense when considering partisan politics. Trump has shaped the GOP electorate into a populist party of COVID skepticism and minimization, and these demonstrations are political protests against the powerful elites in government who are trying to enforce restrictions. 

The tribalism makes sense, but not the justification message. After all, the "pro-life" message was God-given and Bible based. Don't masks save lives? Wouldn't mask-wearing protect the lives of innocent people? Isn't that analogous to requiring a woman to bear a pregnancy to term?

What's going on?

An incident at the Oregon legislature gives a hint. Legislative leaders, observing that the building was a workplace as well as a meeting place, established the workplace rule that people inside it needed to wear masks. Yesterday, at a one-day special session, a Republican state senator from the rural community of Myrtle Creek, Oregon took to the senate floor, quoted First Samuel about the Lord breaking into pieces the enemies of his chosen people:

"You have joined Kate Brown in her campaign of intimidation against the people and children of God. The appointed king of kings is Jesus Christ, and this is His kingdom, not ours. The days of your unchecked assault against our freedoms and his children is over. We are being forced to wear these masks today and that your false authority will be enforced against any of us who don't submit to you."

And then, ceremoniously, he removed his mask. 

The tribal religion of the GOP is not Social Gospel love-thy-neighbor, care-for-the-sick Protestantism. It is New Testament deliverance through individual salvation. One is saved personally, by becoming born again. It is not a social act. It is connection between a self-reliant individual and God. It gets inspiration from Old Testament stories of Jewish liberation from slavery and religious oppression. In this construction Oregon's governor--and other governments imposing social distancing and mask requirements--are analogous to Egyptian or Babylonian tyrants, imposing their will on an enslaved people.

The "choice" facing a Republican mask-skeptic is not a love-thy-neighbor decision. It is a decision whether or not to accept slavery. Let neighbors choose for themselves whether to accept the mask mark of servitude. It is not a decision about neighbors. It's about you.

The Old Testament theme of religion in oppression is circulating in Republican social and broadcast media. Fox & Friends this morning had a line-up of stories about freedom and the oppression of religion and family, just trying to meet in groups of their choice. The Fox website headlined Alabama's newly-elected House Representative Jerry Carl who "wants Americans back at work, in churches," and another featuring Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson who "warned of the motives of 'ungodly legislators.'"

There may be a long-term effect on the abortion debate. Republican officeholders have gotten accustomed to justifying possible injury to others based on something fundamental, personal autonomy and liberation. My body belongs to me and me alone. I can choose to care about others, but you cannot make me.

The demographics of COVID mean that hospitalizations and deaths target the most vulnerable--in this case the elderly. Republicans have crossed two bridges: Body autonomy trumps the victimhood of the vulnerable. It may be hard to go back.

Business Meal Deduction is Back!

The "three-martini-lunch" loophole was unpopular. It's coming back.

Welcome to Article One government.

The White House secured a provision President Trump has been advocating throughout his presidency. It re-establishes the 100% tax deduction for a category called "business meals." The current law allows only 50% of those costs to be deducted from one's income for tax purposes.

The business meal and entertainment deduction provisions are primarily of use by people who own or manage businesses. For decades it had been a way to enjoy luxuries on the taxpayer's dime. Tax laws had allowed business people to join clients in meal-and-entertainment events and deduct the whole thing as a business expense. Examples would be theater-and-dinner for yourself, client, and spouses, too. Or a weekend trip to the Superbowl and day in the corporate suite. Or, more simply, it paid for a long lunch or dinner at an expensive restaurant, drinking martinis or sampling fancy wines. Prosperous people enjoyed personal luxuries, made deductible as a wink-wink business expense. 

Voters revolted. That provision--loophole--got closed. The "entertainment" provision was no longer deductible as a business expense. Meals with clients became only 50% deductible. This reduced business for high-end restaurants whose business models were built around high margin expense-account customers. 

Trump cared about restoring 100% deductibility. His businesses--country clubs and their restaurants--are archetype examples of expense-account restaurants. He understood the effect of 50% vs. 100% deductibility. This was the basis of a deal. Trump wanted something. Democrats wanted something.

