NOTE:  Today’s blog entry marks the 550th post since I created this site in October 2015.  Over the past three days, I thought about how I could best celebrate this milestone.  First, I went back to the 39 unpublished drafts I never finished.  Some were attempts to say something profound.  Others were intended simply to make you laugh.  As I reread each draft, I encountered a simple truth.  They did not meet either objective and deserved to be tossed in that digital round file.

The first image I saw this morning was the front page of the New York Times (below), dedicated to victims of COVID-19, by putting names to the numbers.  And there was the topic for today’s post.  Not how could this happen, but how did we let this happen?

Thank you to all who have followed this blog from the start and those who have joined the community over the years.

There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.

~George W. Bush

Bush 43 took a lot of grief for this one.  We all knew what he was trying to say.  “Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.”  Sadly, this “Bushism” overshadowed the point he was trying to make.  The occasion on which he made this gaffe was an appearance at the East Literature Magnet School in Nashville, Tennessee.  The topic was the importance of teaching American history and civic responsibility.  Thus lies the difference between W. and Trump.  On certain occasions, Bush 43’s heart was in the right place.

And as we are just over five months away from the next national election, I hope he was right when he said, “…you can’t get fooled again.”  I wish I was more confident.  And during the half-century since the time I studied voting behavior, an area of particular interest during my pursuit of degrees in political science, much has changed.

Back in the day, the most noted expert in the field was one of my mentors Richard M. Scammon who co-wrote The Real Majority: An Extraordinary Examination of the American Electorate, published in January 1970.  Scammon and co-author Ben Wattenberg predicted the 1968 presidential election was a harbinger of the coming defection of many life-long Democratc to the party of Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes and Trump.  And to some extent, it reinforced James Carville’s advice to Bill Clinton, “It’s the economy stupid.”  And while such wise counsel was correct when the nation is in recession, what Carville and others in the Democratic party failed to inquire was, “What happens when it’s not the economy?”

Scammon and Wattenberg argued, while the economy dominated politics for most of the 20th century, financial security resulted in a shift among middle Americans toward social issues.  In an early warning against identity politics, Scammon wrote, “The typical voter is unyoung, unpoor and unblack.”  Therefore, from a counter-intuitive perspective, the Democratic party becomes it own worst enemy ever time a Democratic administration cleans up the economic carnage left behind by their Republican predecessors.  Bill Clinton oversees the strongest economy in decades and voters choose “compassionate conservatism” over staying the course.  Barack Obama shepherds a seven year recovery from the worst recession in 70 years and the electorate chooses Trump’s “build that wall” and “lock her up” over Hillary Clinton’s “Big Challenges, Real Solutions.”

This explains why, despite his low approval ratings, a majority of analysts and political pundits predicted as late as January 2020, Trump was the odds-on favorite to win re-election.  Although Trump’s campaign thought their wildcard was the record high stock market and low unemployment, it was not the state of the economy which offered him a path to four more years in the Oval Office.  It was his ability to once again, in the absence of economic concerns,  make the election about cultural issues.

Which brings me back to W. and the opening quote.  In 2016, Donald Trump fooled just enough people to carry the electoral college.  Without the benefit of a post-pandemic economic boom, Trump and his surrogates struggle for a different rationale.  The latest ploy, as reported by the Associated Press this morning, is “Trust me.  We built the greatest economy in the world.  I’ll do it a second time.”

Fool me once?  For many Trump supporters, once is a quantum understatement.  Consider the following.

• Trust me.  If I am the nominee, I’ll show you my tax returns.  Still waiting.
• Trust me.  Melania’s Einstein visa was by the book.  She’s going to hold a press conference to answer your questions.  Still waiting.
• Trust me.  I welcome the opportunity to be interviewed by Robert Mueller.  Never happened.
• Trust me.  The majority of benefits from the tax cut will go to the middle class.  Never happened.
• Trust me.  I’ll drain the swamp.  More full than ever.
• Trust me.  I’ll tell you the truth.  That was 18,000+ lies ago.
• Trust me.  I’ll bring peace to the Middle East.  Still waiting.
• Trust me.  I will not profit from being president.  LOL.
• Trust me.  I’ll replace Obamacare with something better.  Still waiting.
• Trust me.  The coronavirus will miraculously disappear in April.  Weeping for the 100,000 dead Americans this Memorial Day weekend.
• Trust me.  Hydroxychloroquine can prevent your getting the coronavirus.  NOT.
• Trust me.  American farmers never had it better.  Record number of bankruptcies despite total $56 billion in bailouts.
• Trust me.  You’re going to get so tired of winning, you’re going to say, “enough already.”  Did he mean to say “whining?”

And yet 42.9 percent of voters say they will vote for Trump in November and 8.7 percent are still undecided. (Source:  Real Clear Politics Average of Polls)  Which is why November 3rd is not about Trump.  Imagine your doctor asked for your trust after being wrong so many times.  Or your financial advisor.  Or your lawyer. Or your pastor/rabbi lied to you constantly.  Or your therapist.  Or your boss.  Or one of your employees.  How long would you maintain that personal or professional relationship?  And if you did, how long before a friend or family member asked, “Are YOU insane?”

In an effort to expose Trump’s character and its impact on America, people including former First Lady Michelle Obama often quote Maya Angelo.  “When someone tells you who they are, believe them.”  If, on November 3rd, the voters give Donald Trump four more years as president, chief executive and commander-in-chief, all jobs for which he has demonstrated incompetence and a lack of basic understanding, it will prove Angelo’s words were directed at the wrong audience.  A more accurate interpretation would be, “When we see ourselves for who we are, believe it.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

One of the most creative occupations in the world is defense lawyer.  On how many occasions has a defendant’s counsel been asked to implicitly address the question, “When is an action which normally would constitute a crime, not a crime?”  Many television courtroom dramas, most notably Boston Legal, owe their ratings to this premise.  How could Alan Shore (James Spader), Denny Crane (Willam Shatner) or Shirley Schmidt (Candice Bergen) possibly argue a client’s innocence despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary?  And yet, they did and won most of the time.

This morning we are confronted with the opposite hypothesis.  When does a technically legal action become a crime?  The incident which triggered this topic was the shooting at 7:25 p.m. last night at the Westgate Entertainment District in Glendale, Arizona.  A man wearing a camouflage mask opened fire with an AR-15, wounding three individuals.  The suspect was taken into custody by local police.  State Senator Martin Quezada witnessed the shooting and tweeted, “I just witnessed an armed terrorist with an AR-15 shoot up Westgate.  There are multiple victims.”

Should anyone be surprised?  Earlier this week a friend drafted an op-ed piece for our local paper about the increased probability of violence when a president of the United States describes individuals brandishing assault weapons as “good people.”  My response, “I think we may be only one beer too many away from a Kent State moment.”  Although we, as yet, have no idea of the assailant’s alcohol level at the time of the shooting nor his motivation, the incident in Glendale is exactly what my friend and I feared would happen.

The Arizona shooter will be charged with a crime and have his day in court.  And we should not be shocked when his defense counsel argues he was provoked while exercising his First Amendment right to assembly and, since Arizona has no law restricting assault weapons, he was within his Second Amendment rights to bring the AR-15 to the shopping complex.  And the lawyer will remind the judge his positions have been regularly upheld by justices who favor a strict construction of the language in the Constitution.  Forget the First Amendment only guarantees “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” or the shooter was not acting as a member of a well-regulated militia” as required under the Second Amendment.  Only in what has become the darkest corners of American does peaceable equal armed to the hilt with an assault weapon and petition includes intimidation under threat of violence.

Equally important, these armed “patriots” forget thirteen years before there was a First and Second Amendment, the country was founded on the principle that everyone had an unalienable right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  To protect that right which theists attribute to their Creator, not a mere assembly of their peers, it is time for legislators and prosecutors to be as creative as defense attorneys.

Which brings me back to Senator Quezada’s use of the word “terrorist.”  Can anyone imagine law enforcement authorities standing by if a person of color carried a pressure cooker into a mall?  Or an associate of El Chapo approached the Colorado prison, where the drug lord is being held, wearing a bullet proof vest and carrying an AK-47.  Would either be allowed to claim immunity because they were peaceably assembling or petitioning the government?

Many states have laws which make the presence of a lethal weapon during the commission of a lesser crime (e.g. robbery) illegal even if the perpetrator never intended to use the weapon.  Why isn’t obstruction of official government business a crime?  You or I can be arrested for disrupting a session of Congress from the gallery.  Should not the use of a deadly weapon to obstruct official government business be equally worthy of punishment, if not more so?

On a broader scale, perhaps it is time to rethink the entire penal code related to crimes involving firearms, even if the purpose for brandishing the weapon is only to threaten or intimidate.  For example, manslaughter is defined as “unlawful killing that doesn’t involve malice aforethought—intent to seriously harm or kill, or extreme, reckless disregard for life.” (NOLO.COM)  Remember that innovative defense lawyer?  He or she will argue, if the charge is voluntary manslaughter, the client was strongly provoked and acted in “the heat of passion.”  Yet, it is still a crime.

Now consider what might be called “premeditated provocation.”  A disgruntled citizen reads a tweet from the chief executive of the United States urging him to LIBERATE his home state.  And as an added touch suggests those looking out for public health have an ulterior motive to restrict his non-existent Second Amendment rights.  Does he email his state representative or the governor?  Does he draft an op-ed for the local newspaper?  Does he put a sign in his front yard?

NO!  Instead he decides to put on camouflage clothing and  a bullet proof vest and chooses the most ominous looking weapon from his arms cabinet.  He makes a sign which reads, “Live Free or Die” or what must be the new definition of irony, “Favor Liberty over Arbitrary Power.” Are we expected to believe he goes through all these gyrations because he thinks it is how one peaceably assembles or petitions the government?  Or is it more likely he is intentionally creating a situation which is consistent with what has become the ethos of the right, “owning the libs?”  And unfortunately when a shot is fired, he will argue, “I didn’t shoot anyone.  That was the guy standing next me.  And he only fired because that liberal snowflake said our long-rifles were compensation for our small penises. Why are you blaming me?”

And how does that unidentified president of the United States respond?  He offers to cover these “good people’s” legal bills.  Which, of course, he never actually does.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP