We Have to Do Better

Twenty years ago, I wrote the following in an introduction to a paper arguing for an expanded intelligence capability directed at identifying health threats and capabilities. 

"The idea of humankind under assault has been a staple of science fiction ranging from H. G. Wells' Martians to Robert A. Heinlein's "bugs". Yet throughout history humans have been in an inter-species war with ravenous predators (bacteria, viruses, etc.) that see Homo sapiens as food. For centuries humans believed diseases were the acts of angry gods or invidious miasmas. Only in the last two centuries have we understood that we share an ecosystem with enemies too small to see, too numerous to count, and too dangerous to ignore."

Regrettably, the Coronavirus pandemic reinforces my observation and those of so many others in recent years. But, more importantly, all the warnings and concerns beg the question of why we don't take this more seriously. Why have we argued over "human rights" to health care when the case for the public good has been staring us in the face? Why do we deal in the false dichotomy of economy (read stock markets) vs health when any objective analysis indicates the two are inextricably linked? In the 1980's Nick Eberstadt's analysis of Soviet Bloc health conditions -- as indicated by their shocking mortality patterns -- and sluggish economic performance was groundbreaking work in showing the linkage. 

We have to do better next time. There will be a next time, for most of us. Coronavirus isn't a slate-wiper, not by a long shot. But it is dangerous because too many countries have allowed it to be; some in ignorance and too many for ignoble reasons. We have to do better.

The day after Trump's hostage video aired ... Scenes from Costco

The Costco parking lot was full by 9 a.m. I wanted to pick up a freezer we have been thinking about for a few weeks (they had sold out the day before). I also wanted to buy some shelf-milk and some salad that we like. And, if they had any, some toilet paper. I knew the last item wasn't happening as soon as I saw the parking lot. 

A lot of people were there with limited purchases in mind. A lot of others were there to get whatever they thought they might need, and lots of it. Paper towels were particularly popular. A sign near the paper towels said "Two per Customer" (there are 10 or 12 rolls per package), but who reads signs, right? Some people were heading to the registers with as many as could fit in their carts. I wondered if they thought they were buying toilet paper, as the bags are similar in appearance. Or, maybe they were just going to use them as toilet paper, plumbing be damned. 

Interestingly, there were cases of Kleenex unmolested right near the paper towels and empty toilet paper shelves. 

The cash register lines (My God, the cash register lines!) stretched back to the deli and freezer areas at the rear of the store. Costco stores are huge, so you can imagine the length of the lines. The lines gave people a chance to socialize with neighbors and strangers who were united in pursuit of the ephemeral toilet paper roll or creative ideas for using paper towels. Maybe the lines were a little longer as some folks tried to do social distancing. 

The store had staff stationed outside to spray and wipe down carts between customers as much as they were able. One woman's job appeared to be yelling to people who were about to grab an unclean cart that the clean ones were "over here." Interestingly, they were cheery and uber-helpful. 

When I first saw the parking lot and the crowd of folks entering the store, I was afraid it was going to look like the opening of a Black Friday sale at midnight, the day after Thanksgiving, with fists flying and people battling over Tickle Me Elmos or Cabbage Patch Kids. It wasn't at all like that. People were good humored, if acquisitive. The traffic jams in the store were brief and resolved amicably. 

All in all, it was a testament to civilization.

Some Thoughts About Joe Biden's and Bernie Sanders' Campaigns

Last year I suggested that Joe Biden's best year to run for President was 2016. I may have been premature on that one. Biden seems to have caught lightning in a jar with his timing. He is not only the anti-Trump, he is also the anti-Sanders. 

Last year, I also suggested that Sanders would find 2020 quite different than 2016. With Hillary Clinton not available to campaign against, Sanders would have to run against a faceless, amorphous "establishment," a much less satisfying experience than opposing someone who personifies the establishment. Sanders would also find the center-left to left lane crowded ( he had it to himself in 2016). 

Joe Biden's campaign looked DOA by the Iowa Caucus and overdue for burial by the Nevada caucuses. The premature rumors of his political death, however, protected him from Bernie's target practice. In debates, Sanders focused his fire on -- again -- faceless "establishment" candidates, "the billionaire class," and finally, Mike Bloomberg. Sanders' campaign staff was busy sticking pins in their Elizabeth Warren dolls. And, all along, they largely ignored Joe Biden and African American voters over 50, whose life experiences taught them that before government can be a force for good, good government needs to win at the ballot box. South Carolina was Sanders' come-uppance and Biden's renewal. 

As Nicole Wallace has noted, Biden was not the "establishment's" candidate. They (whomever they are) had dumped Biden in  the dirt and left him begging for enough money to drag himself into Super Tuesday. Biden was truly the people's candidate in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday. He won overwhelmingly, with almost no campaign staff or commercials or any of the slick stuff we're assured candidates need to win primaries and general elections. And, in Michigan, Missouri, and Mississippi he did it all over again. 

Donald Trump, his allies in Congress, and his 40 watt bulb of a son are going to resuscitate the Hunter Biden and Burisma controversy now that Biden is back in play. They will regret it. They're going to remind Americans -- somewhat more than half of whom thought Trump should have been removed from office over the Ukraine affair -- of the whole sordid business again, and again, and again. 

The turnout figures in Michigan and Missouri should terrify Trump; particularly Michigan, which Trump won because so many voters stayed home, unexcited and uninspired by Clinton. This year, they are inspired and excited by the prospect defeating Trump. 

Buckle up.

Maybe its Time for a Little Panic

About six weeks ago, I wrote that people should neither relax or panic when it comes to Corona Virus disease (COVID-19). I noted that the inevitable comparisons to the 1918-1919 Spanish influenza pandemic be approached with skepticism. While I maintain the two main points of that post are correct (it takes a 1918 world to fuel a 1918 pandemic, and COVID-19 is largely preventable through good hygiene and public health practices), maybe it's time for a wee bit of panic. 

I say this not because the disease is worse than thought, but because the response -- here in the US anyway -- is so inept. The useful responses by knowledgeable health officials in CDC are drowned out by contradictory  protestations from the White House, echoed and amplified by their carney barkers in right-wing media. The confusion over testing and whether to test is the most glaring example but not the only one. The federal government's inability to field enough tests means we cannot gauge the actual spread of the disease or adequately assess a realistic case fatality rate. It means we can't effectively protect our most vulnerable populations because we can't screen those who may carry the infection without showing symptoms (such as healthcare workers, nursing home staffs,  teachers, aircrews). 

People are more inclined to panic when they are frightened by things they poorly understand. The best medicine for preventing panic is truth, in large doses. If people know the truth, if it's presented calmly, stating the risks and correctives, they keep their resolve and their heads. When they're fed contradictions, lies, conspiracy theories and self-serving whines that drown out the truth, they get more scared and more angry. And they get sicker and more of them die. 

Thank you, Amy and Elizabeth

It was kind of sad to see Amy Klobuchar's and Elizabeth Warren's campaigns flame out this week. And not just because they were the two remaining women candidates (sorry, I don't consider Gabbard's viability significant enough to deserve the title, "candidate"). 

An interesting editorial, written in the early 2000s, discussed the difference between John McCain, described as a "governing conservative" and his opponents, described as "movement conservatives." McCain, the author proposed, was a conservative interested in using government to achieve practical goals consistent with a conservative philosophy. His opponents -- approaching the 2008 campaign -- were interested in using government to achieve their ideological aims regardless the cost to citizens.

Klobuchar and Warren are "governing progressives." Yes, yes, the media has assigned Klobuchar to the "moderate wing," whatever that is, which only displays the shallowness of today's media coverage of our politics. She is as progressive as Elizabeth Warren if you look at her legislative accomplishments and considerably more effective. But both senators are interested in using government to accomplish goals consistent with their progressive policies. 

And that puts them at odds with Bernie Sanders who may be described as a "movement progressive," although I am not sure progressive is the right term to use. Sanders' Medicare for All proposal exemplifies what I think would be his governing style; stirring aspirational goals mixed with a few specifics whose impacts are not thought through, and absent any real means to accomplish them or measure their success. But actually accomplishing things is a secondary goal to tearing down existing systems and preening about one's morality in doing so. 

In comparison, both Warren and Klobuchar offered detailed plans that identified ends and means. While the plans differed in ways, they were both achievable and offered Americans enough information to evaluate them on their merits. 

Similarly, the Green New Deal, which Sanders espoused, is a set of aspirations bereft of real discussion of ways and means for getting there. One would think the "existential crisis of our times" deserves a little more as to how we deal with climate change and it's anthropogenic sources when it comes to determining trade-offs and mitigating current and near term harm to people living in the world. 

In both of Sanders' campaigns he's told us that he will accomplish his legislative goals through inspiring a movement, a political revolution, among the young, workers and -- in general -- folks who have been screwed over by "the billionaires." In his legislative career, he has done nothing of the sort. 

In contrast, Elizabeth Warren exhaustingly researched and documented the causes of financial insecurity among middle and lower middle class Americans (see The Two Income Trap) and exposed predatory lending practices that resulted in her proposal for a Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CPFB). Warren's legislative record is anemic compared to Klobuchar's, but that is due in part to Klobuchar's longer time in the Senate. Moreover, Warren's talents seem to be more in the executive realm than the legislative. 

There is more at stake in this race than defeating Trump. Repairing Trump's vandalism will require executive and legislative skill. More importantly, it will require commitment to and passion for governing and service to the public. Klobuchar and Warren represent such commitment. I hope and think Joe Biden does as well. 

OMG!! Super-delegates!!