Democrats set the stage. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, the Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee complained, "Republicans are nickel-and-diming benefits for jobless workers, while at the same time pushing for tax breaks for three-martini power lunches. It’s unconscionable."

In a press release Wyden said:

"There are upwards of 150,000 COVID cases per day and miles-long lines at food banks nationwide, and Leader McConnell wants to do tax breaks for three-martini lunches and broad legal immunity for his corporate donors. It’s insulting to the American people. McConnell’s disastrous proposal doesn’t add any additional weeks of benefits for Americans who are experiencing long-term unemployment, or reinstate any weekly boost to benefits."

Tough language. "Unconscionable." "Insulting."

And now Senate Democrats agree to its addition to the stimulus bill. 

This isn't hypocrisy. Wyden and Democrats don't support the provision, even though they are going to vote for it. It is give and take. It is the hard, contradictory, messy business of getting legislation passed. Trump had earlier hinted that he would veto the proposed stimulus bill. Now he won't. 

Democrats wanted increases to the earned income tax credit for the working poor. The 100% meal deduction was the price. Democrats can console themselves. Expense-account customers are known to be reliably good tippers. Some of this money will trickle down to employees.  

Joe Biden won't be the center of attention in the way that Donald Trump was. That will be a problem for the American political entertainment industry. It isn't a problem for American government; it is a solution. The Constitution was designed to create uneasy consensus among the various interests, regions, and people of a diverse country, and legislatures accomplish that in their slow, messy way, win-some-lose-some manner.

The American public may demand star-centered Article Two government. That is the political exhibition that cable news, talk radio, and the entire political-entertainment industry offer. Article One government is an ensemble show.

The Rolling Stones understood what is happening:

     "You can't always get what you want, 

      You can't always get what you want.

      But if you try sometime, you just might find, 

     You get what you need."

Meanwhile, government is happening

"Landslide victory" "Swindled" "FAKE NEWS"

     Donald Trump.

 "Republicans, Democrats reach compromise over COVID-19 relief package"

        Headline, NBC News

The world is moving on, but Trump is still the bright, shiny light. 

There are more headlines like the one at NBC. Fox News headlines "Toomey, Schumer reportedly reach agreement on COVID". The Washington Post headlines "Lawmakers reach compromise on GOP proposal to rein in Fed". The NY Post headlines, "Congress reaching deal on $900 billion COVID-19 relief package".

Meanwhile, in other news President Elect Joe Biden is filling out his cabinet nominations with people who seem competent and mildly surprising in a pleasant but unexceptional way. A Native American woman, an attorney and Member of Congress, is nominated for Secretary of the Interior; this sounds about right and high time, since that department manages the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Janet Yellen is nominated for Secretary of the Treasury; as a former Fed Chair, it makes sense. Pete Buttigieg as Transportation Secretary doesn't surprise; he's a policy wonk and smart as a whip; let's see what he can do.

Meanwhile, too, Biden is saying sensible things on the foreign policy front. We have just learned that there was a massive hack of the federal government's computer systems, endangering national security agencies, our power grid, our technology companies. CNN's Fareed Zakaria's show this morning, as I write, displays a headline calling it "Cyber Pearl Harbor."

Biden said it was an outrage, that we would harden our defenses, work with our allies, and form a coordinated response that would force Russia to pay a significant price. That sounds reasonable under the circumstances.

Meanwhile, too, Biden is speaking out about COVID, observing the rising case load and death count, urging public support for the vaccine, getting the vaccination on TV, planning a public health response involving masks and social distancing, encouraging a Congressional deal to get money into the hands of people most financially hurt by the COVID shutdowns. There is nothing particularly surprising about what he is saying and doing on COVID. Leaders in Canada, the UK, the Euro-zone are doing and saying similar things.

Biden's work seems competent. Reasonable. Unexceptional. Donald Trump was right. Joe Biden is "Sleepy Joe." Where's the excitement in simply doing a job the way intelligent, competent, experienced people do things?

