“Us vs. Them,’ mentality reigns in tribal America!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

TRIBES!

by Steve Fair

 

     In 1988, a Frenchman named Michel Maffesoli wrote, “The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society.”  Meffesoli predicted modern culture would decline to the point that society would look back on ‘the good old days,’ and form ‘tribes.’  These groups would engage in group think, reject ideas that weren’t consistent with the tribe’s dogma.  Maffesoli asserted tolerance for other tribe’s opinions would decline.  He predicted looking back at the principles from the distant past would guide tribes- individual thinking would be discouraged- an “Us vs. Them,’ mentality would reign.  Welcome to tribal America!  Three observations:

     First, tribes have no respect for a differing opinion.  That is true in the two major political Parties, in families, churches, civic organizations, or in social situations.  The First Amendment guarantees free speech, but many believe that it only applies to them and not to those who don’t hold their same views.  The First Amendment is used to justified attacking, insulting, or shouting down those who disagree with them.  Civility and respect for a counterview is seen as weakness.  That has occurred because of the decline of individualism. 

     Data from the General Social Survey (GSS), which has been run for a half century, show Americans in the past were more likely to meet people different than themselves.  That interaction created the opportunity for dialogue and promoted compromise (a dirty word in today’s culture).  GSS found the number of people who identify as conservative or liberal has changed little over the past 50 years.  But conservatives have migrated to the GOP and liberals to the Democrats.  The tribal mentality doesn’t allow for a liberal R or a conservative D. 

      Second, the general public is weary of the polarization in politics.  Fewer and fewer citizens engage in political activism.  They cite the nastiness, unkindness and foulness of those who disagree with them in their own Party.  According to Pew Research, 62% of Republicans view Democrats unfavorably and 54% of Democrats feel the same way about Republicans.  That is three times more than 30 years ago.   

     Political scientist Lilliana Mason makes the point that most modern-day voters pull the lever for a Party, not a candidate.  Elections have become about numbers- about growing the tribe, and not about solving problems.    

     Third, groupthink and tribalism discourage creativity, individualism and personal responsibility.  Standing alone on conviction or principle in modern tribes is not tolerated nor respected.   Tribes require complete solidarity.  Members who don’t conform face shunning and possible expulsion. The intolerance of the tolerant reins!

     The founders of the United States were willing to work together for a common good.  The 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were a diverse group from varied backgrounds.  They negotiated, compromised and hammered out founding documents that have served the nation well for nearly 250 years.  In 1776, there was only one tribe- all pulling on the same end of the rope at the same time. 

     Ed Goeas wrote in his book, A Question of Respect, the political pollster wrote: “We Americans have an urgent decision facing us.  We must decide whether to build upon a foundation of mutual respect or live in a fractured society, where division rules the day.”  Until Americans actually respect other citizens right to have a different opinion (and be wrong), the country will stagnant.

Trump-less debate is an opportunity for the other candidates!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

ELEPHANT NOT IN THE ROOM!

by Steve Fair

     The 2024 Republican presidential primary starts this week.  The first Republican primary debate will be aired by Fox News and held on Wednesday August 23rd, at Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It will be moderated by Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum from Fox.     

     At least seven GOP candidates are expected to be on stage.  As of this writing, the participants will be DeSantis, Ramaswany, Haley, Scott, Burgin, Pence and Christie.  Former President Trump has announced he will not be there and will instead hold an exclusive interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson.  He refused to sign a ‘loyalty’ oath (pledging support for the nominee) the RNC required for participation.  Former Vice President Mike Pence says he thinks Trump may show up at the last minute, but that is unlikely.    Three observations:

     First, Trump is not a good debater.  In the 2016 GOP primary debates, he was entertaining, insulting and loud toward his fellow Republicans.  He was scarce on substance and long on denigration during each forum. His positioning of himself as an ‘outsider’ was appealing and resonated with voters, who were sick and tired of politics as unusual and that strategy worked. 

     In 2020, Trump’s ‘debating’ with Biden hurt his campaign and many pundits believe was one of the primary reasons he lost.  Instead of letting Biden talk during the ’20 debates, he repeatedly interrupted him.  Instead of Americans seeing Biden as a weak communicator, they saw him as a bullied browbeat man who wasn’t given the chance to say much.  Trump failed to give Biden enough rope to hang himself- a missed opportunity. 

     Trump lacks the discipline to seriously debate.  In the 2016 GOP primary Houston debate, former Gov. John Kasich was presenting his well thought out and substantive plan to balance the federal budget.  The other debate participants responded to the plan-Trump choose to made fun of how Kasich was dressed.  While that may have worked in ’16, it probably won’t in ’24.     

      Second, minds are rarely changed by a debate.  That is why Trump’s team isn’t worried about him skipping the debate.  They know his supporters will support him regardless of his debate performance.  Debates rarely move the needle.  Parties conduct them because they raise a lot of money on debates.    

     Third, the Trump-less debate is an opportunity for the other candidates.  They are all dark horses.  Trump has a seemingly insurmountable lead, but the first primary is six months away.  Some of the candidates are virtually unknown and this is their chance to introduce themselves to America.  Each of those on stage want to be the viable alternative should Trump falter.  

     Thoughtful GOP primary voters should be listening for well-thought solutions for America’s fiscal issues.  They should not be as impressed by a well-delivered zinger, one liner or quip as they are with componence in budgeting.  America’s monetary house must be put in order or the country will fail.  Until voters recognize that, then the debates are little more than a spectacle.

     Pundits are predicting Tucker’s interview with the former POTUS will have twice as many viewers as the debate.  Even though he isn’t attending, Donald Trump will be mentioned many times during the debate.  Some of the candidates will tell the audience how much they are like Trump.  Others will tell you how much different they are.  The elephant NOT in the room on Wednesday will be addressed.        

Hunter Biden is a lot more than a black sheep!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

WEISS LACKEY STOOGE?

by Steve Fair

 

     On Friday, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden’s financial dealings.  This comes on the heels of what appeared to be a resolution of charges just weeks ago.  Biden,53, has faced questions about tax evasion and a gun charge since 2018.  Hunter is the youngest son of President Joe Biden.  He is a Yale law school graduate. 

     Hunter served on the board of BHR Partners, a Bank of China private investment fund.  BHR helped finance the purchase of Tenke Fungureme Mine in the Congo, a cobalt operation.  Cobalt is the raw material used in electric vehicles and has been a point of contention between the U.S. and China in recent years.  BHR’s attempt to ‘corner the market’ for China on cobalt is an issue Biden hasn’t been held accountable for.  Three observations:

     First, President Biden knew who Garland was going to appoint.  In spite of mainstream media calling the special counsel appointment a ‘surprise,’ odds are the POTUS was consulted before the move.  The appointment of David Weiss, the U.S. attorney for Delaware, as special counsel looks suspect.  Weiss, a Trump appointee, has been investigating Hunter Biden since 2018 on potential violation of tax and gun laws.  Weiss has been criticized for his patsy handling of Hunter.  Hunter was prepared to plead out the charges two months ago, but a Trump appointed judge threw a monkey wrench into that.  Some believe Garland is wagging the dog by appointing Weiss special counsel. 

     Second, the investigation does have risk for President Biden.  If an investigation balloons beyond the tax and gun charges Hunter faces, it could implicate the POTUS.  If it ever makes it to trial, the identity of ‘the Big Guy,’ referenced on Hunter’s laptop could be revealed.   The investigation could cast a shadow on Biden’s 2024 re-election campaign.  Some believe Garland appointed Weiss special counsel to help keep Biden from getting the nomination.  Not likely.

     Third, 2024 could be the year of the indictees.  President Trump has been indicted twice and faces a third indictment in Georgia.  Biden could be indicted if Weiss links Hunter’s misbehaviors to him. Does indictment or even conviction disqualify someone from being POTUS? 

     Richard Hasen, a University of California law professor, says a convicted felon could assume the office of POTUS.  “The Constitution has very few requirements to serve as president, such as being at least 35 years of age.  It does not bar anyone indicted, convicted, or even serving jail time, from running for president and winning the presidency,” Hasen said. 

     Democrats claim the only voters who care about Hunter’s crooked dealings are those who wouldn’t vote for Joe Biden anyway.  Matt Bennett, a Democrat Party operative says: “There are plenty of things that keep Democrats up at night when it comes to 2024, and this(Hunter Biden) is not one of them.  Billy Carter is not the reason Ronald Reagan won 49 states in 1980.” Sarah Longwell, a Republican consultant agrees saying that ‘every family has someone like this, a black sheep.” 

     Hunter Biden is a lot more than a black sheep and his dealings go beyond trying to sell a bad beer like Billy Carter did.   IRS whistleblowers told Congress there was ‘political meddling,’ into Hunter’s tax issues- probably by Weiss.  Hunter’s business dealings are more than shady. The newly appointed ‘special counsel’ should prove he isn’t a lackey stooge and can conduct a thorough investigation into both Hunter and Joe Biden’s financial dealings with foreign governments.

Time will reveal who faces doom from indictments!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

FACING DOOM!

by Steve Fair

 

     This week, former President Donald Trump was charged in federal court with four counts of conspiring to subvert American democracy in association with the January 6^th attacks on the U.S. Capitol.  Jack Smith, the special prosecutor investigating January 6th, is relying on three criminal statutes; (1) conspiring to defraud the government, (2) conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and (3) conspiring to obstruct a congressional proceeding to prove Trump was trying to supplant democracy.

     In the indictment, Smith describes six of the former POTUS’ associates as ‘co-conspirators,’ but they are not named nor charged.  It remains unclear if they will eventually face indictment if they do not cooperate. 

     The former POTUS appeared before a federal judge in Washington DC on Thursday and pled not guilty to all charges.  An August 28^th preliminary hearing is scheduled.  This was the third time in four months Trump has faced indictments.  The federal charges are the most serious with Smith’s star witness expected to be former Vice President Mike Pence.  Pence says Trump asked him to break the law and not certify election results submitted by certain states.  Pence contends the U.S. Constitution precluded that action.  Three observations:

     First, many losers of presidential elections have disputed the results.  In American history, at the presidential level, serious allegations by top officials the election was "stolen" were made in 1800, 1824, 1876, 1912, 1960, 2000, and 2020.  Trump isn’t the first to claim he was cheated.  Vice President Aaron Burr killed Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton in a famous duel because of Hamilton’s part in the outcome of the disputed 1800 election.  The award-winning musical Hamilton tells the story. 

     Trump’s opponents, the special prosecutor and the media claim Trump’s unwillingness to accept defeat is unprecedented, but that is not true.  What is true is none who claimed they were cheated have convinced a majority of the American public to buy into their conspiracy.    

     Second, Trump was indicted, not the American people.  The former POTUS zealously uses[S1]  the indictments for fundraising and campaign promotion.  He contends solicitors are after the American people when they charge him.  He professes he is merely a surrogate and being unfairly treated.  When the Clintons and Hunter Biden skirt serious charges and Trump is charged it is a valid point, but it’s a stretch to paint Trump as being a scapegoat.   Trump is being charged for his own actions.  A jury will determine whether those actions rise to the level of criminal.

     Third, the trials give Trump a unique opportunity.  The former POTUS can publicly present his case in regard to the 2020 election.  The defense is expected to cite Trump’s right to free speech as justification for his actions.  Former AG Bob Barr says free speech doesn’t give Americans the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy.  But all true conspiracies were initially dismissed as fraudulent, so there’s that.  The challenge Trump’s team faces is proving to the jury their claims of a stolen election are fact. 

     In the musical, “Hamilton,” Aaron Burr sings about Alexander, “Why do you assume you’re the smartest in the room?/Soon that attitude may be your doom.”  Burrs point?  Pride goes before a fall.  Time will reveal who faces doom from these indictments.

ABBOTT DOING WHAT THE FEDS WOULDN'T DO!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

FLOATING BORDER!

by Steve Fair

     Last month, Texas Governor Greg Abbott authorized the installation of a 1,000-foot line of bright orange, wrecking ball-sized buoys in the middle of the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass.  Their placement was to keep illegal immigrants from entering the United States from Mexico.  The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit to force the removal the buoys, calling the floating impediments ‘illegal construction.’

     On July 7^th, Abbott issued an executive order(EO) authorizing the Texas National Guard and the Texas Department of Public Safety to apprehend illegal immigrants who cross the border between ports of entry and return them to the border.  Abbott’s action was in response to the Biden administration’s decision to end Title 42 expulsions, which has resulted in a flood of illegals coming across the border.        Speaking before Texas Republican Party activists on Friday, Governor Abbott said, “I will do whatever I have to do to defend our state from the invasion of the Mexican drug cartels and others who have tried to come into our country illegally, and I will protect our sovereignty.”   Three observations:

     First, Texas is impacted by illegal immigration more than any other state.  Texas and Mexico share 1,254 miles of common border and are joined by 28 international bridges and border crossings. This number includes two dams, one hand-drawn ferry, and 25 other crossings that allow commercial, vehicular and pedestrian traffic.  It is estimated 7,000 illegally cross that border daily.  Abbott’s actions have cut that number in half since May, but three Texas cities- DFW, Houston, and Austin- have large percentage of illegals living there.

     Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton estimates illegal immigration costs Texas taxpayers $855 million annually, most of it for uninsured health care.  “Texans are hardworking and generous people, but the cost of illegal immigration is an unconscionable burden on the taxpayers of our great state.  Texas will always welcome those who legally immigrate, but we cannot continue forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for individuals who skirt the law and skip the line,” Paxton said. 

     Second, Congress needs to deal with immigration.  It has been 37 years since Congress passed significant immigration reform that was signed into law.  In 1986, Congress passed and President Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty for over 3 million immigrants.  

     In May, the GOP controlled U.S. House passed H.R. 2, a bill that would restart construction of the southern border wall, restrict asylum, and require employers to ensure all hires were legally allowed to work in the United States.  The bill passed along Party lines, with all Democrats and two Republicans voting no.  The bill has little chance to get a vote in the Senate.   

     The failure of the Biden administration to extend Title 42 has resulted in persistently high volume of illegals and illegal drugs crossing the border.  It is estimated 8,000 people are entering the U.S. illegally each day.  80% are caught immediately, but most are not deported.  The vast majority are released and given transportation- at U.S. taxpayer expense- to cities throughout the fruited plain.  Many find jobs, performing tasks Americans won’t do, but few seek legal status because of convoluted, cumbersome federal immigration policies.  Completing the legal process requires a commitment most are unwilling to make. 

     Third, the Democrats want blanket amnesty for illegals.  Amnesty helps them at the voting polls.  There are an estimated 11 million people in America who illegally entered the country- most of them from socialist countries.  Because they hold to a Marxist philosophy, they identify with the Ds more than the Rs.  For Democrats, it is about votes, not about national security or tax dollars.  That is why a bi-partisan bill to address immigration has little chance in Congress. 

     America is a land of immigrants.  Those legally seeking a better life in the land of opportunity should be welcomed, but national security and the cost to taxpayers can’t be dismissed.  Governor Abbott is doing what the federal government should do- stopping illegal immigration.

Trump has the most to lose by not signing the RNC loyalty pledge!

Weekly Opinion Editorial 

UNITY IN 2024!

by Steve Fair

     The first 2024 Republican presidential debate is a month away.  The debate will be held in Milwaukee, which is also the site of the GOP national convention next year.  Wisconsin is a battleground state and whoever the Republican nominee is will need the state’s ten (10) electoral votes to win the White House. 

      The Republican National Committee (RNC) establishes the guidelines for the presidential primary.  The RNC is composed of 168 members- 3 from each U.S. state and territory.  “The RNC is committed to putting on a fair, neutral, and transparent primary process and the qualifying criteria set forth will put our Party and eventual nominee in the best position to take back the White House come November 2024,” RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said.   

      The RNC set up debate participation criteria.  The first requirement is the candidate must pledge to support the eventual Republican presidential nominee to be on the debate stage.  Several GOP candidates, including Donald Trump and Chris Christie have said they would have to know who the nominee is before they would make that commitment.  Former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson says the loyalty requirement should apply only if the candidate plans to run as a third-Party candidate.  The second requirement is a candidate must be polling at least 1% in two national polls.  The third requirement is a candidate must agree to not participate in non-RNC sanctioned debates.  Three observations:

     First, the nomination is Trump’s to lose.  The rules have changed since 2016 on how states conduct primaries and chose national delegates.  While Ronna may claim the RNC is neutral, close inspection reveals otherwise.  After his election, McDaniel was hand selected to run the RNC by former President Trump.  The RNC functioned as Trump’s political arm for his four-year term.  The RNC passed rules that allowed states to change how national delegates were selected and those changes benefit candidates who get a ‘plurality’ in a large field.  Currently, no GOP candidate comes anywhere near Trump’s base.  Combined, over 50% of GOP voters are supporting another candidate in the primary, but that majority is fractured out among eight other candidates.   

     Second, the winner of the debate doesn’t always win the election.  Few people are moved by how a candidate performs in a debate.  Modern presidential debates have become nothing more than reality TV, with little effort to rationally discuss issues.  It has become purely about optics and who can score the best zinger of the night.  Thoughtful dialogue by a candidate is labeled weak and indecisive by other candidates and the media.  In 2016, debate experts abandoned conventional scoring on who won the war of words in favor of who was the loudest.  Hopefully substance over tumultuous will prevail this year in the GOP debates. 

     Third, Party loyalty should be required of the candidates.  Asking the candidates to support the nominee is fair.  Each candidate is using the ‘Republican’ brand.  They are claiming to stand for what the Party platform stands for.  They should be asked to support those who pledge like convictions.

      Supporting the winner of a primary by the loser is a challenge at all levels.  Campaigns can get nasty.  Hurt feelings and bitterness are often the result of a primary.  General election campaigns are often lost because the combatants in the primary weren’t able to shake hands, put their pride/ego aside and unite against a common enemy.  Party loyalty/unity is not a weakness- it is an effort to get everyone pulling on the same end of the rope at the same time.

     Of all the GOP candidates, Donald Trump has the most to lose by not signing the loyalty pledge.  He will need every Republican vote and a bunch of Independents- to get back to the White House.  Trump can’t afford to alienate like minded people.  Currently, a majority of Republican voters are supporting candidates other than Trump in the primary.  Trying not offend their supporters might be a sound strategy if you are the lead dog.  Most of them would never vote for Biden, but they might just stay home and not vote.     

TAXPAYER IS ALWAYS THE GUARANTOR!

Weekly Opinion Editorial 

DOUBLE WHAMMY!

by Steve Fair

 

     In 2020, Congress set aside approximately $3 billion dollars to a help stabilize education funding.  They created the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund. Oklahoma received $39.9 million in GEER funds.  The federal grants, not surprisingly, came with complicated compliance requirements. 

     Last week, Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector (SAI) Cindy Byrd released the results of a federally mandated audit of the GEER funds Oklahoma received.  Byrd found two programs set up by the state had not complied with the federal requirements.  Bridge the Gap, a program that helped low-income families with education related costs, was misused by 20% of the 5,000 families that received the funds according to the SAI.  Byrd said the total misspent in Bridge the Gap was $1.8 million. 

     Two thirds of those getting money from Stay in School, a program that helped low-income families with tuition costs, was said to be questionable.  Byrd estimated $6.5 million of tax dollars were misused in the Stay in School program. 

     “Every federal grant comes with very strict requirements which the State of Oklahoma agrees to follow,” State Auditor Cindy Byrd said.  “Any person in change of managing federal grants needs a certain level of proficiency because the compliance regulations are very complicated.”  The full audit report is now posted on the Oklahoma State Auditor & Inspector’s official website: www.sai.ok.gov. Three observations:

     First, who was supposed to be ensuring federal compliance?  According to the federal Department of Education (DOE) website, the governor in each state must designate a State Agency or administer the GEER funds through their office.   Governor Stitt chose the latter.  Two years ago, the governor hired a consulting firm to monitor the GEER funds.  Taxpayers paid the firm $325,000.  Byrd’s conclusion from the audit was the consultant had not done their job.  She said the Sooner state ‘dropped the ball on compliance and oversight,’ on the GEER funds.    

     The blame for the non-compliance belongs at the feet of the governor.   In a press release, Oklahoma Speaker of the House Charles McCall said as much.  The Speaker didn’t name the governor in the presser, but the inference is there.  Attorney General Drummond weighed in on the audit, saying the people empowered to administer the GEER money did not have the qualifications or knowledge to do the job.    

     Second, Oklahoma statutes require competitive bids.  The SAI found the digital wallet vendor was given an $18 million dollar contract without going through the competitive bid process.  Circumventing or avoiding the exercise to request proposals from multiple parties might be quicker and more efficient, but it is not legal.  This administration was earlier criticized for bypassing the bid process in the awarding of foodservice/restaurant contracts at state lodges.  Government is not like a private business.  The laws/rules can slow down the process, but they are in place to protect the taxpayer and avoid misuse of funds.

   Third, the taxpayer is always the guarantor.  If the federal government demands repayment for non-compliance, John Q Public will pay the bill, not elected officials or the incompetent amateurs they hired.  In this particular case, it’s a double whammy.  Taxpayers sent tax dollars to Washington for Washington to send back to Oklahoma to be misused.  Taxpayers then have to pay back the misused money to Washington.   Confused? 

     GEER funding wasn’t sought by Oklahoma.  The federal government insisted they were going to help the state, whether it was wanted or not.  The federal money was grudgingly accepted, but once accepted, recognizing the strings attached was crucial.  The lack of attention to detail could cost Oklahoma taxpayers.