Category: Campaign 2020

Do Introverts Commit Acts of Violence?

Here’s a question for you: “Do introverts commit acts of violence? The only way to try to answer this question is to acknowledge that at least one premise of the statement is probably faulty. It is unlikely that there are individuals who are introverts 100% of the time. It’s more likely that we are all live on the Introvert / Extrovert continuum and depending on the situation we are in; we slide to different points on the scale.

But there clearly are people who spend more time to the left of the center-point (Ambiverts), and ones who spend more times to the right. So, for those people who live more to the left on this continuum (in the comfort zone of being an introvert), it seems likely that they would avoid violence. They would not be the people on the streets of America’s cities who are smashing windows, looting, and possibly even scuffling with law enforcement officers. In fact, they may be far less likely to even be on the street protesting.

To march, picket and protest, someone has to feel pretty confident about going into crowds and asserting oneself. My hunch is that most introverts would much rather watch what is happening through the digital pictures from their televisions, computers, or even phones. But that does not mean that introverts cannot, or do not, engage in actions promoting social change.

Many introverts are frequently in thought about how to change our society for the better. They often put their ideas to paper and provide us with clear purpose and direction as we work to help society clean up its ailments.

One could argue that societal change happens best when there is either formal or informal collaboration between those who are in a frequent state of reflection about what is happening in our world, and those who comfortably take to the streets and other public places to let the world know what they think and the intensity of their beliefs.

But this picture of the thoughtful non-violent introverts has the requisite exceptions to the rule. One of the quietest, most secluded and reclusive individuals in modern American history engaged in over twenty acts of horrendous violence. His name is Ted Kaczynski; also known as the Unabomber.  Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 also had many attributes of an introvert.

Maybe if we eliminate from our universe of introverts those who harbor extreme amounts of anger and hate, then we can more clearly state that introverts tend to be non-violent. But in all fairness, we could say the same about extroverts.

It’s all complicated and I certainly do not have clear answers. But, it’s something that I’m pondering now. Can those of us who spend considerable time functioning as introverts, be helpful voices for moderation when are streets are rioting? Can we also be leaders in promoting progressive solutions to problems that send so many others to the streets? As Donald Trump shows us every day, those of us who believe in rational thinking and embrace empathy must take whatever non-violent action we can to help solve America’s and the world’s problems.

Joe Biden Needs a Little Behavior Modification

Joe Biden had another “foot-in-mouth” moment a few days ago when he agreed to a radio interview with a gentleman who goes by the modest name of “Charlamagne tha God.” Some might say that Biden makes mistakes in his use of language because he is frequently over-energetic, or even hyper. That may be, and at his age (77; 78 by Election Day), it is unlikely that he will develop any more self-control than he already has.

Joe Biden had another “foot-in-mouth” moment a few days ago when he agreed to a radio interview with a gentleman who goes by the modest name of “Charlamagne tha God.” What most of us have heard is what Biden said more than seventeen minutes into the interview, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” Charlamagne, who is African-American, did not cheer Biden on, instead he said, “It don’t have nothing to do with Trump. It has to do with the fact I want something for my community.”

There are so many ways to take this exchange. It’s possible that what Biden said would have gone largely unnoticed in the decade of the 1960s. The 1960 presidential election was when African-Americans took a commanding step away from the Republican Party (the party of Lincoln) and began voting in huge numbers for Democrats. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society was largely responsible for this migration. But by 1970, the term “politically correct” came into our lexicon.[1] Such a comment by Biden or anyone would then have been unacceptable.

Regardless of how accurate Biden’s statement about African-Americans voting Democratic might be (approximately 93%), it certainly did not apply to all African-Americans and it assuredly was not politically correct. Generally, it is progressives who are tossing out the allegations of someone or something not being politically correct, but in the case of Biden’s words, conservatives joyfully jump to impugn both Biden’s words and his sentiments.

Biden will pay a price with conservatives for his words, particularly with the millions of African-Americans who do not identify with the Democratic Party. But he also pays a price with segments of his Democratic base because critical thinking, a skill that helps define many Democrats, rarely includes sweeping generalizations.

Some might say that Biden makes mistakes in his use of language because he is frequently over-energetic, or even hyper. That may be, and at his age (77; 78 by Election Day), it is unlikely that he will develop any more self-control than he already has. So, here are two suggestions as to how Joe Biden can minimize making mis-statements that come back to bite him:

  1. Be careful to whom he grants interviews. He does better when his energy and intensity is low, so it would behoove him to limit his interviews to reporters and other members of the media who are especially subdued and restrained in their manner.

  2. Stop the bragging. In his interview with Charlamagne, he dwelled on his accomplishments. This can be unseemly, especially to political introverts and others who measure words carefully. Biden needs to work with advisors to help him identify when he goes into “bragging mode.” The best way for him to avoid blowing his own horn is for him to focus on the future rather than his past. Let others promote his accomplishments. Biden should be the messenger for rational and empathetic policies in the future; essentially the opposite of everything that comes out of the Trump Administration.

Donald Trump is probably chomping at the bit to debate Biden. Trump always aims at the jugular, and the way to combat that is with calm reasoning and well-placed sarcasm. Biden has to avoid the boorishness of bragging and the echo chamber of laundry lists about this and that. Barack Obama may not have been the world’s best debater, but he never lost his cool. If Biden can stay calm, he will avoid doing anything that is self-defeating. Whether we’re talking politics, sports, or any other kind of game, the wise competitor knows to never defeat oneself. Joe Biden has yet to show that he can avoid undermining himself. Let his interview with Charlamagne stand as a reminder that he needs to chill, or be as Trump would say, “low-energy.”

[1] William Safire states that the first recorded use of the term “politically correct” in the modern sense was by Toni Code Bambara in the 1970 anthology The Black Woman.

Will 2020 be a battle between a rational cult (Bernie) and an irrational one (Trump)?

It never occurred to me until recently that the Democrats might have a candidate who generates something akin to the blind loyalty of Trump supporters.

Yes, I knew that Bernie supporters were fervent, but I did not fully sense how many in his base follow the mantra of “Bernie or Bust.” My awareness of this increased in recent days, first when my thirty-six-year-old niece said that she had switched from Elizabeth to Bernie because she was so impressed with the energy and commitment of her peers’ support of Bernie. It was not the transitory type that Elizabeth had, but rather more of the “to-the-very-end” type that Bernie has. Later, another relative told me that much of her life was on hold while she was immersed door-knocking for Bernie in her home state of California, which wisely this year moved its primary from June up to Super Tuesday (March 3).

It is hard to imagine Joe Biden generating deep loyalty and, as good as Pete Buttigieg might be, he seems to have a knack for saying things that gratuitously piss other people off. If Amy Klobuchar gets the momentum that she has earned and deserves, then she may too develop followers who will go to the mat for her.

But as things stand now, Bernie is the one Democrat who has something akin to a cult following, one in which it is virtually impossibly to pry away supporters. Does that sound familiar? Well yes, the fact that Donald Trump’s popularity with his base actually increased during the impeachment process shows two clear things: (1) it is virtually impossible to get his base to waver, and (2) these things called facts don’t mean a whole lot, if anything, to his base.

This is where there is a fundamental difference between the Bernie Cult and the Trump Cult. There is a rational foundation to why Bernie has such a strong following. We can see it in two dynamics:

  1. Bernie’s policies are based on reason and empathy. Trump’s are based on insecurity and fear. Bernie wants to finish the work on the social and economic safety net for Americans that Teddy Roosevelt began, his cousin Franklin Roosevelt institutionalized, and Lyndon Johnson expanded. But the United States is unlike other industrialized democracies because there are enough Americans who resent the idea of “security for all.” For an excellent explanation why, I suggest reading Nikole Hannah-Jones’ 1619 Project in the New York Times Magazine. In a nutshell, it is that many white Americans do not favor extending equality to people of color and other minorities. It might be helpful to watch a recent guest appearance of Hannah-Jones on the Daily Show with Trevor Noah.
  1. Unlike Trump supporters, Bernie supporters will not give their candidate a blank check to do whatever he wants. While Trump is all over the map, Bernie is consistent, perhaps to a fault. What you see is what you get. In fact, what you see is essentially what you’ve seen from him for the past forty years, with the one exception of gun control, where in his early years he [had to] pander to his gun-loving Vermont constituents. Bernie’s supporters’ commitment extends beyond him personally and stretches to the concept of a fair and just society. If he should waver in his commitments, his base would begin to unravel. If Bernie was one percent as corrupt as Trump, he would offend many in his base, and they would likely leave the reservation.

Last Friday evening, Bill Maher said on “Real Time” that Donald Trump had just had his finest week (in terms of popularity). Maher and others are becoming more scared that the dreaded “four more years” might happen.

The conventional wisdom is that the Democratic Party does not have a candidate who can go toe-to-toe with Trump. I don’t believe that. I think that the intensity of Bernie’s base support gives him a far stronger foundation than other Democratic candidates. Should it become likely that he will win the nomination, the fervor of his support could grow exponentially. It will have to, because the nastiness of his opponents will also multiply. While I have my reservations about Bernie (I don’t like being yelled at), I still think that he is our best bet (along with possibly Klobuchar).

Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, these are the cult leaders who can scare anyone who has the ability to engage in rational thinking. Trump may not have reached their levels, but he’s scary and unhinged. But perhaps in this unique moment of 2020, we have a leader who has a semi-cult following who wants to truly improve the quality of life for Americans and all global citizens. It’s odd that things have developed this way, but for the time being, we may want to go with our “semi-cult leader,” Bernie.

This post is cross-published in the Occasional Planet blog.

Putin wins Round One in Iowa

Yes, there is no evidence that the cause of the tabulation fiasco in Iowa was because of Russian hacking. But the elephant in the room (besides Donald Trump) has to be Vladimir Putin, who put the fear of disruption in the hearts and minds of all “woke” Americans.

Putin did not need to do anything in Iowa except let his reputation precede him. The powers-that-be in the Iowa Democratic Party, organizers of the caucuses, wanted to try a streamlined method reporting results from each of the 1,681 caucus sites to the central tabulation center in the state capital of Des Moines. They chose to use a new app on smartphones that would immediately communicate results from each of the venues to headquarters.

If this was as recent as the Iowa caucuses four years ago, months before the public learned of Russian efforts to destabilize American democracy by probing and poking into our system of digital communication, there would not have been a problem. The app would have been thoroughly tested and coding errors or other glitches would have been resolved well before the actual caucuses began.

However, in the world of 2020 electronic reporting, we know that Vladimir Putin in Russia and cyber-stalkers in other countries are looking for ways to penetrate American vulnerabilities. When they actually hit a home run, they are able to steal or manipulate data and use if for their disreputable purposes. But they can also be very effective with a “doubles offense” in which the only impact that they have on the United States is to reinforce the fear that exists about the possibility of hacking.

The “doubles offense” is what happened in Iowa this past Monday night. The Democratic caucus organizers did not want to engage in beta testing of their new app in advance of the gatherings for fear that Russia, or some other country or groups of cyber-hackers would engage in nefarious conduct and try to disrupt the system. By not testing the system, they went to a default assumption that it would work fine.

Had it worked as anticipated, everything would have gone smoothly in Iowa. However, there was some sort of an error in the app, perhaps in coding, perhaps in compatibility with the outside world, that brought chaos to reporting the results from around the state to the site of central data tabulation.

The apparent work-arounds did not work. Phoning results in from the field to the central office did not work because there was not a high capacity phone bank at Des Moines headquarters to handle calls from over 1,500 remote sites. In some cases, representatives of nearby caucuses chose to jump in their cars and literally drive their results to the Des Moines headquarters. That did not work because the officials were not allowing outsiders to enter the building.

It’s easy to mock what happened in Iowa and the individuals who designed and implemented the strategy for the evening. But they were in a place in which many of us currently find ourselves; overwhelmed by the complexities of modern computing power. This time it was the Democrats of Iowa who made the seemingly avoidable mistakes; next time it will be someone else.

Two quick lessons that can be learned: (a) we cannot be vigilant enough, and (b) KISS [Keep It Simple, Stupid]; i.e. a straight-up popular vote elections makes counting and recording much simpler than the likes of caucuses or even the Electoral College. Let’s be smart out there!

This article in cross-posted in Occasional Planet.