Biden is bringing Americans off the sugar-high of Trump, and we are going cold turkey. Biden is the C-SPAN of the TV dial, TV worth watching but nowhere near as interesting as a man who says crazy things that could get us all killed. Trump is not fading quietly away. He is re-tweeting people who are calling for a revolution.

Trump continues to say that the election was stolen, that the Democrats have perpetrated a giant conspiracy to reverse his tremendous landslide win. His White House is making news for leaking that aides are trying to discourage him from invoking the Insurrection Act, declaring marshal law, and using the military to patrol the streets while a new election is held in six states. 

Notwithstanding his own Secretary of State going rogue and publicly condemning Russian hacking, Trump is calling the reports "FAKE NEWS" in all caps, saying the attack was not all that serious and it was probably the Chinese.

Plus, there are reports of upcoming pardons of his family and maybe himself.

American government is beginning to settle back down into mere everyday competence, passing a law that will help Americans get by during a pandemic crisis. There is a difference between competent government and Jerry Springer TV couples shouting over DNA tests. Democracy involves battles over provisions in bills. Should the Fed have authority to buy corporate bonds in a crisis? Should employers have limited immunity from lawsuits if employees get COVID? Is $300/week in enhanced unemployment for people laid off from COVID enough, or too much? This is the stuff of legislation, carried out by Article One decision-makers.

Trump is Article Two. The executive, a focal point, the guy who can act decisively and say whatever he wants on TV, and people will watch. 

Real government is slow. We can already see that Biden intends to be president, not showman. His ratings will be way down compared to Trump. The hard work of government is slow, muddled, and boring when compare with a president shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. 

Trump is no longer center stage, but he has not yet stopped trying to be the center of attention. It is time for Trump addicts to get clean.

A close look at voter fraud

What does voter fraud look like?  

It looks like one-off screw-ups by careless people. 

The president, and tens of millions of Republican voters, believe that the 2020 election experienced massive voter fraud. 

Some of this fraud allegedly was software designed to switch votes for president--but not other offices--in multiple jurisdictions. No evidence of this has been found by people highly skilled and motivated to find it.

Coordinated conspiracies involving thousands of people at the federal, state, county, and precinct level, all working together--in total secret--is implausible on its face. But individual election crime is not, because it happens.

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/#choose-a-state

Let's examine actual cases.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative research and advocacy group, publishes a list of voter fraud cases and prosecutions. With that lead, one easily finds contemporaneous news stories about local and state prosecutions, along with the back story and ultimate disposition for those cases and others.

Oregon, which has universal vote-by-mail, the system most susceptible to fraud according to President Trump, has had a Republican Secretary of State for the past four years. The Heritage Foundation site lists five prosecutions in Oregon. The first prosecution listed, for Betty Clark, led to a newspaper story in the Oregonian newspaper that listed her prosecution and several others. Betty Clark, age 76, lived briefly in Vancouver, Washington to care for her elderly father. She registered to vote there and received a ballot in the mail. She voted in Washington. After her father died she and her husband moved back to her home in Baker City, Oregon where a ballot from her previous Oregon registration was waiting. She voted again, a crime. A written record of both votes was readily available to prosecutors.

On her behalf, her attorney claimed she had completely forgotten having voted once already. "It was an innocent mistake. There was no criminal intent whatsoever," he argued. She was originally charged with a felony, but in a plea bargain the charge was lowered to "voting when not entitled."

Another case described in contemporaneous news reports was a college student from Medford attending school in Colorado, where she registered and voted by mail.  Her parents mailed her the Oregon ballot sent to her Medford address, which she also cast. She claimed no memory of having voted twice. She escaped prison, but was fined $250.

Marjory Gale of Hood River cast by mail both her own ballot and the ballot of her daughter, who was away at college. This demonstrated criminal intent. She was eligible for a prison sentence, but also escaped with a fine, here of $750.

