Election 2016

It is the last weekend before this contentious and bizarre Presidential election season culminates with voting day on the second Tuesday in November. Most people I know have spent more time following polls, watching debates, and trying to ignore political ads over the past two years than in all previous elections combined. And most people admit to being a little tired of the rhetoric and partisan bickering.

However, it's probably incorrect to hope that November 8th will be the end of this. Those who say, "I just want this over" are in for some more disappointment. The election is very close. The popular vote on November 8th determines who the Electors vote for when the Electoral College convenes in December.

• Should Clinton win, the allegations of corruption will follow her into office and undermine her credibility further. A fractured Republican party could actually reunite in its effort to stymie the Clinton administration while rebuilding for the 2020 election. 
• Should Trump win, he will have the advantage of Republican-party majorities in at least the House and perhaps the Senate. However, the party is hardly unanimous in its support for their nominee. 
• One unintended consequence of a Trump victory is the probable demise of the Republican party. I believe some moderate Republicans and all of the Not Trump Republicans will join voices with the moderate Democrats to stall Trump's agenda. Trump himself is so unpopular that some elected representatives will be compelled to break from party loyalty. The Republican party cannot withstand a split on Trump / Not Trump lines. Independents and Libertarians stand to benefit if they can find a leader more presidential than Gary Johnson, and get some support in state and federal offices in the 2018 election. 

Regardless of who wins office, this rancorous political environment will not blow over anytime soon.

Most polls predict that Clinton will win the popular vote. The Real Clear Politics average of major national polls shows a narrow Clinton victory. Only one major poll gives Trump an advantage. Notice that the largest sample with the smallest margin of error is inconclusive.

This particular race has always been a close two-way race with Trump playing the spoiler and Johnson never really breaking through. Trump is rising in the polls and has closed the gap to less than 3% as of this writing.

Bear in mind that the popular vote does not determine the winner. On the morning of November 9th, polling will most likely show a Clinton victory. However, the popular vote is conducted to choose electors in the Electoral College, and the Electoral College actually will actually determine the winner, if and only if one of the top three candidates manages to get a simple majority of the EC votes. That number is (538 / 2) + 1 = 270.

Above is a snapshot of projected EC votes based on current polls. Below is a trend of EC vote predictions over time.

Text

Text

PredictWise by David Rothchild is a site that looks at polling data but also the data from predictive markets. The data from PW indicates that RCP may have a slight Republican skew, meaning that if RCP gives a small edge to Clinton, the actual advantage may be much larger.

Accessed November 5, 2016 from: http://predictwise.com/blog/2016/11/possible-polling-error/

The consensus indicates a victory for the Democrats on Tuesday. But I think that the confidence is misplaced. This race could be much closer than polls indicate. Here is how Donald J. Trump might become the 45th President of the United States. I am not going to say whether this is good or bad. I'm not going to get into the why of this outcome, but I will describe how, and a little bit of when, this will happen.

First, a disclaimer: Here on PhilosFX, I don't discuss politics, per se. Rather, I focus on decision analysis, hoping to enable informed decisions. You probably won't see me advocating for a candidate, but you may see me delving into data collection and analysis.

I am personally non-partisan and to my recollection, I have never voted a straight ticket. I'm an issues-based voter. I am such a label-avoiding pragmatist, I have not registered with any party, not even the Independent Party. I vote. I take a stand when I vote. Before I vote, I consider the issues important to me, and how I would enact policy on those issues if I were in a position to decide. Then I select the candidate that comes closest to what I would do on the slate of issues that matter most to me.

That disclaimer out of the way, I get the impression that the Electoral College will decide this election. The popular vote will likely go to Clinton, but the EC is far from a lock for the Dems. I once thought that if Johnson won just enough EC votes to prevent either Clinton or Trump from getting to 270, then Congress would decide the election. According to the Constitution, if the EC cannot determine the winner of the election, the House selects the President from the top 3 finishers, and the Senate chooses the VP from the top two finishers.

Given the Republican majority in the House, Johnson could block a Clinton victory in one of two ways: First, and most likely, the Representatives would vote along party lines and elect Trump. Second, and only if the Trump campaign experienced a serious malfunction of some kind, the Representatives could reject Trump and vote for the other non-Clinton: Johnson. But I have come to realize that it is extremely unlikely that Johnson will capture even his home state of New Mexico. Even if he finishes third, it is unlikely that he will capture enough support to give Republicans pause. For better or worse, Johnson has become a non-factor.

That leaves the race in the hands of the EC. I think the polls are disproportionately representing the urban vote. Even if Clinton does end up winning the urban vote and the minority vote, she is not doing well in the great unwashed Midwest. Polls are under representing the older white voters who don't participate in polls for the simple fact that they don't have cell phones. They live in areas that may not have decent cell coverage. But they vote. They are angry, they have either been left out of the tech boom or they have opted out of it, and they vote. And so the election will come down to whether Trump can turn the grey states in the above map red. Watch Florida (29 votes), Ohio (18), Michigan (16), Georgia (16), and North Carolina (15).

Just so we're clear: Regardless of the popular vote, if Hillary Clinton does not get 270 or more Electoral College votes, Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States.  

Positive Social Change and Diversity

Creativity and innovation depend upon diversity of thought. Diversity of thought follows from diversity of experience. If one is never forced to look at a familiar situation from a radically different perspective, it's much harder to appreciate the valid aspects of opposing points of view.

When there is no diversity, there is no change. no progress, no improvement. If you want to make the world a better place, you'd better embrace diversity. Whether you are looking to adapt through evolutionary change, or pursue a more radical, revolutionary change agenda, begin with your values, and then make your plans, and finally put your plans into action.

“The place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and hands, and then work outward from there.”― Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values

I value diversity and am committed to challenging my own deeply held beliefs on a frequent basis. This political season is giving me plenty of opportunities to test just how open-minded I truly am.

Are you open-minded? Do you rigorously examine your own beliefs? I offer the following test. Visit the Facebook pages of each of the four presidential candidates. I have copied the links below. On each page, note how many of your friends have decided to follow each of them. My hypothesis is that the most open-minded people would have diversity in this measure, whereas the more closed-minded among us would tend to associate only with like-minded folks.

Here are the pages in alphabetical order by last name

• https://www.facebook.com/hillaryclinton/ 
• https://www.facebook.com/govgaryjohnson/
• https://www.facebook.com/drjillstein/
• https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/

In my case, only 13.7% of my Facebook friends had made such a declaration for a particular candidate. However, the distribution of those choices reflects something interesting about the diversity of my friends.

Here are the results, in descending order:

• Clinton 47%
• Trump 31%
• Johnson 19%
• Stein 3%

This post  has nothing to do with who I'll vote for, or who I think you should vote for. I believe you can search your heart and do your job on election day with no help from me. In fact, I am counting on it! Likewise, I am not in need of unsolicited partisan propaganda from others. I'll make up my own mind, thank you.

Rather, this post is about the relationship between positive social change and diversity. Do you value diversity? How do you demonstrate this value in the world?

“You are the average of the five people you spend the most time with.”― Jim Rohn

American Ineffectualism

I invite your attention to the following article which was published in the online edition of the National Review. My reaction follows, and your comments are encouraged.

SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 4:00 PM

American Ineffectualism 
Every American ally is cringing with embarrassment at the amateurishness of the last month. 

By Mark Steyn

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358480/american-ineffectualism-mark-steyn/


While I was entertained by Mr. Steyn's pugilistic style, I felt his substance was a little skewed. Admittedly, I was embarrassed at how our government appeared to be playing checkers in a chess tournament. Obviously, people like Putin and Steyn saw weakness, and pounced. 

However, I do not fully appreciate Steyn's glorification of Putin's "blueberry" crushing skills. Putin is an opportunistic thug who completely ignored his own past so he could assume a moral high ground and mockingly lecture my President. 

The balls! Or should I say, the blueberries!?! 

At any rate, I admire Senator John McCain for standing up to Putin. His comeback is combative and spot-on. My country, right or wrong? No, I won't go that far. As a Nation, we must be willing to learn from our mistakes. My attitude is more like this: I can talk bad about MY family, but if YOU say one mean thing about ANY of them. I will personally knock your block off! 

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/19-09-2013/125705-McCain_for_pravda_ru-0/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/mccain-sharply-criticizes-putin.html?_r=0
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-pravda-op-ed-vladimir-putin-nyt-new-york-times-2013-9

A short guide to the Middle East

The Middle East Explained In One Excellent Letter To The Editor

This letter to the editor from Mr. K. N. Al-Sabah ran in the Aug 24th edition of Financial Times.  It was then picked up by BuzzFeed.
 

 

 

This Quixotic quote inspired me to attempt a drawing of the social network described in Mr. Al-Sabah's letter.

 

Assuming we do want to get involved in the Middle East, do we know enough to actually make the situation better?

