False Equivalency

David:
The term false equivalency has appeared with increasing frequency during the past election, but continues to show up in news articles and on Face book, primarily from liberal sources. What does it mean to you, and why has it suddenly blossomed on the internet and social media scene?

Doug:
Liberal sources? Sounds scary. Is there official paperwork one has to fill out to be an official liberal source? Do you also have the category "conservative sources" in your mind, too? or would that be a false comparison? Are "liberal sources" some random person's website? NYTimes opinion page? Are these sources teenagers from the Balkins? Or is labeling something a "liberal source" a way of signaling people how to think about such sources? Is this coded language?

David:
If you do a quick Google search of the topic, several media outlets have actually done special opinion reports on the topic. Mother Jones, Huffington Post, Paul Krugman at the NYT, Slate, and my favorite, Wise Women for Clinton, have all done pieces. I don't seem to find any posts that represent  conservative sites in the first few Google pages, however. I'm curious as to what you think on the topic.

Doug:
You are right that the term has appeared with increasing frequency. It didn't really appear until 1960 (an election year), and peaked again in 1980 and 2000 (both election years):



So, I guess it isn't surprising that it "suddenly blossomed" again this election cycle. But what is it?

"False equivalency" is when someone makes an analogy between two things as if they were the same, but are not. In a logical discussion, if two competing arguments that are not analogous but are considered the same then that is considered a logical mistake.

Of course, in regular discourse, people can make analogies between any two things. I wrote my Ph.D. thesis on making analogies. People can be quite flexible in their ability to see the similarity between any two concepts. This flexibility is the hallmark of human intelligence. But it can be used against you if stretched too far.

It seems that the term "false equivalency" appears in election cycles by critics of the press when lazy reporters attempt a poorly "balanced" discussion. For example, when Trump didn't show his taxes, some would say "yes, but what about some emails that were deleted." These two things don't have anything to do with one another of course, but the attempt is made to make them equivalent. The information in Trump's tax filings are still important and can still be revealed, which indicates that this really was a false equivalency. If Clinton had been elected President, those emails would still be deleted. There is no reasonable demand that we should be able to see every email ever sent by a public employee, and no reasonable analogy between emails and tax information.

David:
Though a quick review of past blogs shows you continued to introduce Trump's taxes into Clinton's email discussions. I guess no one is immune to false equivalency.

Doug:
You mean like when I said this:

Doug: 

Trump: "My taxes? We need to think like me! I will release my taxes when Clinton undeletes 33,000 emails."

You see, I was pretending I was Trump speaking, and having him make a false equivalency. 

David:
No, I was actually talking about the many other times you added Trump's taxes into a discussion, like the blog we did on candidate's health. Health and taxes. They don't really seem to be the same thing, do they?

Doug:
Which is it? Did I "continued to introduce Trump's taxes into Clinton's email discussions" or did I "add Trump's taxes into a discussion ... on candidate's health"? Are you trying to make a false equivalency on false equivalency?

David:
You added his taxes into just about everything, because somehow you believe showing your taxes is a Constitutional requirement. You weighed it very heavily in your criticisms of Trump. By your argument, you make a false equivalency everytime you introduce it.

Doug:
No, you're making a false equivalency again. Trump's taxes are import (especially now) to show that there are not conflicts of interest of investments. You wouldn't want some national policy influenced by a Trump business deal.

David:
Or a foundation's bottom line.

Doug:
There are no laws about general conflicts of interest for regular citizens, of course. But there are for people making decisions in our government.

David:
And the e-mail/taxes issue really is equivalent if you consider they are really about producing documents for the public to review for fitness to be the president or conflicts of interest. You feel that Trump's taxes show he's hiding something. Hillary deleted emails, which she was required to turn over by law, because many feel she was hiding something. Same issue.

Doug:
That is a great example about making a false equivalency: they are both documents! Therefore the same. You realize that she does not have to turn over private emails. But I like the idea that we need to see Trump's taxes. And to follow your logic, we need to see his foundation records too, in order to "review fitness to be president." But I have a feeling that we'll never actually say that Trump needs to show either.

David:
Do you realize he did not have to turn over private tax returns? Several of her "private" emails that were recovered contained classified government documents. So much for that excuse. What I'm saying is on both sides, these were examples of candidates hiding something potentially damaging. That made these two issues equitable.

Doug:
Not showing personal emails is not "hiding." Not showing your personal investments (like all modern presidents have done) is not equivalent in any way shape or form. Especially now! The election is over. Trump absolutely needs to come clean now, right?

David:
The election is over, so he needs to make sure there is no appearance of conflicts with his business. That won't be entirely or completely possible, but as President, he needs to make every effort to do so.

Doug:
So this is something that we really could agree on. But it isn't the appearance that bothers me...it is the actual conflicts of interest. Trump has said that he has no intention of divesting anything. He intends to make money on this Presidency thing. Regardless of any other bad decisions he (or his staff that he has been announcing), this could end up being a terrible outcome for our country. To me, this is protest-worthy.

David:
Then we're back to the emails indicating Clinton made personal cash as SOS, and had conflicts of interest between the Clinton Foundation and foreign governments. Perhaps we should continue the investigations. You've convinced me.

Doug:
Ok, as long as we treat the Clinton Foundation in exactly the same manner as the Trump Foundation. Let's do it. Something we can agree on!

David:
But why do you think that all of these articles appear in liberal or left-leaning sites, but not conservative? As I read through the a few of the articles, they all seem to believe that Hillary Clinton's foibles were mere mistakes, like misspelling a word, while Trump's issues were atrocities that the press glossed over. It appears to me that there really was no false equivalency if you were comparing the potential wrong-doings of two candidates competing for the same office.

Doug:
I think I see why conservative sites don't have articles on "false equivalency": they don't understand what it is. If you still don't understand why it was important to see Trump's taxes, then there is nothing that will make you understand why such a comparison is a logical error.

David:
It would have been important to be able to see his tax returns. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it appears that Clinton deleted emails she was required to save, and some that have been recovered had classified information on them. It would have been just as important to see those emails, or to have had them examined by an independent reviewer before deletion.

If you can't see that voluntarily producing private documents is not as bad as deliberately destroying government documents (which is against the law), then nothing I can say will show you those things are related issues. Both cases were failures to produce documents, and in both cases, those documents may have contained damaging information. Focusing only on one aspect of the subject limits your ability to see the equivalence. Of course it goes without saying that only liberals are smart enough to understand analogies and complicated ideas. Conservatives are too busy patching our overalls,  meeting at our racist, sexist, homophobic clubs, and polishing our guns to go get educations. We're lucky to have such smart overlords to keep us in line and tell us how to think correctly.

Doug:
You certainly have some inferiority complex. If I am an overlord, I am not doing a very good job.

David:
Which is why you lost the election. You were focused so much on Trump's taxes, you failed to realize  the middle-class didn't care about his taxes. They did care about the emails, for the reasons I listed above. While you claim the emails don't equate to anything at all, many Americans felt they illustrated her secrecy and dishonesty.

Doug:
The minority of people (who voted for Trump) may always believe that Clinton's emails contained conversations with the Devil and that they were "government documents" that they deserved to see. No one can control what they choose to believe. They can choose to believe false equivalencies. That is too bad. Perhaps there will be ways for people to see that things aren't always equivalent.

Did you ever stop and think about why the past elections always seem so close? Like you could split the votes in 2, and you get a near tie between Republicans and Democrats? Could it be that the creating false equivalencies on everything creates an uncanny split down the middle?

David:
I had assumed it was because half of the voting public believes differently than you, and half believes differently than me. This is not because of false equivalency, but because of true beliefs. If you just write off the other side, believing they just don't understand, then you'll never reach any middle ground. Sometimes, when you look through a different paradigm, things that you see as unrelated, become equal in weight.

Doug:
There are lots of "sides." Why would just about exactly half believe the opposite? I think it is because false equivalency tries to even everything out, even when they are not even.

David:
So you're saying that the media presents false equivalencies, to make superior Democrats appear to be equal to the lowly Republicans, and that causes the voting populace to be split down the middle? That sounds like false equivalency.

There are people who believe in big government, and people who believe very limited government is best. It seems there are an equal number of people in both camps.

Doug:
If reasonable people always tries to show "balance" when there is none, then it seems that a reasonable outcome would be artificial balance. That seems to make more sense than your argument: there just happen to be an equal number of people that believe exactly the opposite of each other.

David:
You and I both disagree. That means we balance each other. There is only a false equivalency in that statement if you believe your arguments weigh more than mine. Your last statement seems to illustrate the problem you face: Half of the country believes differently than you do. It's easier to believe that they do because the media, or social media, or something else has convinced them their ideas are worthy or equal to your beliefs, which they aren't. The reality is that the people who voted for Trump have beliefs that are equal to yours, and a paradigm of the world that is equal to yours. It's easier for you to believe that they are racist, sexist, and xenophobes, or some other label that you can disavow. They aren't any of those things. They are other, thoughtful Americans.

Doug:
But then why aren't there more Republican voters? Why does it equal almost exactly the number of Democratic voters? There seems to be something at working balancing into two equal parts.

David:
You and I disagree. There are siblings all over the country that also disagree. We mirror America.

Doug:
Another possibility (discussed in this video on a Mathematicians Perspective on the Election) is that the equal halves are caused by having about the same amount of money on each side, and spending it in places that are seen as threatened, and not put resources where the candidate is seen as being "safe". Perhaps. But I still think that always seeing an issue as an equal balance of pros and cons (even when there is no rational reason to do so) is a contributing factor. Could be an hypothesis to explore.

David:
Except in the 2016 election they did not spend the same amounts. Not even close.

Doug:
That doesn't count Trump's free airtime in the media. But you are correct, and I think misstated the video's hypothesis. I think what she claims is that money is only spent where needed, and need is only made when one is seen as behind in the polls in that particular area. If you dynamically spend money/energy only to get ahead, then the 50/50 split makes sense. This does indeed appear to be a viable hypothesis. But I still contend that things are even remotely close because of a general and pervasive belief in false equivalencies.

David:
Money in politics is an influential issue. On that, we can both agree. Perhaps we'll explore that more, and see if the Blanks can come up with a solution in a future installment of Blank Versus Blank. Join us next week!

Blank Verse: The Press Should Organize

This is a Special Edition of Blank versus Blank. This post is the presentation of a single side of an issue. Because it is only one perspective, we call this a Blank Verse.

This Blank Verse is presented by Doug.

SNL Skit on the Robotic News Cycle.

Doug:
A month ago---right before the election, my brother and I explored the Press. Since then, some things have changed: Trump is now President Elect. However, interactions between Trump and the Press have not changed. This is very troubling if you believe in a strong Fourth Estate.

This week I again saw the Press wrestling with how to report on Trump and his actions. In past elections, President Elects have followed established norms:

• releasing tax information
• divesting from business ventures
• removing any sign of impropriety between business and government
• arranging meetings (especially foreign government) through established protocols
• avoiding mixing family with political appointments

However, Trump is not following these norms. Mixed in with these troubling turns from tradition is Trump's side-show-style Tweets from his Twitter account. It is very odd in our culture for someone in such a position of political power to constantly be complaining about a specific newspaper (New York Times), Broadway plays, and protesters. 

The very real problem for the Press is: how do you report such activities? How do you give balance to concerns about white nationalists in senior staffing positions, and peculiar tweets ranting on private companies? In addition, Trump is not letting down on his ant-Press rhetoric. Apparently he give a 20 minute rant when he met with the Press on Monday Nov 21, 2016. Many of the Press thought that this would be a meeting to do a "reset"--- a fresh start. But, of course not. A double-down from Trump.

This is war, and the Press should fight back. Of course, I am not in media, nor in the media business, but just an academic. But I see some things that I believe could help the Press.

How to not fall into manipulative reporting cycle only focusing on the most sensationalist items? There is a limited number of inches in print media, and a limit number of minutes on TV news. But you can still cover everything! 

First, nightly news shows (such as All In with Chris Hayes, TRMS, and The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell) need some coordination. I watched a huge amount of time spent on Trump's Hamilton Tweets across all three shows last night (Monday Nov 21, 2016). But not one of them mentioned other Trump news (such as the $25 million dollar Trump University settlement/tax write-off). There needs to be an editor across all of the news programs that prevents saturation of any particular story. If each show gets to pick what they find most juicy, then we don't hear about everything else. There is a lot going on in the world. Cover more items! And Rachael, some stories do not need 10 minutes. You can often beat that horse dead. 

I think the newspapers can do something similar. Newspapers should form a coalition. They should take turns with different stories. Again, if they all pick the same story, then we end up saturating, and play into Trump's tiny hands. They could even suggest reading other stories in other papers. There is precedent for companies working together in such a fashion: open source software. Open source software (also called "free software" (as in "freedom")) is software that competitors develop together. Newspapers should do some coordination among themselves to spread the stories between them. Of course there is the AP and UPI, but this could be a coordination at the highest level. 

Finally, the Press is important. The Press should cover itself more. I would like to read stories about why certain stories were done, and others not. What are the struggles behind the scene? What is it like attempting to cover someone so blatantly against the norms of our lives as Trump? How do you decide which of the many Trump stories deserve top billing? How are you going to pace yourselves over the next 4 years?

So Press, please organize, and fight back. We are all depending on you.

Thanksgiving or a Day of Atonement

David:
This week most of us will be meeting with family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving. Most of us will eat too much turkey, and spend the day watching football, or just catching up with relatives.

But should Thanksgiving be abolished, or turned into something else? Is it based on false historical stories to cover our past? This writer thinks so:

http://www.alternet.org/story/68170/why_we_shouldn't_celebrate_thanksgiving

Doug:
This week David will project his world onto all of us, and tell us that our world is just like his. Many people won't have food to eat, or will be protecting their native land, or protesting the impending dismantling of our democracy, or will have to work to make "Black Friday" be the fantastic day of consumerism that it is surely to be. Oh, but wait... a dissenting article? Could it be?

That is a well-written argument. And there are a lot of people who find the idea of the fictional "dinner with the Indians" to be a disgusting whitewashing of history. But, hey! Let's eat! All that P.C. B.S. makes me sad. No, not sad... angry! Make Thanksgiving Great Again! Quit mentioning genocide when we are trying to have a relaxing day off, and just pass the cranberry sauce. JK

David:
Two things. To use your favorite words, the article above is full of false equivalences, and outright untruths. Seriously, comparing 500 years of cultural conflict with the brief history of Hitler?  And second, many people just don't care to know the truth, or to look at things in context. In this blog, I thought we might evaluate the true story of Thanksgiving, and shed light on how events over the past 500 years can help us to be a better society in 2016.

Doug:
I think you misunderstood the analogy with Hitler. The author asks you to imagine that Hitler won, and centuries later they celebrate a Thanksgiving. It is meant to be a provocative "thought experiment." But I guess you have to understand it, and be willing to empathize, rather than dismissing it before even contemplating it. Can you imagine your descendants sitting down with the descendants of winning Nazis and giving thanks? Could such a thought experiment help one to see the "truth" of Thanksgiving?

Your storytelling should be interesting. But I feel a major episode of brotherplaining coming on...

David:
First, we should discredit the myth of the "noble savage". Before European settlers ever arrived in the new world, native tribes were in a constant and violent struggle against each other, particularly in our SouthWest and throughout Central America. Anthropology shows us that 90% of skeletons in that region have marks of violence and projectile points. The state of affairs before Europeans arrived was as 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes described it: "war of all against all."

Doug:
You know that people actually study this today, right? Did you watch a Disney cartoon? If you form your opinion of people by watching cartoons, or the Lone Ranger, then yes, you might need to update your caricatures. Read what you are writing. Do your words seem that different from humans today? Do you think indigenous people were much different from any society in existence today, including ours? But do continue with your unbiased myth-busting.

David:
There are people who study this. And they don't all subscribe to your views. From the book, North American Indigenous Warfare and Ritual Violence, a compendium of papers from 14 leading scholars on the subject:

"These essays document specific acts of Native American violence across the North American continent. Including contributions from anthropologists, archaeologists, historians, and ethnographers, they argue not only that violence existed but also that it was an important and frequently celebrated component of Amerindian life. 

Doug:
That is substituting the "myth of the noble savage" with the "myth of the savage savage" which is equally biased. My point was that reality is probably closer to our lives today.  But I do appreciate it that those authors are labeled "leading scholars" when they agree with you. When they don't agree with you, you might want to distrust their data, methods, and motivations. If the "number of leading scholars" determine their trustworthiness, then there are many topics that are settled.

David:
So, if a scholar or scientist doesn't agree with you, then you can discount their data and research. I'll remember that when we discuss climate change. Your opinion doesn't explain the 90% of skeletons that have marks of violence on them. I don't believe that is true of our lives today. I did a Google search of reviews of this book, and found only positive reviews from multiple university reviewers. I did not find any negative reviews of the work. Said one:

"As is often the case, myths do not die easily and it is doubtful that the conclusions reached in this book will be readily accepted in certain circles outside of academia, where they might be misconstrued as a sinister attempt to provide after-the-fact justifications for the Euro-American conquest of the Americas. To avoid such false accusations, the editors added a concluding chapter discussing the ethical issues raised by this book."

Now, back to history. In 1532, Pizzaro landed in what is now Peru to find the war-like Incan population halved by recent civil war. Had he arrived just a decade sooner, his Spanish forces would have been crushed by a much larger force than he found at that time.

Machu Picchu of the Incas

When Cortes arrived in Mexico in 1519 he found an Aztec empire flush with gold. The Spanish during the 1500-1700's were less interested in land, than they were with the riches and resources the New World could provide. Much like the Vikings in Europe, the Spanish were there for plunder, and plunder they did. Allying themselves with other natives who were hostile to the Aztecs, Cortes and his men spent 8 months inflicting losses on the once mighty Aztec nation. But Cortes didn't conquer the Aztecs with 500 Spaniards. He had 500 men and 50,000 Natives who were enemies to the Aztecs as his allies. When he returned a year later, smallpox and famine had decimated the natives, and the Spanish made quick work eliminating the remainder in brutal fashion. 

We see this pattern repeated numerous times through the history of the Americas: Explorers make landfall and interact with the indigenous peoples. When they return several years later, the Native populations have been decimated by plague or smallpox. Disease was the main killer of vast numbers of Natives during the 1500s-1700s.

Doug:
You say "explorers," others say "conquerors" but let's not let myths get in the way of a good story.

David:
Some say "myth" while others say "history". When things are written down, researched, and accepted by scholars, you can stop using the word "myth".

"Overall, hundreds of thousands of Indians died of European diseases during the first two centuries following contact. In terms of death tolls, smallpox killed the greatest number of Indians, followed by measles, influenza, and bubonic plague." ~ From the Navajo website, Native American Netroots.

Doug:

Quoting a diary is not usually considered a method of debunking myths. But the blog you quote is probably correct. But do you think because they were conquerors that it isn't also be true that Native Americans largely died from disease carried by the conquerors? Both are true.

David:
Ah. Now you're discounting Native American's take on these events. Even they can't be trusted if they don't fit your narrative.

But the story of Thanksgiving begins just after this time period in New England. Pilgrims landed in Cape Cod in 1620.  One year later, in 1621, half had died, and the remainder survived in part thanks to the Wampanoag Indians that inhabited the area. In that year, they did hold a three day feast which was known as a harvest festival. This was a celebration observed in England and brought along with the settlers. The Wampanoags were present at this feast, and outnumbered the pilgrims by a 2-1 margin. There were occasional days of thanksgiving, but this original celebration was not intended for that purpose.

The Continental Congress had proposed a national day of thanksgiving, but it was not until the mid-19th century that many individual states had adopted the practice of having an annual day just for this purpose. Lincoln was the first president to proclaim the last Thursday in November as a national day known as Thanksgiving, and has been celebrated every year since, with the date changing to the 4th Thursday in November in 1939.

Through those early years of settlement, the settlers and natives near Plymouth lived in harmony and cooperation. But not all colonies and their local natives were on such good terms. Warfare between Europeans and Indians was common in the seventeenth century. In 1622, the Powhatan Confederacy nearly wiped out the struggling Jamestown colony. Further north, English forces annihilated the Pequots in 1636-1637. 1764 marked the beginning of the French and Indian wars, which pitted the English against the French and their Indian allies, particularly the war-like Mohawks. You might use the term "immigrants" or "refugees" to describe the pilgrims. But that would mean the Natives were playing the role of nativists, trying to limit the spread of these immigrants. Yes, for your world-view, you should call pilgrims and Protestants "conquerors".

Doug:
Not to interrupt your story, but just noting that you like the adjective "war-like." How many wars do you need to start before we can use that word to describe someone? If someone invades one, or two countries, can we use the adjective "war-like" to describe them? Or is this a coded word that means other things? It is important to explore such word choice because it gives insight into biases, perhaps hidden ones that the speaker is not even aware of. 

David:
While there were over 300 Indian Tribes, the Comanches, Apaches, Haidas, Sioux, and Mohawks were known not as farmers, hunters, or nomads, but as warriors who raided other tribes for food, goods, and slaves. They began their training for battle as children. So, I believe it is safe to say those particular tribes were war-like. Much as the Spartans were war-like in ancient Greece. To be war-like means your society is in a constant preparedness for war.

Doug:
Ok, then you agree that our society is equally war-like. I just wanted to make sure that your use of the term "war-like" was just underlining the fact that their society was just like ours.

David:
I don't see many children in official training for war, here. I'm sure you do, through your special liberal-view glasses.

It was during the 1760's -1780's when the native tribes realized that the expansionist colonist were a much greater threat than the British military. The colonists had come to stay. In 1763, the Ottawa chief Pontiac formed a coalition of Indian forces and launched attacks against settlers. During the Revolutionary War, many native tribes joined with the British and established themselves as enemies to the Americans. After the war, many Americans had little regard for Natives, and saw them as a continuing enemy to expansion.

Doug:
Same as it ever was. This could be said today about the Dakota Access Pipeline and the inhuman treatment of Native Americans. 

David:
So you believe that the US government, under Obama, is treating the Native Americans inhumanely? What did you ask Obama to do about that? Because you do realize they are still under government control.

Doug:
I think our whole society treats Native Americans inhumanely. I thought that was what this week's blog was about? 

David:
It appears you are speaking for yourself,  the people you know, and the US Government.

It was after the war, when superior weaponry led to mass destruction of the Native populations, and it was really at this time where subjugation and/or destruction of the Indians became the policy.

The History Channel notes: "Suspicion and hostility, stemming from technological and cultural differences as well as mutual feelings of superiority, have permeated relations betweenNative American and non-Indians in North America. Intertribal antagonisms among the Indians, and nationalistic rivalries, bad faith, and expansionist desires on the part of non-Indians exacerbated these tensions. The resulting white-Indian conflicts often took a particularly brutal turn and ultimately resulted in the near destruction of the indigenous peoples."

Doug:
Ok, you convinced me: we should not celebrate Thanksgiving. 

David:
Thanksgiving is not a celebration of the unity between Indians and pilgrims. It is a day to be thankful for what we have. When Lincoln declared a National Day of Thanks, it was designed to bring the country together in unity. Even though we had been through a brutal civil war, we had much to be thankful for. Lincoln, and every president since, has used Thanksgiving Day as a time for reflection, thanks, and unity. You'd like to use it as a day to acknowledge and highlight differences. If you had a Native-American name, it would be Sour-Like-Lemons. The pilgrims had survived in 1621 with great help from the Native Americans, and they celebrated with thanks. Perhaps you have nothing to express thanks for, and perhaps that's because you have no one to express your thanks to. But you don't have to celebrate anything, because this is America. There were great struggles throughout our history, and numerous wars and strife, yet we, as a country, can still come together to celebrate the common virtues and values we share, and be thankful for the plentiful life we, as Americans, enjoy.

Doug:
I think I'll let your words stand as a reminder of how privilege tells people that they should be thankful regardless of their individual battles. 

David:
It's sad to think that you have nothing to be thankful for. You have a very heartless world-view. We can all find things to be thankful for.

Doug:
You tell em!

David: If you really want to help Native Americans, you should understand the plight they face today, not 200 years ago. We still have a Bureau of Indian Affairs that completely rules most of the Native tribes as "wards of the Federal Government". They have the highest rate of poverty of any minority group,  suicide is the leading cause of death among Indian men, native women are two and a half times more likely to be raped than the national average and gang violence affects American Indian youth more than any other group. This has all been brought about by the US government managing their affairs. Perhaps you can spend your time Thursday lobbying the government to allow these American citizens to enjoy all of the rights the rest of us can be thankful for. At least the turkey you don't eat will be thankful.

Doug:
Weird, you forgot to mention "Standing Rock" in your soliloquy. You do realize that Native Americans are Americans, right? You literally just told them to be "thankful for the plentiful life we, as Americans, enjoy." 

David:
They have been US citizens since 1924, thanks to a bill passed by the Congress. However, they were not all allowed to vote until the 1970's. They still do not own their land, and cannot use their land for any purpose unless allowed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The land in question for the pipeline is not on their reservation lands. Even if it was, the use of that land is solely at the discretion of the US Government. They must protest, because under the law, they have no other recourse.While they are US citizens, they are not considered immigrants, but citizens from separate nation. They are a separate class.

As a side note, before anyone starts commenting about inaccuracies in my time-line or details, all of the historical information contained in this blog comes from Wikipedia, History.com, US History.org, and a multitude of Native-American sites from individuals and tribes. If something is amiss, write to them.

Doug:
I'm imagining that students could always add that disclaimer to their papers. "Don't blame the researcher for quoting bad sources, blame the sources!" In any event, may you, and everyone, have time this Thanksgiving to find some inner peace away from the external world, before we head back to our war-like (and necessary) battles.

Now Trump Pivots?

Doug:
Usually, candidates pivot during the general election: they usually temper their red-meat, base rhetoric during the general election. Trump did not. Now that he is President-Elect, he has started to walk-back his rhetoric, and pivot to more general-election-style positions:

1. He now claims that he is open to "amending" Obamacare. He now is considering keep parts after discussing with Obama. Such as making sure those with pre-existing conditions can get affordable coverage. But this is what makes any plan expensive!
2. He now claims that he hasn't "thought much" about jailing Clinton. Good, but such talk makes us sound like a Banana Republic.
3. He may not build that wall, or have Mexico pay for it. Newt Gingrich (Trump adviser) cast doubt this week on whether the new president would seek to have Mexico fund Trump’s proposed border wall: "He'll spend a lot of time controlling the border. He may not spend very much time trying to get Mexico to pay for it, but it was a great campaign device," Gingrich said.

Perhaps he felt that if pivoted during the general election, then people would not trust him, and he might lose their vote. But that would possibly cost him moderate votes. Do you think that this is part of a conscious political gamble that he played? Or did he just stumble into this winning strategy? He started walking back almost immediately, and his team seems to already know it. Was this the plan all along?

David:
Trump was never a true conservative. In many aspects, he really was somewhat of a third-party candidate within the Republican fold. I believe he has been a Democrat longer than he's been a Republican convert. Republicans pulled him in because they felt he would take away votes if he ran as an independent. He fought as much with Republicans during the campaign as he did with the Democrats. No one should be surprised that he's holding some middle ground.

Doug:
Never a conservative?! That will be a shock to half the country. And I guess I am confused. I thought last week you said "But I hope everyone does give Trump a fair chance." What do you want him to do, and why do you want us to give him a chance on his liberal agenda? His infrastructure spending plans look more socialistic than Clinton's. And he is threatening to cut taxes. That can only mean one thing: increased deficit. That is the "spend and don't tax" option... worse than "tax and spend."

David:
Did you not follow any of this past election? The reason Trump was supposed to fail was Republicans were not going to vote for him. As it turns out, he had more registered Republicans come out to vote for him that Clinton had Democrats support her. His policies are a mix of ideologies. And that bodes very well for at least some bipartisanship. But he certainly does not have a liberal agenda. As far as taxes, I doubt we'll ever agree with the differing philosophies of the Democrats and Republicans. Democrats have never met a tax they don't like, and can't spend enough, while Republicans promote decreased taxes to promote a growing economy, by letting individuals keep their own cash. It's the same old argument, and the correct answer is a balance, as we have both tended to agree on in the past.

Doug:
Your characterization of Democratic philosophy is comical, and is easily checked to be false. Some of these years that were controlled by Democrats were the most prosperous in our country's history. Why do I think when Trump runs up the deficit you'll blame his "liberal agenda"? No, doesn't work that way. Republicans will get the blame they will deserve.

Are Trump's policies a mix or a mix up? I think you can forgive me for not knowing what Trump is going to do, and not sure why you are for him. I thought he was for repealing Obamacare. I thought he was going to "lock her up." I thought he was going to build a wall. I thought he ran on the Republican ticket. So you admit that he has separated Republicans from conservatism? I said that last week about the Republican bloc, and you disagreed. But I do know that he did not pivot during the general election. That is the question at hand. Do you think that was by design?

David:
As Reagan said," The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor".  I voted for Trump because of all of the things that go with a Republican agenda, that would have no chance of succeeding under a Clinton administration. As far as all of these Democrats rioting and crying over his election, he's likely to be much more of a compromiser than anyone we've seen in the White House in quite some time. With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, Democrats should be giddy they have President Trump. There are some things he promised that will get done, like some type of barrier to secure the borders, and repealing Obamacare, but he will be open to re-introducing the parts of Obamacare that were needed (under the new-and-improved name: Trumpcare).

Doug:
First of all, people aren't rioting. They aren't even really protesting. They are just marching around. Good for them. I think that this election might shock a drive to organize into a complacent generation. Secondly, the Democrats and Obama always wanted to make some changes to Obamacare. Let's just agree that if the ACA keeps the protection of the pre-existing conditions, low costs, and the mandate, we will forever call it Obamacare. We can also agree that if it is better to have all three branches under one party, we should make sure that happens in the future. For example, if the next Democratic candidate looks like a winner, people should vote straight-ticket Democrats.

What is it about this con-man that makes people like you believe that he will do what you want, but compromise on those things that you don't really care about?

David:
You've packed quite a bit of nonsense into a small paragraph. Where to begin?

The Republican replacement plan has been promoted to continue both the protections for pre-existing conditions and for young people to stay on their parents plans. But the costs have not been lowered. Perhaps you should listen to Bill Clinton honestly discuss this crazy system that Democrats crafted. It remains to be seen if the mandate will survive. I have not heard a single Republican mention it, although Trump said he thought it was a good idea. We'll see if that ends up in the final plan. I doubt it. What we will see is insurance available across state lines, and on the internet, just like car insurance. You can pick and choose what coverage you need based on the amount you want to spend. You'll be able to compare prices between carriers, with many more carriers.

As for all branches of government belonging to one party? The people have spoken. Eight years ago they placed all three branches in Democratic hands, and they pushed through Obamacare, which is now an albatross for Democrats at all levels. Since that bill passed, Democrats have lost more than 900 legislative seats across America, and Obamacare is more unpopular than ever.

Remember when you and the media were predicting Trump supporters would behave this way when they lost. Now that it's Clinton supporters, smashing windows and throwing rocks at police is just "walking around". The Mayor of Seattle labeled it a riot. If you can't be honest about this little fact, we're going to have a hard time discussing the real world.

Doug:
If you get your news from an unreliable source, I agree that you are going to have a hard time discussing the real world. There are thousands of people walking around, including those in my city of Philadelphia. I have not see anything but walking around. Marching. They are there right now. Some people were yelling. Turn on your TV. People brought their kids. The kids have signs. This is a march. This is protected by our first amendment rights. Remember the Tea Party?

David:
Then call it protesting, not meandering around the streets. And when they start smashing store windows and attacking police, call it a riot. The charges against several of those arrested was "rioting", not walking around.

Doug:
But this is not what Trump supporters were threatening if he lost. He was talking about not transferring power. We may want to talk about false equivalency.

David:
You're absolutely wrong about that. He never said anything about transferring power. The question was if he would concede, and what he said was,"“I will look at it at the time.” When pressed moments later, he added, “What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I will keep you in suspense.” He later clarified further that he was considering an outcome like the one in 2000, which was not an unreasonable consideration with the polls all tied up, and several states listed as toss-ups. Remember when Al Gore conceded, and then rescinded the concession, and then went to the courts for a month? When Gore did it, it was the right thing to do, but when Trump even considers the possibility, Clinton called it, "horrifying". Double standard.

Doug:
But you haven't answered any of these questions. I take it that you just don't care about him pivoting, before, during, or after the election.

David:
I'm going to predict that he'll call off the investigations into the emails, but will wait to see what comes of the Foundation probe. Or he'll use information about other countries that gets uncovered from the FBI Foundation probe to leverage other countries (like the Saudis) to make deals, in return for keeping that information under wraps.

Doug:
Blackmail them? What a lovely picture you paint of our new leader. How does it make you feel that you really don't know what else he may walk back on? Or do you think it won't matter because of the House and Senate Republican control? But anyway, you realize that he is just the President... he doesn't call the shots at the FBI. So, he can't "call off" the investigation. That isn't his job. If it is under his power, tell Obama now! He has another month to "call on" investigations. I can think of a foundation that needs some probing.

David:
Good. Comey is not a Republican hack who stole the election from Hillary. It seems that had become a new talking point among Democrats. And the Justice Department, which did not allow the FBI access to a grand jury, or subpoenas, or any of the other tools of usual law enforcement, is under the control of the President, so an FBI investigation can be hamstrung.

Doug:
If Comey had done to Trump want he did to Clinton, we would be in a very different place today. Comey is a Republican. And I expect some changes will be made to prevent someone from being able to disrupt future elections in that way. There are already rules in place. We need to enforce them.

David:
Ah, yes. Back in July, when Comey wiped Clinton's slate clean (with a cloth, or something), he was a hero to the left. Now he's a partisan crook.

Doug:
You really project a lot into the minds of people that you refuse to try to understand. I am very willing to believe that Comey made a mistake. It does not have to be that either he is a Hero or Evil. Why does it have to be so black and white to you? And why do you project such simpleton thinking onto others?

David:
I think that things will work a lot more smoothly than people think. He's likely to bring in both Washington outsiders and business people to the executive branch, who have few ties to lobbyist and political parties. His team may be much more willing to make pragmatic concessions than we've seen in a while. Pence knows many in Congress, and both Republicans and some Democrats appear willing to work with him. Overall, things will still move in a more conservative direction.

Doug:
So you don't mind his liberal leanings? Could it be that Trump could go back to some of his more liberal positions on other items, such as his previous positions on abortion? Could it be that Obama just needs to have another 1-hour talk with him? Could it be that Trump ends up being the liberal ally?

David:
He does have a few liberal leanings.  I do think that he'll compromise and be more pragmatic than his predecessors. I'm happy to have someone who agrees with me on 80% of issues, even though he may give on some issues. To accomplish anything, he'll have to have the Republican Congress on board, so don't expect him to wander too far from the right.

Doug:
So, you think he will end up sticking to some ideas, and some he'll flip-flop on? And you magically come up with 80% (because that is Reagan's magic breakpoint)? What if it is 60%? Or 40%? Or 0%?

David:
Funny that when someone becomes pragmatic or offers compromise to break through the Washington grid-lock, he becomes a flip-flopper. If Obama had become a pragmatic flip-flopper in the same vein, and worked with Republicans even just a little, he wouldn't be a position where all of his legacy (based on executive orders and taking states and individuals to court) could so easily be undone by a new president.

Doug:
Your view of Obama is so wrong, it must be a strategy: "Never admit that Obama was actually a reasonable President. Keep denying it, and maybe, just maybe, someone will believe you." Many on the left believe that Obama was always too conciliatory. The ACA was right out of the Republican playbook, literally. Making people buy insurance from private insurance companies? How much freaking compromising could he have been?

David:
I think Trump will make concessions to both sides. His entire campaign didn't fit either party, despite him running as a Republican. With both houses of Congress on the same page, he should have an easier time pushing through tax cuts and easing regulations on businesses. He'll likely make moves to ease restrictions and regulations that have thwarted infrastructure projects for the past eight years, but he'll also likely embrace several liberal ideas as well. Remember when he said he liked the Obamacare mandate? He was elected to shake up Washington, and I expect that's what he'll do. As far as abortion goes, he's already put together a list of candidates for the SCOTUS who were all pro-life, and he has Pence on his team, so I don't see him switching to a new position there.

Doug:
New position? You mean his old position? You crack me up that you think you can predict which of his positions on abortion he'll take. Will it be the last position where he promised that there would have to be a punishment for the women? Or the last last position where the doctors would be punished? And I see no reason he wouldn't have an "amended" list of SCOTUS candidates. Then how will you feel? What if he ensures that Roe v. Wade stands? What does he have to do to finally convince you that you were conned? What will it take for you to "riot"?

David:
Why so angry? I know Mike Pence, and I know that the people he's already begun to surround himself with are conservatives. The Congress is in charge of Republicans.

Oh wait, now I understand why you're so angry. Your views were repudiated. Your candidate lost. The Senate was returned to Republicans, as was the House. And now the Supreme Court is likely going to be returned to it's prior balance, rather than become a liberal rubber stamp. As Obama said, "Elections have consequences". I guess when you've lost everything, and most of the country doesn't like your ideas, rioting in the streets seems like a good idea. (At least, that's the response when 3 year-olds don't get their way.)

Doug:
Let's be clear: this was a very even divide between the votes cast between Trump and Clinton. In fact, Clinton won more votes. A lot more. It looks like she will win more votes than any in any election ever, except for Obama. Looks like the difference could be 2 million votes or more, when all the votes are counted. But, Trump won more Electoral College votes---actually the Electoral College doesn't vote until December 19. Clinton's views are not repudiated. You don't even know what your President Elect will do. And most of the country didn't even vote, so you can calm down a couple of levels.

Of course, I suspect any group of people would be disappointed to see that their candidate won by 2 million votes, but end up losing the election because of some esoteric accounting put in at the end of the civil war.

But my questions are about Trump's pivot. And I wonder how far he can betray those who voted for him, before they, too, are frustrated, or even angry?

David:
Um, once again you're complete lack of understanding of the Constitution is interfering with your facts. You're doing just what Trump did during the campaign: saying things that sound right, but are not true. The Electoral College was created in the original Constitution Convention of 1787, not post-civil war. The College was designed so that candidates need to appeal to everyone in all of the states, not just big population centers. It makes sense than Democrats don't like this, because they would have to appeal to people outside of just big cities, something they failed to do this year. You also don't take into account that Democrats have continued to mount losses in every year since Obama took office, all over the country. Blue states went red this year, and swing states went red. Just look at the map by counties across America. All of the red areas did not go for Clinton. Would you still say that the dense areas in the few blue counties should dictate to the rest of the country? Should you be able to be president if you only appeal to those slivers?

Doug:
If only the election could be determined by square miles rather than people! Those "slivers" are land. If you visualize the map proportional to the number of actual humans (which is who votes) then you get the reality of where people live and who they vote for:

David:
Distorting and warping reality is the only way your arguments ever make sense. Come over here to the real world once in a while. It's nice. You might like it.

Your description of what you guess he will do makes him sound like he has many of the same positions as Obama. In fact, Trump has said as much on immigration and now Obamacare. If he ends up making the same choices as Obama, why are you so happy to compromise with Trump?

Doug:
If he ends up making the same choices as Obama, won't you feel a little foolish? Or perhaps your issues weren't with Obama's positions, but him as a person? How can you happily vote for a person who is just like Obama? So confused. I am not happy to compromise with Trump. He is a reprehensible person that speaks in sexist, racist ways, and knows nothing about politics, science, or anything. But I hope that our elected officials will compromise when it is for the good of the country.

David:
So you'll vote for good ideas, that are good for the country, but not if Trump presents them? Nice attitude. Again, if you think Trump has the same positions or will push Obama's agenda, you may need to seek some professional help. You're sounding delusional, but I suspect that you're actually just in a state of denial.

Doug:
I just freaking said the exact opposite. I said "But I hope that our elected officials will compromise when it is for the good of the country."

David:
Taking two ideas from Obamacare, and tossing the other 15,000 pages doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. Securing the border sounds like good sense, and deporting the criminals seems like a good idea. Obama didn't have any of those as positions. Not even close. Trump is not Obama, nor does his proposed agenda resemble Obama's.

Doug:
"Proposed agenda"--- you are imaginative. If we apply your logic to your operating system, I don't think your computer would work very well. "Hey, I just deleted 15,000 lines of code. Much better!" Laws work a lot like code. You bought into Trumps cons because they sound good. "Free money? Work from home? Sounds like a great idea!" Maybe Trump is from Nigeria... perhaps you want to see his birth certificate.

David:

I think Trump is whomever's ally he needs at that moment to accomplish whatever goal he has at that moment. I may not agree with all that he does, and you probably won't either.

Doug:
To me, the ends do not justify the means. But I have principles. One of which is that saying whatever will get you elected is not a justifiable means. Can you think of anyone that has flip-flopped on more issues than Trump?

David:
Um, Hillary Clinton? Even Barack Obama said she would say anything to become President.

Doug:
Again false equivalency makes it pretty much impossible for you to see how different Trump is from .... everyone. I will admit that I have new-found respect for Mitt Romney, and many other Republicans. Or are they still Republicans? I have no idea what it means to be a Republican now.

David:
In the upcoming months and years we'll have to see what it means to be a Democrat. They may be out of power for a very long time, because they were more concerned about the rest of the world, rather than average middle-class American. Even Obama mentioned this fact in a speech this week. (I do need to admit that the President has been very gracious since the election.)

Doug:
Wow! I see you had to put that Obama complement in a parenthetical just to be able type it. Baby steps. Perhaps your strategy is weakening.

David: The bigger question is what happens with foreign policy, which is not so easy to control. Again, I see him working with whomever he sees as the person to accomplish the goal at hand, be that the Russians, or our traditional NATO allies, or both. Either way, He'll likely look to both Democrats and Republicans for support.

Doug:
Not having any idea who he may team up with makes for scary times.

David:
Not having any idea means you have no idea what he will do, but you insist it won't be what he said.

Doug:
How could it be what he said, when he has contradicted himself so much? He can't do anything without contradicting something he said. Of course, it will also agree with something he said.

David:
Let's take a deep breath, and see how things shape up. He's not even been sworn in yet. Let's follow the Democrat's mantra from before the election and pull together as a country around our new president. At least until he's done something worthy of protesting.

Doug:
He has already done a lot worthy of protesting! But, I am willing to put the candidate's statements into election context. But I don't think it will be Democrats protesting; I think it will be the 20 million people that lose their healthcare (for example) that will be protesting. Let's let his policy speak for itself. But I still wonder: was this late pivot planned, or is Trump just a Chauncey Gardner?

Some believe Trump felt that he needed to pivot somewhat before the Electoral College votes on December 19. We'll see if he pivoted enough.

David:
I'm sure he will keep us in suspense. At least until he's inaugurated.

Life after the election

Doug:
I've learned a lot from this election cycle from Donald Trump. I appreciate thinking outside the box, and Trump did that. Partly because I don't think he knew where the box was, but partly because he was clever and knows how to read a room. I think we need to change many things to make sure we don't end up where we were ever again. In the past we respected and understood the difference between the "spirit" and the "letter" of the law. Trump made clear that there is no spirit, there is only the law. There is no "law" about not mentioning your penis in a debate, or blatant lying on the campaign trail. There used to be a respect for civilized discourse. But that is not the law. Nor, of course, should it be. But we had a spirit of campaigns and debates. That spirit is gone.

We, the people, need to enforce the spirit on those that reject it. We need to hold candidates to a higher standard for all of us. Moderators, reporters, media owners, and the populace need to make sure that we focus on the policy differences, not the carnival barker.

I think we all learned a lot from the electorate, too. Most people believed that there was much more consistency in the Republican voting bloc. There was an assumption, for example, that social conservatism was tightly wound up with fiscal conservatism. Trump showed that not to be the case. Trump couldn't recognize one Corinthian from another. This is great news! That suggests that this bloc is not a bloc. That is, these people might be lured away based on one issue, or another. Preventing government waste is something we could all rally around.

David:
I agree with your last sentence. But as you yourself have said in past blogs, government waste is just something we have to live with when the government gets to be as big as it is. So, if you are recommending smaller, cost-effective, less intrusive and efficient government, then I think we're on the same page.

Doug:
Cost-effective? Yes! Efficient? Yes! Smaller? Depends on what you mean! I think we need to invest in infrastructure. We need to expand Obamacare to make sure that everyone is covered, and that costs are contained. That will probably mean a single-payer option. We do need to keep the government out of our homes, communications, and out of our pants. We need to make sure that everyone has their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

David:
I looked out my front door this morning and our American flag was still waving. The sun came up, and squirrels are still storing acorns for the winter. Autumn leaves continue to fall.

And, all of the shovel-ready infrastructure that Obama was going to spend a trillion dollars on never materialized, yet the spirit of big-government spending lives on. And I'm dismayed that you feel the need for government to enforce the spirit of whatever you're enforcing on those that reject it. So much for the spirit of free speech. I guess we don't agree after all.

No matter the victor, Trump and Clinton were destined to move towards the center on some issues. Clinton is a hawk, and our military interventions are likely to become more involved in the next 4 years with her as president. A President Trump is likely to expand some social programs. Since neither of the candidates had ever made a push to decrease the size of government, I expect that the size of government will be expanding, despite our call for restraint and elimination of waste. What we have seen, and will continue to see, is candidates making the standard stump speech to offer more services and things for Americans, without Americans having to pay for any of it.

Doug:
Some of us do pay for it. It's called taxes.

David:
....for the 1%. Everyone else should get free stuff: college education, healthcare, i-phones, you name it.

Doug:
Is Trump one the top 1%? I thought smart people don't pay taxes? I know lots of people (undocumented and otherwise) that are proud to pay their taxes so that everyone can have the same rights.

David:
But I think you totally misunderstand, or misinterpret the lessons to be learned. Both red and blue states became more purple this time around. Both Clinton and Trump began as centrists, but moved towards the political extremes to secure the bases; Trump to outlast 16 other candidates, and Clinton to survive Bernie Sanders. Clinton was able make inroads with certain demographics that would normally vote Republican, and Trump gained momentum with union members and parents who support school choice. Demographics are changing, and both parties may need to compromise on what had been core policies before.

Doug:
More purple? You crazy. The States are more divided than they have for quite some time. If Trump called for a succession, he'd probably get some states to join him.

David:
And yet traditionally red states and traditionally blue states became "in-play" during this season. Arizona and Michigan as swing states? Nevada and Georgia? What we saw was voters realizing that the message matters as much as the candidate. Perhaps that's because both candidates were terribly flawed, and despised in some cases.

You also don't know your American history. During the elections of 1861 and 1865, Americans were literally killing each other on a massive scale. The elections of 1824 and 1828 between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams were particularly bitter and nasty. 1968 saw the assassination of candidates and major political leaders. The spirit of campaigns has always been brutal. And survival of the last-man-standing is the only law that counts.

Doug:
When I said that the spirit of civilized discourse was gone, I should have mentioned that it wasn't as bad as 1861 and 1865, and almost as bad as 1824 and 1828. This one, 2016, was an election where one candidate had no experience, but kept talking about non-policies and other vulgarities. The other candidate has been in politics most of her life. And will be the first woman President in the history of our country. The one with the most electoral votes is the only law that counts.

David:
So, one candidate is terrible, and the other is a gifted politician, and yet the polls have them tied. You're highly politicized and polarized statements show a misunderstanding of the populace, and where we're headed next.

Doug:
We will soon see where we are headed next.

David:
But let's talk some specifics.

Obamacare will not get "fixed" for one very important reason. It damages Democrats. Republicans in the House have no incentive to try to repair all of the inherent structural flaws that this democrat-only legislation has created. The more painful Obamacare becomes, and the more the promises of Obama and Democratic lawmakers get broken just makes Republican's jobs of defeating Democrats in the mid-terms that much easier. Perhaps that's a cynical view, but it is also true, and reflective of Washington politics.

Doug:
That is a disgusting view of politics.

David:
Even Bill Clinton knows the bill is a disaster, not just for Democrats but also for Americans. If the shoe were on the other foot, Democrats would be doing the same. A good example of this is Tim Kaine's promise to change the rules in the Senate (if Democrats have a majority) to eliminate filibuster rules so  they can put anyone they want into the Supreme Court without having to get any Republican support at all. Not very bipartisan of them. They apparently did not learn their lesson with Obamacare.

Doug:
Gee, David, why would the Senate need to change the rules to replace a Supreme Court Justice? We have had a nominee Judge waiting for the longest amount of time, ever. And still counting. What does the Constitution say about how Congress is involved in the process? Article 2 states: "[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court." Congress must advise. Changing the rules will allow that to happen. Democrats need to meet the Republicans head on. No respect for the spirit of the law? Ok, then. We will actually change the rules.

David:
Right. The precident that move sets is whenever one party gets a simple Senate majority, they can work their will without any need to even consider the other side's views. That is exactly what the founders and over 200 years of history argued against. I watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington the other night. The filibuster is what the entire movie was based on. A single man, with integrity can stand against a corrupt system and emerge victorious. You apparently support mob rule instead. The President should find nominees to the Supreme Court that 2/3 majority of the Senate can support. The Democrats used this very rule to keep Bork off of the bench, but now don't want to follow the same rules. If Democrats enact this policy, compromise in Congress is truly dead, because it becomes unnecessary. Mr. Smith would be sent packing without a peep.

Doug:
Yes, allowing 51/100 votes in the Senate in order just to get a 60/100 up/down vote on a Supreme Court Justice is mob rule. And Bork was crazy.

David:
He's proposing a simple majority to select the nominee.

Doug:
Kaine isn't even VP yet. All he wants is for the Senate to be able to consider a replacement.

David:
Moving on.

Transparency is dead. The Obama administration was to be the most-transparent ever, yet created a roadmap that would make Nixon proud. Whether we're talking about Fast and Furious or the IRS and Lois Lerner (where is Lois Lerner these days? Ah yes, retired and collecting her government pension after taking the 5th and escaping a Congressional Contempt of Congress when the Obama Justice Department refused to intervene.), the strategy of delay and refuse to produce documents unless ordered by the courts won the day. With all of the scandals that this election season produced, I see more obfuscation on the horizon. We, the little people, just don't need to know what's going on in the elite halls of Washington, where the Yale and Harvard grads jockey around between agencies for better jobs.

Doug:
I suspect that there will be a great many people claiming the death of a great many things today. "Compromise is dead. Transparency is dead."

What will the lessons be learned from this year's election? Remember the Republican postmortem and how Trump specifically ignored it? Will Republicans continue to follow the path laid out by Trump into the weeds of the angry, past-loving, shrinking electorate? Or will he follow those plans laid out in the autopsy report (also called the Growth and Opportunity Project)?

David:
Again, Trump and Sanders spoke to a large number of people in this country who felt they had been left behind. Both parties will need to find a path forward which includes these Americans. The middle class will continue to feel the pain of Obamacare and closing factories. The Veteran affairs mess continues to shine a light on the failings of government run programs. The rich and powerful continue to pull the strings of politicians. Democrats blindly followed Clinton, even though both Sanders and Obama (in prior campaigns) argued against her ambition and corporate big-money ties. Democrats are now in danger of becoming the party of big-money, big donors, and the elite and wealthy. The title they have tried for years to saddle the Republicans with.

But what we all really wanted was someone with a positive vision for America,  someone who was honest and trustworthy, and had a grasp of what needs to be done with a clear path forward. We didn't get that.

Doug:
We don't know the election results yet. Perhaps we did get that. We'll see shortly.

David:
Unless someone else has suddenly jumped in to the race, I stand by my comment.

Also, I feel that our criminal justice system is in tatters. I, for one, have no faith in the Federal Justice Department. There was Fast and Furious, the failure of any prosecutions in the IRS scandal, and the entire e-mail scandal, in which 51% think she did something illegal and got away with it thanks to the FBI and Justice Departments. I think there is enough evidence to suggest that the rich and powerful get treated to a different standard than the rest, and that justice is not blind. I think you'd find the Black-Lives-Matter folks would agree with me. The American justice system holds us together. The idea that we are all equal under the law grants us security. This system was damaged during this election, all because Clinton wanted to control access to her emails and avoid Freedom of Information access, and Obama wanted to use the Justice Department for social policies. A distrust of our justice system may be the most lasting result of the 2016 election.

Doug:
You probably could get widespread agreement on failures in law enforcement agencies at all levels. But not if you think that Clinton's email server is the poster child. Wouldn't it be amazing if you acknowledged even a single innocent death at the hands of the police? Do that, and you might get some of us that believe that #BlackLivesMatter to agree that we need to do something about difference between how the privileged and nonprivileged  are treated. But let's not just end on "distrust"... let's build that trust up again over the next 4 years, and continue to make our country better.

David:
While I see no chance for Trump to get enough Electoral College votes to win this election, I hope he does, just to ask you over the next four years how you and your smug liberal friends are getting behind President Trump to bring unity and trust to the country.

Doug:
Oh, they will be supporting their leader, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

====================== Election Results are In ======================

Doug:
Well, few would have guessed that we would find ourselves here. I, like a lot of people, will have to take some time to process this. But a couple of brief points:

Van Jones' comments early this morning seemed to capture the essence of the disappointment for me: "You tell your kids don't be a bully, you tell your kids don't be a bigot... and then you have this outcome... You have people putting children to bed tonight and they are afraid of breakfast. They're afraid of 'How do I explain this to my children?" I teach class today to a very diverse group of students. Van Jones expresses how I feel, and I wonder how the students will feel.

But you are wrong about my "smug liberal friends." I hope that we will try to bring unity and trust to the country. I hope that they do not do what the Republicans did 6 years ago:  "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." I hope that they do give President Trump a chance. But I also hope that we all hold him to the high level that this job demands. And we should not give up on our ideals.

David:
No, you're wrong. While earlier the liberals were all saying that we must pull the country back together, and after the election we can all heal the rift in our collective psyche, that was when they assumed they would win. Today they are melting down on Facebook. "The country hates women!" "I'm moving to another country!" "The world has ended!" They won't be getting behind President Trump. They are already on the attack. Yet they can't understand why people who hated Clinton wouldn't just get behind her and vote for her.  Obama should have followed his own advice, and you might not be in this position. “Our politics are dysfunctional, and something that I said earlier serves as a warning to us: and that is, societies don’t work when political factions take maximalist positions. And the more diverse the country is, the less it can afford to take maximalist positions.”

Like I said before, you missed the message. While the progressive agenda has moved towards a globalization economy and open borders, there were a large number of middle-class Americans that got left in the dust. The average salary across America today is less than it was in 1999. Half of America makes less than it did 19 years ago, and yet everything else costs more. People are tired of big corporations, working with paid-for politicians, creating havoc in their lives, and decreasing their standards of living. Men and women, college educated and not, all voted for change. And this time, they really want change.

Van Jones is an idiot, but that's beside the point. He should tell his kids not to bully or be bigots. I tell my kids the same thing. Forcing your will on the people through executive commands rather than through Congress is a form of bullying. Using the Department of Education to force gender views on the people, despite their own state laws, is a form of bullying. Using the courts to try to force  Catholics to support and pay for contraceptives, and mocking them, is both bullying and intolerant.

But I hope everyone does give Trump a fair chance. Greater than 70% of Americans felt we were on the wrong track. It shouldn't surprise anyone that they finally voted like they meant it.