Mail ballots leave documentary evidence. In Oregon there were ten convictions for improper voting behavior in the 2016 election, with 14 others being investigated, out of the 1.8 million total votes, according to the Secretary of State's office.  Click: Oregonlive.com

A pattern emerges. In an allegedly highly vulnerable all-mail-balloting state, in the contentious 2016 general election, voter fraud cases happened, extremely rarely. They were random and un-coordinated. 

Swing state Wisconsin had a Republican governor and secretary of state. Wisconsin experienced contentious races involving the recall of Scott Walker, the embattled Republican governor. The Heritage Foundation listed 14 cases in Wisconsin through the multiple elections back to 2014. The most recent case involved Peggy West, whose crime was not voter-fraud at all. She falsified signatures on her petition for candidacy for a local office. 

The prior person on the Heritage Foundation list, Troy Schiller, voted twice, once each in two nearby towns, a crime with clear intent. The local news story quotes him saying he "made a careless decision" because he was "too much caught up in talk radio." His crime was punishable by three-and-a-half years in prison. The local prosecutor asked for only 90 days in jail, saying the felony conviction on his record would haunt him for life, a serious punishment itself. Click: Grand Rapids Tribune  

Shiller's story links to another one, in which Jan Martinez, who was on probation for an earlier crime of driving under the influence, registered to vote saying she was not then currently serving a sentence. Wisconsin law defines her probation status as serving a sentence, making her ineligible to vote, something Martinez said she misunderstood. Her voter registration was a felony, eligible for three-and-a-half years in prison. 

Rod Monroe

Robert Monroe, a Milwaukee area health insurance executive, arranged to vote 12 times in five different elections in 2011 and 2012, using the name of his son, and his son's girlfriend, and his own. He is a strong partisan in support of Scott Walker. The Monroe case became rich fodder. Wisconsin Democrats used the incident to document that Republicans cheat on elections. Republicans used the incident to say it showed we needed stronger voter-ID laws. He claimed he voted multiple times due to a childhood trauma, including abuse by Catholic priests resulting in a "fugue state" so he had no memory of the multiple votes. He was sentenced to a year of incarceration. 

Wisconsin Public Radio recently reported that in the previous four and a half years, going back to the 2016 elections, municipal clerks across the state referred a total of 238 possible election fraud cases that required further investigation.  Click  

In the 2018 mid-term election the Wisconsin Election Commission, the state agency responsible for investigating potential election fraud, found just 24 cases amid the 2.7 million votes cast. The Wisconsin State Journal reported:

     "The commission documented 24 cases of suspected fraud, such as people reportedly voting twice in an election, felons casting ballots, a voter no longer residing at his or her registered address or, in one case, a non-citizen reportedly voting. Other cases involved voters on an ineligible list trying to cast a ballot as well as a deceased voter’s absentee ballot being counted." Click

Included in those incidents of fraud were votes by ineligible 17-year-olds due to confusion caused by neighboring-state Illinois' rule that allows 17-year-olds to vote in congressional and presidential primaries if they are 18 by the time of the general election. That is not the law in Wisconsin, but in some Wisconsin counties the 17-turning-18 youth were wrongly allowed to vote by the county clerks. Those votes were illegal. No teenagers were prosecuted. 

In Wisconsin voter fraud convictions put people at risk of a $10,000 fine and three and a half years in prison.

Summary: In Wisconsin as in Oregon, a pattern emerges. Voter frauds—as actually experienced--are the mistakes and misbehavior of rare individuals, acting alone, foolishly or maliciously. It looks more like sloppiness and petty larceny than it does like a coup d'etat. The rules regarding voter eligibility are complex, and sometimes people run afoul of them. State and local officials are vigilant for it. Voters and votes are tracked and they leave documentation of their crimes. People get prosecuted. 

It has serious consequences for the criminal. It doesn't have a material effect on the election. 

"Are we there yet?" No.

The end is near. That is the danger zone.

Michael Shear, M.D.

A psychology of impatience and impending relief is showing up all over America.

There are still angry mask-refusers getting videotaped making a disturbance at stores, but the bigger story is a revolt by restaurant owners and people frustrated at not seeing family for the holidays.

Fox News and other conservative news sources celebrate protesters as victims and heroes, the little guy rebelling against the cold, merciless job-killing Democratic (and sometimes Republican) officeholders. It fits a convenient narrative: Government squashing the forgotten little guy. The people getting sick and dying are offstage and out of mind in this narrative; the story is about big government versus freedom. Of course, we cheer for the scrappy underdog.

There is another bit of psychology at work: We see the finish line. Every passenger on a long flight has experienced it, that excruciating impatience when the plane has landed and it is sitting on the tarmac waiting for a gate slot. We can see the gate! So close! Those moments of useless waiting are the most frustrating.

Today, physician Michael Shear warns us that the journey is not over. Michael Shear, M.D. is an emergency room physician in the Boston area. Like several other Guest Post authors, he is a college classmate. He warns that the benefits of the vaccine are as yet unclear. The side effects are unclear. Whether it is fully effective among vulnerable populations is unclear. Whether it stays effective is unclear.

Protests. Open up now.

We should not assume the best, but even if the best case proves true, most of us won't get the vaccine for a while. We aren't inside the gate until then--and maybe not even then. We are tempted to start being careless and confident now. Not yet, he writes. Keep staying safe. We aren't there yet.

Keep your seatbelt on.

Guest Post by Michael Shear, M.D.

Reflections  on the new COVID vaccines

My daughter and I are often asked if we intend to get one of the new COVID vaccines. We say that, if offered it, we would not be among the first in line. My wife reminds me to be careful how we say this or people will mistake us for anti-vaxxers, which of course we are not. So here is a more complete response that we drafted together.

At the moment, the two vaccines being rolled out seem promising. I’m glad Tony Fauci thinks so! In limited short-term studies they appear to be effective in mitigating illness, and few serious adverse reactions have been reported, though headache, fever, and fatigue are apparently common. However, caveats are warranted.

The mechanism by which the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines induce an immune response is novel and has no track record in humans. These vaccines put bits of messenger RNA into the recipient’s cells. These mRNAs are the instructions that cause ribosomes, the protein-making machinery of the cells, to manufacture proteins similar to those made by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. These proteins are then made available to the recipient’s immune cells, which recognize them as foreign constituents and mount an immune response against them. 

Most conventional vaccines inject the viral protein itself into the vaccine recipient, or sometimes weakened forms of the actual virus, to elicit an immune response. This is more like the process of natural infection. Using the vaccinated person’s own cells to make the foreign protein is what is new. 

One of the major advantages of this process is speed. It is much faster to manufacture the mRNA than it is to raise and harvest the virus, which requires chicken eggs (real eggs, lots of eggs!). That is why we have these new vaccines ready for trial now. Vetting them, on the other hand, still takes time. 

Here are some of the unanswered questions about these vaccines: Which cells will be recruited to make these proteins and will they be damaged in the process? How much illness will be associated with the immune response to these proteins? If a vaccinated person is later exposed to SARS-CoV-2, a renewed immune response will be elicited. If infection still occurs, the hope is that it will be less severe. But since the immune response itself seems to be responsible for some of the more severe effects of SARS-CoV-2, will infection after vaccination sometimes be worse; or will vaccination reactions be more severe if a person has already had COVID?

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines seem to have dramatically reduced the incidence of symptomatic infection in vaccine recipients. But we don't know if the recipients may still have been infected and thus be potentially contagious to others. And we don’t know how long protection may last.

Moreover, the efficacy or safety of the vaccines may vary within demographic subgroups such as older people, children, pregnant women, and the immunocompromised. Influenza vaccines, for example, are disappointingly less effective in older people. Will COVID vaccines be the same? 

The cold chain and the expertise required to distribute and administer the Pfizer vaccine in particular is daunting. How will you know if the injection that you get has been handled properly and is still effective? 

And what delayed adverse effects of vaccination may appear months or years later? 

What we ultimately want is sufficient immunity in communities so that the virus can no longer find susceptible hosts and can no longer spread. Then the pandemic will be over. Part of this immunity may come from natural infection. Effective vaccination holds out the promise of conferring similar immunity without the suffering and death caused by actual infection. Unfortunately, we don’t yet know if these vaccines provide that sort of immunity.

One hopes that these uncertainties will become clearer in the coming months. A registry of early vaccine recipients would be enormously helpful in following their outcomes, especially in assessing the relative merits of the multiple vaccines that will most likely become available. So far we have not heard of such a registry.

We know that wearing masks in public and “not sharing air with others”, as the epidemiologist Michael Osterholm puts it, are effective measures in protecting us and others from contracting COVID, and in slowing the spread of infection. But this is not where we want to end up. Masking and distancing have themselves caused incalculable hardship and pain. The goal of vaccination is to liberate us from this. 

Nevertheless, the enormous logistical challenges of producing, distributing, and vaccinating enough people to slow the pandemic means that the public health benefits (as opposed to the person protection afforded) are at least several months away, so masking and distancing will continue to be important public health measures for the foreseeable future.

Since vaccination will probably not add much personal protection to masking and distancing, some of us might choose to forgo vaccination until the uncertainties become clearer with time and experience. Others, particularly those who cannot distance, or for whom COVID infection might be catastrophic, may prefer to accept a greater vaccine risk and be vaccinated as soon as it is available to them. In any case, for those who prefer to be more cautious, there should be ample time to decide, without jeopardizing the general welfare.

Achieving herd immunity will require both a very effective vaccine and a high level of acceptance of the vaccine by the community. Acceptance will depend on the community’s trust. That should recommend transparency in the process, candor about the facts, and not over promising or over selling. When people see that vaccination is effective and safe, they will accept it.

Meanwhile, the less virus that’s circulating, the more effective vaccination will be in slowing its spread. So for the time being keep wearing your mask, whether you’ve been vaccinated or not, and make prudent social decisions.

The game changer is charisma

     "The determinate variable is the inspirational, aspirational leader who forges an emotional connection and gains loyalty."

            Tony Farrell, brand expert

Americans don't use a checklist to choose their leaders. 

Napoleon, crossing the Alps

Voters look for someone who captures their attention and connects emotionally. This means America is not stuck in its current shape of political trench warfare, red and blue, the same battleground issues and states. A bold leader will emerge and cut through the current Gordian Knot of gridlock. He or she will engage Americans in new issues and fight new battles, with political coalitions changed, new friends of convenience, new opponents, all of it put into form by the persuasive power of the new leader who steps up and out. 

It doesn't mean things will get better; it does mean something new. It is the political version of "creative destruction" that happens in business, as new products replace old ones. We just watched Trump re-formulate the GOP. We watched Sanders try to re-formulate the Democrats.  Twenty years ago West Virginia was bright blue, now it is bright red. California used to be a Republican stronghold; now the opposite. History hasn't ended. Change will keep happening.

The engine of that change is leadership. That is the message inside today's Guest Post by Tony Farrell, who had a long successful career marketing for The Nature Company, The Gap, Sharper Image, and then the hardest arena of marketing, infomercials. He was a college classmate, and he describes his own political journey. He wasn't locked into a political party. He wanted political and policy competence, wherever he found it.

Farrell says Trump needs to be understood as a brilliant performer, whose communication skills and savvy attracted and persuaded a big audience. He had his own form of charisma, the magic sauce that elevated Obama, and before him Reagan, and before him JFK, and on back. 

The hope--and danger--embedded in that insight is that the leader who emerges will appeal to different elements of the American psyche, and this may lead us to a better, safer, more prosperous future--or off a cliff. Either way, the tool that makes that leadership possible is the force of personality. 

Guest Post by Tony Farrell

Farrell

Whither the Republican Party? For the longest time, I was a Republican. LBJ's war and the lying was damaging; Nixon's deft management skills furthered me along into the Republican nest (nearly undone by Watergate). No chance of turning Democrat while enduring Carter and his wretched leadership, which nudged me toward Reagan. Democrats represented the dismal Montreal Olympics; Carter the boneheaded boycott of the Moscow Olympics after our glorious Miracle On Ice; then, Peter Ueberroth helmed the astoundingly successful L.A. Olympics; and there I was: A comfortable Republican with imperfect role models. To me, Republicanism meant competent management with a default deferral to the marketplace to address problems; not to exclude governance and regulation, but simply to see if private sector efforts could succeed first. If not, it's on to creating the EPA--as we know, by Nixon.