 

 

Look in the comments under the article as it appears in BuzzFeed and you will find a visualization by Derpina which takes the form of a Flow Chart.

 

The first problem I have with Derpina's visualization is that the Turks are Sunni, not Shia. The second problem is that the flow chart makes the situation look deterministic, which is misleading. 

 

I believe my spaghetti chart above captures the chaos more accurately, in my never humble but always biased opinion.

 

That said, I believe this version by the Elder of Zion is even better. His is an improvement on one created by another blogger, the big Pharaoh. As the Elder of Zion states, any attempt to understand this situation will change daily.

 

I wonder if this idea of graphing the complex social networks in the Middle East would make a fun parlor game? I wonder what I will think of this post when I look back on it in 10 years?

 

 

Ayn Rand's Objectivism Explained by Her Student, Colleague, Lover, and Self-Esteem Guru

Have you read Atlas Shrugged? Do you know the answer to the question, "Who is John Galt?" Did you ever wonder about the connection between Alan Greenspan, the Wall Street Journal, and Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism? Are you suspicious of Big Government? Assuming you aspire to become the best possible version of yourself, do you know how to tell whether you are on the right path? Are you willing and able to help or correct someone who has fallen off their path?

If the answer to any of the above questions is "Yes," you're in luck: today's post is for you. Below are excerpts from the May, 2011 Daily Bell interview * with Nathaniel Branden, a pioneer in the psychology of self-esteem and one of Ayn Rand's primary proponents.

In the excerpt below, I added the emphasis to build discussion points. As you read the excerpt, please prepare to engage in the two discussion questions at the end. 

==============================================================

Daily Bell: Do you feel Atlas Shrugged is Rand's greatest work?

Nathaniel Branden: Of course I do. I think it's the work of a genius on a very high level. It is an international best seller and is the most global treatment of her philosophy, which tells the story of what happens to the world when the people of ability go on strike against a sort of statist-collectivist world.

[Note: Atlas Shrugged was Rand's fourth book, final fictional novel, and most famous treatise As a young architecture student, I preferred The Fountainhead. However, I read Atlas Shrugged as an adult philosophy student and found it much more compelling.]  

This portrait of Rand was used in a US Postage Stamp

Daily Bell: Can you sum up [Ayn Rand's] philosophy and its antecedents?

Nathaniel Branden: Reason is the highest possible value, given the condition of all truth. Reason is our only means of acquiring knowledge. Reason is the foundation of ethics knowing that individuals require a code of ethics. Individuals have a right to exist and they have a right to protect values, to protect equal liberty. Her philosophy is more complex than we can discuss right now, but I would have to say she was first a champion for the supremacy of reason, then for the argument of code of ethics, on human nature which would respect the human's right to belong to him or her own self. Her thoughts were you must own your own life, and to respect your own needs, and not to see the self as a servant of society or the state or the globe or planet.

Portrait of Branden

Daily Bell: What is the most important of [Ayn Rand's] ideas in your opinion?

Nathaniel Brandon: That human beings have a right to exist. They have a right to freedom. [People] do not belong to the government. These are all very liberating statements and that is the main message from her work. She also raises very important questions that are foundational. She asks, Why do we need ethics?? That is key because you have to come to that conclusion for yourself. Life on all levels is full of challenges, and you are not born with the knowledge of what is best. You need to look at principals and how they relate to all parts of your life because without it you are susceptible to people with very vicious ideas.

[Note: what is the relationship between values, morals, beliefs, laws, ethics, and behavior?]

Daily Bell: Explain why rational self-interest vs altruism is so important.

Nathaniel Branden: You have to understand what altruism is and needs. The term was coined in the 19th century by Auguste Comte, and it means "others above self." Altruism is to sacrifice and means insubordination of the individuals for the group, it meant it was morality superior in virtue of the fact that their primary goal was to service the state or the monarchy or the union or god knows what.

You will find it with Stalin, you will find it in any number of dictators and if you want power over people, it's a very useful concept to have. A lot of intellectuals who live in the world are surprisingly on the side of the "others" in this negative sense. I think they had this sneaking idea that it would work because they would be on the side of the good guys. It's the opposite of egoism.

You feel a moral obligation to live for the sake of others. Rational self-interest holds reason, purpose and self-esteem as supreme. You have a responsibility to yourself first to survive. To remain alive you must act and before you can act you must know the nature, and purpose of your actions. If you are living for others and not putting yourself first, that is altruism. Ayn did not use negative connotations, which are usually used for selfishness or self-interest.

=============================================================

And now, for those of you so inclined, the discussion: Branden tells us Rand valued rational-self interest as a guiding principle for a secular ethical code. She points out that there are people in the world with vicious ideas, and therefore one must examine the nature and purpose of one's own actions as well as those of other people, in order to survive and thrive. 

Question 1. The art of constructive criticism is nearly a lost art. People no longer offer or accept constructive criticism. We feel it is not our place or our right to critique others, and we are easily offended when someone else tries to critique us. Describe the future of a society in which everything is acceptable and nothing is incorrect or forbidden. 

Question 2. How can anyone (take Paul Ryan, for a famous example) claim to be both a Christian and an Objectivist? Are not the principles of love for others and love for self in direct opposition? To what degree are Christianity and Objectivism aligned? Or are they in fact mutually exclusive? Suppose a person living in community recognizes a Creator. It's rational for the Creator to appear on the top of any hierarchy. But who comes next, the individual, or the other people? 

Thank you for reading and thinking. If you care to engage, please use the comments section or email me to share your answers.


* The Daily Bell is a leading free-market publication and thought leader documenting the rapidly changing political and economic landscape during what they call the Internet Reformation. They regularly scrutinize dominant social themes – fear-based memes purveyed by the power elite intended to frighten people into giving up power and wealth to globalist facilities. More: http://www.thedailybell.com/

Time to replace GDP with Aggregate Happiness, Respect, and Dignity (AHRD)?

My brother is a brave and blessed cancer survivor who has waged a remarkable and truly inspirational battle with his deadly foe. This battle has changed his outlook on life and his personal testimony. In a recent post on my brother's Caring Bridge site, he shares the following quote from Dutch-born Catholic priest and author, Henri Nouwen. My brother includes the introductory comment that this Nouwen quote inspires him to be confident in his faith and in who he is.

“At issue here is the question: 'To whom do I belong? God or to the world?' Many of my daily preoccupations suggest that I belong more to the world than to God. A little criticism makes me angry, and a little rejection makes me depressed. A little praise raises my spirits, and a little success excites me. It takes very little to raise me up or thrust me down. Often I am like a small boat on the ocean, completely at the mercy of its waves. All the time and energy I spend in keeping some kind of balance and preventing myself from being tipped over and drowning shows that my life is mostly a struggle for survival: not a holy struggle, but an anxious struggle resulting from the mistaken idea that it is the world that defines me.


"As long as I keep running about asking, 'Do you love me? Do you really love me?,' I give all power to the voices of the world and put myself in bondage because the world is filled with 'ifs.' The world says, 'Yes, I love you if you are good-looking, intelligent, and wealthy. I love you if you have a good education, a good job, and good connections. I love you if you produce much, sell much, and buy much.' There are endless 'ifs' hidden in the world's love. These 'ifs' enslave me, since it is impossible to respond adequately to all of them. The world's love is and always will be conditional. As long as I keep looking for my true self in the world of conditional love, I will remain 'hooked' to the world-trying, failing, and trying again. It is a world that fosters addictions because what it offers cannot satisfy the deepest craving of my heart.” 

― Henri J.M. Nouwen

When I read the Nouwen quote on my brother's website, the words cut me in half.

I would describe myself as achievement-oriented, and I know lots of people like me in that regard. But Nouwen's series of "ifs" points out the weakness of this otherwise productive outlook: nothing is ever quite good enough. When we evaluate the relative worth of our own efforts as well as those of other people around us by the "make more, sell more, buy more" metric, we set up life as a race where only the most able competitors are valued.

Wow, the Gross Domestic Product explains athletes and hedge fund traders making millions while inner-city schools crumble the old and sick are taken advantage of until they die forgotten, doesn't it?  


What if we measured "struggle" instead of "achievement"? What if achievements were not ends unto themselves, but merely means of learning our gifts? Rather than a race to an inevitable and frightening death, what if life could be an endless cooperative matching of strengths to weaknesses?


I do not consider myself a Marxist just because I complain about income inequality. Many super-rich voluntarily share their good fortune through their foundations and through charitable giving. Once a certain level of wealth has been achieved, the next marginal dollar has no impact on happiness. But we may need an incentive for some super-rich to voluntarily shift their focus from acquisition to distribution.
 

If the next marginal dollar does nothing to increase my personal happiness, but that same dollar contributes  to the dignity of another and to the respect and esteem in which I am held, might I be more willing to voluntarily cross the line from greed to largesse? I think so.


This leads me to the question, "Which approach would lead to better outcomes for Americans of all income levels: measuring Gross Domestic Product (GDP)? or measuring something more transformational and aspirational, such as the Aggregate Happiness, Respect, and Dignity (AHRD)?"


We describe God’s love as unconditional. Ideally, a parent's love is unconditional. We also understand the Golden Rule. With these examples, we know what right looks like. Meanwhile in the USA we are still using the Gross Domestic Product to keep score. The GDP is an Industrial Age transactional framework rewarding makers, sellers, and buyers. I think something like the AHRD could be just the kind of transformational metric we need to get us closer to a more perfect Union.


H/T: TJD


Read more:

• GDP vs GNP is explained here: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/gdp-vs-gnp/
• Henri Jozef Machiel Nouwen (Nouen), (Nijkerk, January 24, 1932 – Hilversum, September 21, 1996) was a Dutch-born Catholic priest and writer who authored 40 books about spirituality.

 

President Obama's 2d Term Agenda

Photo by WaPo. For a full transcript of the SOTU address, go HERE

This is the second in a three part series of articles about the President's agenda for his second term.

• Part One: January's Inaugural Address.
• Part two: his Madri Gras-eve State of the Union Address.  
• Part three: the President's Budget for FY 2014, due in March.

First impression: I need some new ties. I have no pastel, Easter-colored neck ties. I was not invited to attend the SOTU address this year, but had I been present in the House Chamber, I would have looked out of place. Lilting Lilac. Sky Blue. Fuzzy Peach. Mint Green. Bunny nose Pink. We went from Mardi Gras to Easter Sunday in one fell swoop.

As long as we are dispensing with the trivia, what did you think of Marco Rubio's "water moment" in the Republican rebuttal? I found the moment humanizing but the hoopla about it de-humanizing. If you don't know what I am referring to, consider yourself lucky and the matter closed. Enough said?

Speaking of social media, my Facebook friend and frequent PhilosFX commentator, CT, said this fanfare of banality all reminded him of a favorite Frank Zappa quote,

"Politics is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex."

Frank may have been on to something, but, like it or not, we are governed by the people we elect, following the process outlined in our Constitution. So let's take a more serious look at what the State of the Union Address tells us about where the President sees the Nation in relation to where he'd like to take us.

• Increasing the minimum wage
• A path to citizenship and tougher border security
• Only “modest” Medicare and Social Security reforms
• Increased gun control
• Ending the war in Afghanistan
• Increased infrastructure spending
• Addressing climate change
• Increasing sharing of information to prevent cyber attacks

Some folks look at this list and see a fairly pragmatic agenda. Some other folks look at the same list and see a threat to our freedom in the form of big government take-over. Some folks never get past the fact that our President self-identifies as a Black man, although I dare say that fewer and fewer citizens are paying attention to race and gender. President Obama is not the Black President. He is the President (who happens to be Black). That color-blindness is a good thing, as long as people are truly focused on issues that matter more, such as the strength of the Nation and the health and well-being of her people.

Personally, I look at the list and I see a fairly pragmatic agenda, which is what I want to see. Which is why I am immediately suspicious. Rhetoric sways people. Recall these stirring words from Part One, the President's second inaugural address.

" . . . each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution.

"What makes us exceptional, what makes us America is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration . . . We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few, or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a republic, a government of, and by, and for the people. Entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed . . . "
 

A President of the United States can use phrases like "unalienable rights" and government "of, by, and for the people" in speeches, even as his policies

"... point away from a republic of liberty and toward bureaucratic despotism.  President Obama's policies - from Obamacare, to higher taxes and runaway debt, to increased regulation of the economy and of family life - are in direct contradiction to these words in his second inaugural address.

"President Obama can only get away with misusing the words of America's founders because too many Americans today have not been properly educated about our American Heritage.

"And if this is allowed to continue, our great nation will become less free and less prosperous, and the intrusive bureaucratic state will expand." --Dr. Larry P. Arnn, President, Hillsdale College

Let's get past the melody and the message and get to the meat. How will the agenda laid out in the SOTU address contribute to the strength of the Nation and the health and well-being of her people? So the challenge now is to connect the beautiful melody of January's Inaugural Address with the inspiring lyrics of this State of the Union Address and produce the actual sheet music of the President's Budget for FY 2014. Follow the money.

Of course, the words are eloquent, but as we know, a brilliant plan without a supporting budget is just fantasy. 

Given the gridlock in Congress and their track record of producing budgets of late, I would say,

"Welcome to Fantasy Island."