For the record: the Democratic party implemented "super-delegates" after the 1972 convention because they thought rules passed after the 1964 convention made it too possible for an energized minority to steamroller the process and nominate a poison pill candidate. They had the 1964 Republican primary season as an example to avoid. There was also concern that Hubert Humphrey, having skipped primaries altogether in 1968, relied on party leaders to secure the nomination. In 1972, Democratic party leaders worried that a less scrupulous politician that Humphrey could engineer a delegate coup. Super-delegates were the solution; ensuring a robust primary process while allowing party elders to act as a brake if needed on the shenanigans that accompanied the Republicans' 1964 convention and the Democrats' 1968 convention, and initially seemed to threaten their 1972 convention. Super-delegates, comprising elected officials and party leaders, were free to vote for whomever they pleased, unlike pledged delegates who must vote for their candidate on the first ballot unless they are released by the candidate. 

Super-delegates were always controversial, but never more than in 2016 when Bernie Sanders supporters seemed to think they were a device meant to keep their candidate from the nomination. In fact, while Sanders wasn't the reason for super-delegates, a candidacy like his was very much in the minds of those party leaders 44 years before. In 2016, Sanders -- who to this day is listed as an Independent rather than as a Democrat -- represented an outsider seeking to co-opt the Democratic party and it's establishment which he deemed corrupt because they were unwilling to bend their rules to accommodate him. 

During the 2016 primary campaign, Sanders repeatedly lost to Hillary Clinton. The super-delegates' role in the vote tally was irrelevant as Clinton amassed a majority without the superdelegates' votes. 

In 2018, the rules for super-delegates were modified to respond to Sanders supporters' concerns. They weren't done away with, but their potential influence was limited by preventing them from voting in the first ballot at the convention. They are free to vote in sequential ballots, along with all other delegates who, at that point, would also be free to vote for whomever they pleased (pledged delegates are automatically released after the first ballot).

So, two takeaways: 

-- from 1976 to 2016, super-delegates did not make any difference in the outcome of the Democrats' nominating process, and

-- following the 2018 rule changes (meant to respond to Sanders' supporters concerns) super-delegates have even less influence over the nomination outcome. 

It's time to set this boogyman aside. If Sanders loses the nomination, it won't be because of super-delegates. It will be because more Democrats wanted his opponent to be their nominee. If Sanders wins, it won't be in spite of super-delegates. It will be because more Democrats wanted him to be the nominee. 

That simple. 

What's Next for Mayor Pete?

So, Mayor Pete Buttigieg has ended his candidacy. His was a stirring and  -- initially -- implausible pursuit; often and fairly compared to Barack Obama's 2008 campaign. So, what's next for Mayor Pete. His popularity and loyal base of support, along with a graceful and very well-timed exit, makes him a leading candidate for the VP slot.  But, I would not bet on it. 

While Pete would make a great VP, I think, in today's Democratic party climate, he won't wind up as a candidate. The chief thing that plagued Pete as a presidential candidate makes him a risky choice as a VP candidate; his nearly absent support among African Americans. 

Pete would be an otherwise obvious running mate for Elizabeth Warren. They are both data-driven policy wonks, which would be a refreshing change from the  "gut" driven circus we're currently witnessing. Pete would be an attractive understudy to Warren and would represent passing the torch to the new generation of Democrats. But...  Warren's support among African Americans is soft, and adding Pete to her ticket will further aggravate that weakness. 

Joe Biden has dangled the prospect of a woman and/or person of color as VP enough that not choosing one will disappoint a lot of his supporters. 

I don't see Bernie putting Pete on the ticket if he gets nominated. In spite of the glowing thesis that Pete wrote about Bernie's early political career, the campaign has revealed the chasm in their thinking and political styles. Besides, I don't think Bernie wants to share the ticket with a marquee candidate.

Pete would be a good add to an Amy Klobuchar candidacy, but -- as much as I like her -- she is likely to be out of the race by next Wednesday. And the heated exchanges between her and Pete during the debates don't augur well for a shared ticket. 

The candidate who really might gain from putting Pete on the ticket is Mike Bloomberg.   In many ways Pete resembles a much younger Bloomberg, before going out on his own, before the first million. Pete's description of being dissatisfied with life as a McKinsey consultant smacks of Bloomberg's restiveness as a Wall Street drone. And there is the shared experience of running troubled cities (albeit diffent in scale). An effective political partnership between the two would alleviate worries about Bloomberg's age. But... if Pete has problems with African American voters, Bloomberg's record is radioactive. And, following his two debate performances, Bloomberg's candidacy looks like it has two flat tires and is leaking gas.

So, what is next for Pete? My guess is an ambassadorship, possibly a cabinet job, or a Senate campaign. I'd love to see him as the next chairperson of the DNC, where he could fix much of Tom Perez's damage and start building the next-gen Democratic party.