But now, in a reversal of Strom Thurmond (who said the Democratic Party, pushing civil rights, left HIM), the Republican Party--now Trump's but before as well--left ME. I did not change positions (too much) as I aged but the GOP's regressive, even primitive approach to social issues became unsupportable.

Farrell, with daughter Morgen, wearing Stanford gear

Now, as a retired professional marketer, brander, communicator, one must realize how singularly skilled Trump was: Brilliant like Hitler, in terms of astute reading of a select crowd.; fortunately for us, Trump had nowhere near the intelligence nor ambition of a Hitler. Trump's utter lack of talent for governing saved us from his destructive ignorance and amorality.  Once gone from office, I think Trump's gone from government. First, he's old; second, now he's a loser; third, mainstream media won't follow him like before; fourth, he's in dire legal straits, which could even drive him out of the country. Just like right now, in the wake of the election, it's golf and a growing irrelevance.

Trump's appeal was never based on policy nor ideology. Your mass of voters is not driven by ideas, that's for sure. Single issues? Sure. But in an election, one-on-one battles, winners prevail with charisma, communication skills and charm. Pretty much always been the case; more obvious now because of how media work. Obama out-charmed McCain and Romney; Hillary obviously could not out-charm anyone. 

I believe the Republicans are not permanently damaged. The determinate variable is the inspirational, aspirational leader who forges an emotional connection and gains loyalty. I believe the vast majority of Americans agree on the vast majority of things. Either party can win the White House, depending on the candidate--just like California and Massachusetts vote in a Republican governor every once in a while. (In California, we barely have a Republican party; here, Kamala Harris plays the role of a Republican!) The country can operate the same way.

My main point is that Trump was a singular phenomenon, soon to exit the stage; his brand upended from unstoppable winner to tiresome loser. But a good, charismatic, charming candidate from either party can win in 2024. Right now, I'm betting on Gavin Newsom to edge out Kamala Harris for the Democratic nomination. I hesitate to guess on the Republican side, but Tom Cotton gets my bet. He, unfortunately, could be more dangerous than Trump, as he's a smart guy, nearly civil, and a veteran. Keep your wary eye on him.

Keeping the Republic, maybe.

Biden won Michigan by 150,000 votes. The Republican Speaker of the House in Michigan refused Trump's request that he send Republican electors in place of Democratic ones.

Michigan House Speaker

He was under a lot of pressure. He still is.

     "I can't fathom risking our norms, traditions and institutions to pass a resolution retroactively changing the electors for Trump."                       

                  Lee Chatfield

Lee Chatfield, the young Speaker of the House in Michigan, has a political future to protect. He wrote a two-page statement explaining why he defied Trump, much of it reiterating what a faithful Republican he is. He voted for Trump, he said. He worked for Trump. He desperately wanted Trump to win. He thinks Trump did a great job. He said repeatedly in the statement that there were questions and complaints about the voting in Michigan--but, alas!--no fraud or systematic failure had been proven in the courts, and--again alas!--a majority of Michigan voters supported Biden, the wrong guy.

The statement is curious for what it did not say. It did not challenge Trump's statements about national and international conspiracies and widespread systematic voter fraud. Chatfield did not reference Trump's own watchdog for the election, Christopher Krebs, nor Attorney General Bill Barr, both of whom said they looked for and did not find election failure. Chatfield's statement did not advance the value of bi-partisanship and political cooperation. It did not explain his decision by praising the value of self-rule, the sanctity of the vote, or cite the American civic religion of "We the People" and governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. He didn't give a civics-lesson defense of democracy, nor did he try to explain why his decision was factually correct or justified on the merits.

It came down to the fact that Michigan law said that the legislature had already established that the candidate with the most votes would be awarded the electoral votes, and that he had to do exactly what he was required to do, let Democratic electors be chosen, or it would cause state and national chaos.

     "I fear we'd lose our country forever. This truly would bring mutually assured destruction for every future election in regards to the Electoral College. And I can't stand for that. I won’t.  

     I know this isn’t the outcome some want. It isn’t what I want, either. But we have a republic if we can keep it. And I intend to.”

This was a good deed for the Republic, done under pressure. He deserves credit. President Trump brought him to the White House to impress and persuade him. Fellow Republicans joined in, begging him to over-rule the voters. 

Trump is pressing an argument that is a game-changer in American elections and government. Trump argues that the election can and should be ignored, and that Republican state legislatures should take charge and cast their preference--for Trump--rather than Biden. Trump, and an apparent majority of Republican voters, are unapologetically urging the popular vote be over-ruled, at least if there are questions about the vote, even when those questions and accusations have been found meritless by election officials and the courts.  

Michigan leaders brought to White House

Chatfield says he shares that view. This makes Chatfield an odd, complex hero of democratic government. He defended the law that protected Michigan voters', but says he wishes he could over-rule them. 

     "I personally believe that the Legislature could pass a resolution changing the manner in which electors are appointed, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that once created, the right to a popular vote for President becomes fundamental, and the exercise of a fundamental right can’t be infringed retroactively for due process reasons. Maybe they were right. Maybe they were wrong. But that was the Court’s decision. And it still stands today."

This position makes sense if one considers that the real test for the strength of American democracy comes in two stages, not one. This election stood, notwithstanding Trump's effort to void it, but not because losing partisan voters questioned Trump's accusations of fraud.  Republican gate keepers including Krebs, Barr, and Republican election officials, all vouched for the election, but they did not change minds. There is not yet consent from Republican partisans that Biden legitimately won.

Stage One. Trump was stopped because dozens of election decision-makers in the relevant counties and states did their jobs honorably; people like Lee Chatfield. Democracy held because election officials and judges refused to bow to pressure. Trump is overt about his expectation, complaining openly about the failure of Georgia's Secretary of State and Governor to have managed the election to get him the victory he deserved. The GOP U.S. senate candidates in Georgia agree; the Georgia Secretary of State should resign, not because the election was dishonest, but because the election result was unwelcome and he didn't arrange to have the result be different. 

This demand by Trump has been placed out there in the public square, neither fully accepted nor rejected by the American people.

Stage Two is whether these officeholders who resisted Trump are immediately replaced in the next Republican primary election. Do Georgia's Governor and Secretary of State have a future in politics? Does Lee Chatfield? Chatfield appears to be scrambling to avoid being yet another person destroyed politically in Republican primaries. I am one of you, Chatfield is saying. I am loyal to the team! I am even with you on the really hard stuff, like over-ruling voters. Don't you see? My hands are tied. Really.

American democracy will be in surer position if by the time of the Stage Two elections in 2022, Republican voters have grown to respect people who stood up and defended an election, not a result. Possibly GOP voters will decide that people like Chatfield were the "real" Republicans. It is possible they will be respected and rewarded.

It is also possible they won't be. Many Republican voters have decided that self- government is simply too risky. Too many of the wrong people vote the wrong way. The rising ethno-nationalism in Republican thinking brings fears of a blue wave of dangerous "others," concentrated in "Democrat cities," where rampant conspiracies of theft take place. Government is safer in the hands of Republicans, and the republic must be saved by keeping it away from dangerous popular majorities.

Is that what Republicans believe? Or should elections be respected? We will find out in 2022.

I would have preferred Chatfield defend his decision by saying that the Michigan law directing that voters choose their president is a good one--protecting both order and the right of the people for self-government. He didn't. Still, I hope he survives the Republican primary in 2022. My opinion doesn't matter. I don't vote in that primary. He needs to satisfy the people who do.

                                                       ---   ---   ---

Here is a sample of what he faces on Twitter and Facebook. No good deed goes unpunished.

And here is the full text of Chatfield's statement: