(posts) a sketch of Mao Zedong

about the politcal landscape after Trump's first month

Instead of building their local networks and promoting policy positions to win voters back, Democrats are banking on a Trump administration implosion. Presumption and inference will not do it, though. A Bangladeshi factory is standing by, ready for orders to produce t-shirts emblazoned with "Four More Years."

about something completely different

The political divide in America is frustrating the public and hurting the already low approval ratings of most politicians. Instead of wading into the bog of partisanship, Donald Trump should have adopted some version of the following pitch:

Yes, by some measures we are a little better off now than we were eight years ago after the great recession hit. We are worse off by some measures, too. So, now, if you want the economy to keep moving incrementally, vote for Hillary Clinton. And if you want to remain a tentative actor on the world stage, vote for Hillary Clinton. But if you want change, if you want bold action on the economy and decisive leadership abroad, vote for Donald Trump. I am the bold candidate, and together we will make America great again.

about regret

In January 2016, US presidential candidate Donald Trump famously boasted that he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue (a major thoroughfare in Manhattan, New York City) and not lose any voters. Whatever one thinks of his phrasing, the realization he was expressing was powerful: he was a candidate who could take chances. His detractors should view Donald Trump as a missed opportunity rather than a political black swan.

Current narrative on Occupy Wallstreet

The media narrative on Occupy Wall Street says the participants have no clearly defined unifying goal or policy objective. By contrast we're shown the Tea Party who want smaller government and less taxes. Nevermind that "smaller government" and "less taxes" are amazingly broad demands that, if actually instituted, would result in changes that the Tea Party would not support, including cuts to the military, cuts to US farm and oil subsidies, and cuts to Social Security and Medicare (presumably, once unknowing senior Tea Party members are made aware these are government-run programs, some would change their mind).

Occupy Wall Street's thematic conceptual equivalent to "smaller government" and "less taxes" is probably "inequality" because this key word holds much meaning for the protestors: Inequality of wealth distribution (the poor get poorer and the rich get mega-rich), inequality of bailout-giving (big banks get 'em, homeowners and college loanees don't), inequality of criminal prosecutions (white collar crimes are often ignored, crimes of the poor cause prisons to spill over), and so on.

If the narrative is true that Occupy Wall Street lacks a cohesive, meaningful message, then it is equally true of the Tea Party. In fact, as the Tea Party grew in number, its aims became even more diverse, including Obama citizenship-deniers, health care reform opponents, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, veterans, seniors, libertarians, the rich and the poor. Yet they were celebrated in the media for allegedly lacking leadership and being a true-blue grass roots movement. The same benefit of the doubt is denied Occupy Wall Street.