Two Races in the Republican Primary

When I look at the Republican primary poll aggregators, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the state of the race right now is that there are two contests beginning to shape up.

The first is the one between the current front-runners - Trump and Carson. Since both of them are blowing up all of our previous assumptions about presidential campaigns, it is impossible to know how all that will turn out.

But another battle is beginning to shape up between Rubio and Cruz. A sure sign of that came when Cruz, who regularly excoriates Republican Congressional leadership but has kept his powder dry in going after his competitors for the nomination, went after Rubio recently.

“As I look at the race, historically, there have been two major lanes in the Republican primary. There's been a moderate lane and a conservative lane,” Cruz told CNN on Thursday. “Marco is certainly formidable in that lane. I think the Jeb [Bush] campaign seems to view Marco as his biggest threat in the moderate lane.”...

“Every day, more and more conservatives are uniting behind our campaign,” Cruz said. “And once it gets down to a head-to-head contest between a conservative and a moderate, I think the conservative wins.”

We all know that in the Republican Party these days, calling someone a "moderate" is not much different than calling them an "Obama-lover." It is the kiss of death. But the idea that Rubio is a moderate to Cruz's conservatism is a joke.

...Rubio has scored a rating of 90 percent from Heritage Action, 93 percent from the Club For Growth, and 98 percent from the American Conservative Union, three conservative groups that grade Republicans on purity. By contrast, Cruz's ratings are 98 percent, 96 percent, and 100 percent—not a huge difference. Both are far above the GOP average and rank among the most ideologically conservative senators.

On the other hand, it's probably not an accident that this report questioning the story Rafael Cruz (Ted's father) tells about fighting Castro suddenly appeared in the press yesterday. Things are definitely heating up.

I have already outlined why I think it is important to keep an eye on Cruz - if not for his ability to actually win the nomination, then the possibility of him creating havoc at the Republican Convention next summer with a stash of delegates. Jamelle Bouie takes it even farther in laying out the possibilities. The one thing he adds is an interesting parallel to the 2008 Democratic primary - with Rubio being Clinton and Cruz being Obama.

Obama’s Super Tuesday success was a function of organizing. While Team Clinton focused on polls and television ads, the Obama campaign made heavy investment in grassroots and local organizing in small (but critical) states. Months of finding supporters, recruiting volunteers, and building infrastructure paid off on election night, where Obama could maximize his gains in favorable (or otherwise neglected) territory and minimize his losses in the large states that backed Clinton. 

What a candidate needs to pull that kind of thing off is cash. Cruz has more on hand right now than any other candidate. And what has he done with his money so far?

The Cruz campaign has invested much of its resources into “high-tech fundraising efforts” and building local organizations in states like Alabama, Georgia, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

In his battle with Cruz, Rubio is probably going to be able to call on all the forces of the Republican establishment - who detest Cruz. That sets up the possibility for another epic clash between the establishment and the insurgents.

Coping With the Loss of the Dream

Paul Krugman is a gifted economist. Along with Jared Bernstein, he is my go-to guy when it comes to deciphering news related to that field. Often, when Krugman veers into other arenas (i.e., politics), my suggestion is that he stick to his day job. That's why I was surprised today that, when he entered into my own wheelhouse (understanding human behavior), he brought some powerful insights.

Krugman addressed the big news we're hearing a lot about lately related to the increased mortality rate among middle-aged white Americans. First of all, he notes the even more striking news:

Basically, white Americans are, in increasing numbers, killing themselves, directly or indirectly. Suicide is way up, and so are deaths from drug poisoning and the chronic liver disease that excessive drinking can cause.

Like so many of us, he wonders why this is happening. Krugman dispenses with the answer conservatives propose about it being related a culture of dependency and despair created by liberal social policies. If that were the case, we'd be seeing much worse in countries like Sweden.

But what about the answer we hear from liberals - that it's all about income inequality and the economic pressures faced by the middle class? In a fascinating dismissal, Krugman points out that Hispanic Americans are much poorer than whites, and yet have a lower mortality rate.

Here's the kicker:

In a recent interview Mr. Deaton suggested that middle-aged whites have “lost the narrative of their lives.” That is, their economic setbacks have hit hard because they expected better. Or to put it a bit differently, we’re looking at people who were raised to believe in the American Dream, and are coping badly with its failure to come true.

That reminded me of something Tim Wise wrote years ago.

Invariably, it seems it is we in the white community who obsess over our own efficacy, and fail to recognize the value of commitment, irrespective of outcome. People of color, on the other hand, never having been burdened with the illusion that the world was their oyster, and thus, anything they touched could and should turn to gold, usually take a more reserved, and I would say healthier view of the world and the prospects for change. They know (as indeed they must) that the thing being fought for, at least if it’s worth having, will require more than a part-time effort, and will not likely come in the lifetimes of those presently fighting for it.

None of that is meant to disparage white people or suggest that people of color are all heroes. It simply means that we have different stories of America that influence what we've come to expect. If, instead of fearing the changes that are taking place in our country, we could look to each other as sources of strength and wisdom, we might be able work together to challenge the forces that affect us all.

The Impact of Public Policy on Regional Inequality

In his cover story for the current issue of the Washington Monthly titled Boom and Bust, Phillip Longman makes the point that when we talk about income inequality, the discussion is often about individuals and classes. We rarely scrutinize how it is also a geographic issue rooted in regional inequality.

Longman chronicles the decline in regional inequality in this country starting in the 1860's. The efforts towards that equalization were not simply about creating a "New South" after the devastation of the Civil War. They also had an effect on the Midwest and Mountain West. But beginning in the 1970's and 1980's, that trend was reversed and regional inequality began to grow. What accounts for that?

Many people point to the decline of the "rust belt" as the cause. Others point to the fact that the creative class is attracted to living in areas with upscale amenities. Finally, some suggest that these changes are due to the fact that innovative people want to be around other innovators.

What Longman zeros in on though, is the impact that public policy has had in creating regional inequality. Going all the way back to our founding documents, we see a concern about regional dominance being mitigated by the design of representation in the Senate, which was an attempt to balance the power of densely and sparsely populated states.

But spanning the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 through President Woodrow Wilson establishment of the regionally-based banks of the Federal Reserve and FDR's investment in regional infrastructure projects, we see a long history of public policy tied to efforts to ensure that the benefits of commerce were spread equally across the country.

An example that specifically highlights the changes we've seen in this type of public policy more recently is a series of legislation from the late 1930's starting with the Robinson-Patman Act. Here's how Longman describes them:

Sometimes referred to by its supporters as “the Magna Carta of Small Business,” Robinson-Patman prevented the formation of chain stores even remotely approaching the scale and power of today’s Walmart or Amazon by cracking down on such practices as selling items below cost (a practice known as “loss leading”). The legislation also prohibited the chains from using their market power to extract price concessions from their suppliers. Similarly, the Miller-Tydings Act, enacted by Congress in 1937, put a floor on retail discounting, thereby ensuring that large chains headquartered in distant cities didn’t come to dominate the economies of local communities. This did not prevent innovation in retailing, such as the emergence of brand-spanking-new supermarkets to replace small-scale butcher shops and green grocers. But into the 1960s, these and similar laws would ensure that no supermarket chain would control more than about 7 percent of any local market.

All of those efforts started to crumble in the late 1970's beginning with policies of the Carter administration to combat runaway inflation. But it was President Reagan who severed the connection between antitrust efforts and their previous focus on regional economic development.

Another turning point came in 1982, when President Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department adopted new guidelines for antitrust prosecutions. Largely informed by the work of Robert Bork, then a Yale law professor who had served as solicitor general under Richard Nixon, these guidelines explicitly ruled out any consideration of social cost, regional equity, or local control in deciding whether to block mergers or prosecute monopolies. Instead, the only criteria that could trigger antitrust enforcement would be either proven instances of collusion or combinations that would immediately bring higher prices to consumers.

A lot of the talk about income inequality today tends to focus not only on individuals and classes, but on the tremendous wealth that is currently being accumulated by the financial industry. In this article, Longman chronicles how that happened. But what he adds to the conversation is a broadening of the discussion beyond that to include how our public policies have abandoned a rich tradition of protecting small businesses and local communities in areas such as transportation, technology, and retail. In doing so, he provides us with a much clearer look at our past that could inform the possibilities for the future.

Ben Carson's Resume

Dr. Ben Carson is applying to be the President of the United States. He has acknowledged that his resume for the job is a bit different than what most people have come to expect. But in a post on Facebook, he highlighted the  experience he believes qualifies him for the job.

I do not have political experience, I have a life journey. A journey that not only made it possible for me to relate to so many different people, but also one where time and time again I was told I would fail, only to succeed. My candidacy is different, that I grant you...

What I have is a lifetime of caring, integrity and honesty. I have experienced the American Dream. No where in the world, other than America, could a man whose ancestors were slaves, rise to become a leading brain surgeon and one day seek the Office of President.

Of course, now that members of the media are combing through that "life journey" and find that his claim about a lifetime of integrity and honesty doesn't always stand up, Dr. Carson is pretty angry.

One reporter who has done the legwork of examining that journey by reading five of Dr. Carson's books is Carlos Lozada. Here is what he learned:

Ben Carson became convinced of two things during his teenage years. First, that he was uniquely talented, “one of the most spectacular and smartest people in the world.” Second, that God would answer his prayers, however specific they might be...

Little has occurred in Carson’s life and career since then to counter those impressions, and much has happened to confirm them. That may help explain why, during his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, the retired neurosurgeon has appeared at times indifferent to or uninformed about matters relevant to the office he seeks, such as the federal debt ceiling or natural disasters, and has expressed little regret over his controversial comments on the Holocaust, mass shootings, slavery and Islam. After reading five of his autobiographical, self-help and political books...I find this attitude more understandable. Why stress over policy details or gaffes when you’re the brightest person in the room, and when the Big Guy will show up if you ever need a hand?

It is that second part that I find most concerning. Here are some examples Lozada provides:

Once you have God on speed dial, well, it’s hard not to press that button. At one point, Carson requests God’s help to find his stolen passport; it is retrieved...And in a particularly unnerving intercession, Carson asks God for help in dismissing his incompetent, alcoholic secretary without hurting her feelings...Two weeks later, the secretary doesn’t show up for work. “We never did find out what happened to her,” Carson writes. “She simply disappeared.”

While I hesitate to step on anyone's toes when it comes to theology, this is a particularly troubling understanding of faith that Kim Knight described as an assumption that God is a cosmic vending machine.

See, I have a very hard time with the theology of folk who claim that God gives away touchdowns, Bentleys and control of Congress as rewards for the pious but allows/causes millions of people to suffer from hunger, disease, disasters and diabolical dehumanization.

I have no problem if that is the way an individual wants to live their life. But I have a serious problem with the idea that a leader of the free world would avoid doing his own work on developing a deep understanding of the challenges that face us and simply call on the magical thinking of assuming that God will take care of it. If this guy needs divine intervention to fire a secretary, that's an immediate disqualifier for the job.

Humor as an Effective Tool

One of the most defining characteristics of President Obama's political persona is that he is pretty intent on avoiding the demonization of his opponents. He talks about it all the time. For example, here is what he said in the 2015 State of the Union Address.

Imagine if we broke out of these tired old patterns. Imagine if we did something different. Understand, a better politics isn’t one where Democrats abandon their agenda or Republicans simply embrace mine. A better politics is one where we appeal to each other’s basic decency instead of our basest fears. A better politics is one where we debate without demonizing each other; where we talk issues and values, and principles and facts, rather than “gotcha” moments, or trivial gaffes, or fake controversies that have nothing to do with people’s daily lives...

If we’re going to have arguments, let’s have arguments, but let’s make them debates worthy of this body and worthy of this country.

What that doesn't mean, as some have assumed, is that if his opponents fail to engage in a "better politics" that he simply accedes his point. At those times, he tends to reach into his bag of tricks for another approach. During his first term, that often meant giving his opponent what came to be known as a "death hug." It was often used during the 2012 election when he gave Romney credit for Obamacare.

But over the years, a lot of people have missed how often the President has used humor as a way of challenging his opponents. Some folks - like Edward-Isaac Dovere - seem to just be noticing that we have a Comedian-in-Chief. But I'm here to tell you that it's been there all along.

One of the first times I noticed this talent was when President Obama went to Nevada to stump for Harry Reid in 2010 - whose opponent at the time was Sharon Angle.


Of course there are the usual places you expect humor to be the weapon of choice - like the White House Correspondent's Dinner. Just as Donald Trump was stirring up the whole birther nonsense in the lead-up to the 2012 election, the President nailed him.


This was the moment during the 2012 election when I knew Obama "had this."


Those are just a few examples. So yes, as Larry Wilmore said, "The president is a funny man. He's hilarious."

We are often led to believe that the only way to deal with bullies is to engage on their level. What we forget is that it is often even more effective to point and laugh at the nonsense. Besides that, it has the added benefit of being much more fun.

"Who's to Blame for This Mess?"

I unintentionally stumbled on a bit of a pattern today. First I wrote about some insights from a former Republican Congressional staffer. Next came a post about the historical perspective of someone who calls themselves a "movement conservative refugee." And finally, there was the unexpected optimism coming from a conservative writer at the National Review. Do you see what I did there?

So I figured...let's do one more. This week Robert Reich posted a fascinating conversation on Facebook that he had with a former Republican member of Congress. Reich asked him what he thought of the current crop of Republican candidates for president.

Him: "They're all nuts."

Me: "Seriously. What do you really think of them?"

Him: "I just told you. They're bonkers. Bizarre. They're like a Star Wars bar room."

Me: "How did it happen? How did your party manage to come up with this collection?"

Him: "We didn't. They came up with themselves. There's no party any more. It's chaos. Anybody can just decide they want to be the Republican nominee, and make a run for it. Carson? Trump? They're in the lead, and they're both out of their f*cking minds."

Me: "That's not reassuring."

Him: "It's a disaster. I'm telling you, if either of them is elected, this country is going to hell. The rest of them aren't much better. I mean, Carly Fiorina? Really? Rubio? Please. Ted Cruz? Oh my god. And the people we thought had it sewn up, who are halfway sane -- Bush and Christie -- they're sounding almost as batty as the rest."

Me: "Who's to blame for this mess?"

Him: "Roger Ailes, David and Charles Koch, Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh. I could go on. They've poisoned the American mind and destroyed the Republican Party.

Wow! One has to wonder how many more there are out there like this guy. Too bad he doesn't have the courage to say all that publicly. But maybe that wouldn't make much difference anyway.

The last part about who is to blame for this mess reminds me of something extremely prescient written by another conservative back in 2010. On the heels of the passage of Obamacare, David Frum wrote that it would likely be the Republican's Waterloo. And here's who he blamed for that:

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination...If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

It just goes to show, there are times when a conservative can be right. Too bad for them that it happens mostly when they are predicting their own Party's doom.

A Little Antidote to the Doom-and-Gloom

We got some good news with week with a solid jobs report and the fact that that the uninsured rate has hit 9% - the lowest ever. But you're not likely to hear much about either of those things from Republicans. That's why President Obama recently had a little fun at their expense when he compared them to Grumpy Cat.

And so it was fascinating to run into an article at the very conservative National Review by Kevin Williamson titled: Take a Bow, Species. The whole thing is positively brimming with optimism and good news. Here's a list of the things he mentions:

* Polio has basically been eradicated from the globe

* Measles and rubella will be next

* The global rate of “extreme poverty, currently defined as subsistence on less than the equivalent of $1.90 a day, is now the condition of less than 10 percent of the human race. Take a look at how the World Bank recently plotted that change:

* The overall rate of violent crime in the U.S. has fallen by about half in recent decades.

* U.S. manufacturing output per worker trebled from 1975 to 2005, and our total manufacturing output continues to climb

* General-price inflation, the bane of the U.S. economy for some decades, is hardly to be seen

* I just filled up my car for $1.78 a gallon

The reason that you're not likely to hear any of that from Republican presidential candidates anytime soon is because it is their job to convince us that their presidency is needed to overcome the myriad of ways that President Obama has ruined everything.

But those candidates will also be tapping into the doom-and-gloom felt by Republican voters. Williamson quotes Tyler Cowen in an attempt to understand what fuels that mood.

It seems to me that people are first choosing a mood or attitude, and then finding the disparate views which match to that mood and, to themselves, justifying those views by the mood. I call this the “fallacy of mood affiliation,” and it is one of the most underreported fallacies in human reasoning. 

You can count me as pretty surprised to find myself basically agreeing with Kevin Williamson and Tyler Cowen. It's not that we've reached some kind of nirvana where all is well with the world. But consider this as an antidote to the "we're all going to hell in a hand basket" that we're hearing so much about these days.