The Russia Investigation: A High Tech Spy Story

The Details of Russian Interference

As of now, per the last Mueller indictment, Fancy Bear is identified as two cyber units of the GRU, Units 26165 and 74455. They are responsible for infiltrating the DCCC, DNC, and the Hillary Campaign, in particular, the Campaign Manager, Joe Podesta. The initial attacks were through directed emails (called spear phishing by us techies) that can trick the receiver into revealing his password or installing malware. Among the malware, X-Agent was used which was also used in several other Russian operations. X-Agent was used to moved documents to a GRU-based computer in Arizona. According to the indictment, X-Agent was developed, customized, and monitored" by a GRU officer.

One of the clues that Russian was involved was that similar attacks had been made against other countries, including Georgia and Ukraine. In fact, these states have been a “proving ground” for the hacking techniques that are later used against the US and other countries.

As you may remember the emails and other stolen from the DCCC and DNC were strategically released around the Democratic Convent create chaos and anger among Democratic supporters. The Podesta emails were release right after the Hollywood Tapes were revealed to create a distraction for Trump

To create authority, the emails were released in mass through Wikileaks. This meant that reporters were who selectively released the emails. It also allowed the Russians to rewrite and a few false emails mixed with the legitimate.

To create anonymity, the false account, Guccifer 2.0, was established as the front to release the information. The name Guccifer has a history within the hacking community, which assisted in the fiction that it was a lone hacker, not the Russian government, that had stolen and released the data. The real source was later discovered, possibly as expected, but by that time the propaganda had done its intended effect. In this persona, the Guccifer 2.0 team continued to post, at one point being tracked to a Moscow-based server managed buy Unit 74455. They also used a network of virtual private networks (VPNs) in Malaysia which were purchased with the same pool of bitcoins used by the Guccifer 2.0 account.

The Mueller Indictment does not refer to Cozy Bear. The CrowdStrike (and other) security groups identified their profile in hacking the DNC a year earlier than Fancy Bear and went undiscovered until Fancy Bear was detected. Cozy Bear has also been linked to Russian activities, their connection with Fancy Bear was not discussed in the indictment.

In the previous post, I detailed how you can fake popularity (and authority for some readers) by using multiple accounts either by computer or cheap labor. The previous Mueller indictment links these efforts to “front companies” that were associated with the Russian Government. The most well-known is the Internet Research Agency. Fake posts and stories were fabricated using decades of espionage techniques Russia acquired in the Cold War to coop governments, radicalize people, and create disruptions.

In other words, Russia launched a skill marketing campaign that would have won awards on 5^th Avenue if it had been for money.

There were more traditional means of infiltrations. Agents traveled to the US to gather intelligence and become part of political movements that could be cooped to Russian goals or encouraged to create social disorder. In addition to several persons listed in Mueller’s 2^nd indictment, Marina Butina was arrested, becoming the most famous example.

So, that is a lot of information, and if you read the last post, you can see how this all confirms that we know it was Russians. Let me take a moment to point out the details that let us know the Russian Government was responsible.

1. Only nation-state actors can do hacks and propaganda campaigns that require this level of skill and coordination with only politics as a goal.
2. The hacks of the DNC and Hillary Campaign match the Fancy Bear profile. This profile also matches several pro-Russian attacks. NATO, Georgia, and Ukraine were some of the targets.
3. Tools and resources used by Fancy Bear tie them directly to GRU cyber units, Unit 26165 and 74455.
4. The use of emails for spear phishing and fake accounts such as Guccifer 2.0 were traced back to Unit 26165 and 74455 of the GRU.
5. A server in Arizona was used can be linked to front companies maintained by the GRU.
6. A server in Moscow was used that is own by the GRU Unit 74455.
7. There is a financial trail of bitcoins that link different aspects of the operation.
8. Several companies with ties to the Russian Government were responsible for manipulating false stories and post through social media.
9. Human agents have been identified as entering the US that were part of the propaganda campaign. 

Behind, this we must assume that there are classified sources and computer forensics technique proving all this, and we will never know them, at least not for a while. However, the information that is public should be damning in of itself. Perhaps if you squint your eyes and abandon all critical thought, you could create some convoluted logic to explain it away. But, let me put it this way. What if this had been Iraq, who we have hacked and where we have interfered in their elections? If it had been Iraq, we’d be dropping bombs.

The Russia Investigation: No Way It's a 300 lbs Hacker in a Basement

Yes, We Can Know the Russians Interfered in the 2016 Election. Here's How.

Understanding how the Russians interfered in the election involves computer forensics and counter-espionage. It also does not help that new information keeps being discovered. You know this is the third time I started this article and had to start over.  Hopefully, third times the charm.

Let’s start with how we know it was the Russians were the Hackers.

First off, how you can tell which computer the hacks come from? In any two-way communication, both parties must give a way to identify each other. In other words, each needs to give the other a form of address (mailing address, email name, phone number, etc.). That no different when computers talk, in fact, it’s called an ‘ip address’, This is how Google can figure out where your computer is without a GPS. It’s not always good enough to find your computer or house, but it can get within a few blocks. It definitely will tell what country the computer is in.

And it can’t be faked (or ‘spoofed’ as us techies call it). Otherwise, the two computers can’t talk to each other. However, there is a problem. Hackers don’t want to be tracked, so they route through other computers. They hack into one computer and then do all their others hacks from there. In fact, the main reason a hacker may be interested in your computer or mine is not for what’s on it, but so their hacks get traced back to us. While we may see an ip address from Russia, it could be from a hacker in the US. (Though most of the times it’s the other way around.)

However, while you can’t look at an ip address and know the hacker’s computer, they can’t change computers too often so you can know if it’s the same hacker.

And, so brings the next forensic techniques. Hackers are profiled just like serial killers. You may not know how who they are right away, but you track them by the specific way a hacker hacks: what computers used, what software use, who they target, what vulnerabilities exploited, etc. The software left by the hackers (malware) can also be examined for clues. This includes common byte patterns (which indicates the use of the same code) and coding comments which can even show the native language of the programmer.

Now a part that gets confusing. These profiles are tracked by different governments and private companies, and so can have more than one name for the same profile. The two groups connected to the DNC and Podesta emails, Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, were also known by the memorable names of APT29 and APT28, and many others. Depending on when the news stories where written you can see all these names and understandably be confused.

OK. This is really important to remember. Hackers rarely work alone. Despite, the movies and stories of lone hackers, nowadays hacking is too complicated and time-consuming for individuals to do. And having a team of skilled individuals focusing on the same objective costs money. Serious hacking is not a hobby. It's a job.

That’s' why most hacking groups belong to criminal organizations. And it gets worse for the lone hacker. Once hacking is discovered, companies can fix their software to prevent them. That's part of those monthly updates you are always getting, and why you want to keep your software updated. What this means is that criminal hackers must continuously find new ways to hack. Again, why they can't do it for free and can't do it alone.

There are also 'white hat' hackers who work for universities, research groups, or security company. Though they don't actually hack computers. They look for tricks criminal hackers (black hats) may use. (Us techies call these tricks 'exploits'.)  However, a single exploit is usually not enough to hack a computer. You need several exploits each attacking a different aspect of security: getting past firewalls, avoiding detection, etc. Many exploits are caught before hackers can use them, or even before it’s proven that they are practical. Sometimes its just pure research, and sometimes exploits are sold to the vulnerable company. There is also a black market of exploits.

In other words, hackers are indeed part of broad industry mostly populated by small and large businesses. They are ruled by economics as much as by technology.

One consequence is that criminal hacker must hack in mass, looking for those who have not updated their computers and maximize profit before their hacks are discovered. So then ask yourself, if an individual is hacked with no way of making money, who could do that? Who can engage in expensive endeavors without making money? Governments obviously, and, in particular, intelligence agencies and the military. In other words, spies.

Spies hack differently than criminals. Criminals usually try to get their money as fast as they can, expecting to be discovered. Spies don't need to make money, but the secrets they steal will lose value if the hack is ever found. Often spies have custom software created by government agencies (like the NSA and GRU) that won't be detected by as would other exploits (hopefully).

So now, you can see that within the white/black hat hacking industry, there is a hidden cat and mouse spy game going on, and when spy hackers are discovered, they can be distinguished from your typical criminal hacker. And as with all other espionage, these hacker spies can be identified just as you would non-hacker spies: surveillance, informants, who profit from their activities, etc. Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear have been being observed by intelligence agencies (and not just US) for years and linked to several Russian operations. Some of the targets include NATO, Georgia, and the Ukraine military. Now, who would want to do that?

Saying we don’t know that the Russians are responsible for the Hillary Campaign and DNC are like saying the police cannot tell the difference between a mugger and a bank robber.

Now there is another way the spies acted differently than others. I said before spies want to keep the stolen secrets secret. What I should have said is that they don’t want their stolen secrets known until they are ready. China hacked Obama's ad McCain’s campaign. However, they never released what they stole or used it to interfere in the election. They wanted the information to better predict and negotiate with the next president. However, the Russians did release what they stole, timed to interfere with the election. That added more evidence that it was Russia.

To release the information, they had to set up accounts that can be traced. Granted they were fake and created by fronts, but with subpoena power and cooperation you will get more clues to the source. Even more damning is that you must keep this account and the computers you are releasing them from around longer. In fact, servers leased to front companies were used, not just randomly hack computers. (I speculate that was because you can’t move the vast amounts of data they had undetected on just any computer.)

Now we get to the Russian propaganda campaign.

Let’s start by saying this is not new. Since, even before the Cold War, Russia has been using espionage to interfere with other countries elections. So have we for that matter. England did so to us in 1940 to keep us in WWII.

Basically, you pretend to be a member of the country (or coop existing members) to politically advocate something you want, undermine the existing government, or just cause chaos. The main idea is that to make your action look like they are coming from within the country instead of outside the country. The big difference today is that you can supercharge it with computers.

You may or may not know that I maintain several emails address. You probably do as well, say one for home and one for work. And you probably have a few email addresses that you don’t use. For example, your internet provider probably gives you one that you ignore. And that also means it’s not hard to have a couple of Facebook, Twitter, and other social media accounts. Which means you can ‘follow’, ‘like’, and ‘retweet’ yourself. I have.

There is a good reason for doing that. Sometimes I want the same post to go to a different audience. Sometimes what I post can look different when viewed from other accounts, so I follow myself to check. That, however, can make it look like I’m twice as popular as I am. So, I do it judiciously. But, what if I wasn’t scrupulous. Everything I post will have twice the ‘likes’ and always have at least one retweet. And why stop there. I could set up 10 accounts and be 10 times as popular. Of course, after a while, it would be too laborious, but then it would not be that hard to write a computer program to do it for me. Then I could be 1000, 10,000 times as popular. There is no limit. If I’m willy enough, I could have every one of my posts be so popular they rise to the top of every Facebook and Twitter list. I could be more influential than a Kardashian.

But of course, Facebook and Twitter don’t want me to do that. They have software (and maybe people) always looking for ‘non-human’ behavior to catch precisely this. But, the Russian government had an easy workaround: hire real people. Russia maintains troll farms or web brigades, groups of people employed to perform influence operations. In other words, spread propaganda posing under false identities on the Internet. And again, we can track them back to the Russian GRU through all the techniques I discussed: computer forensics, profiling, and espionage.

So, now I’ve explained how we discovered the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. Next, I’ll go into detail into exactly what happened.

The Russia Investigation: It's Complicated, or Is It?

We keep saying the Russia Investigation is complicated. It’s not. It comes down to three statements:

1. The Russian Government interfered with the 2016 election by a combination of hacking and propaganda.
2.  It is possible that members of the Trump Campaign, if not Trump himself, knew beforehand what the Russians were doing or may have even cooperated.
3.  President Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation by firing Comey and other means.

A lot of the ‘complexity’ is happening because we have a President, a political party, a news network, right-wing radio, and many others doing all they can to make it sound complicated. But that does not explain why other news outlets such as MSNBC says the same. Well, they like to prove things, not just say them. You know, give evidence. That’s where it gets complicated.

The first statement of Russian interference involves computer forensics counter-espionage investigation.

The second statement of the Trump Campaign’s cooperation involves a lot of suspicious meetings and behavior. What makes it complicated is that there is just so much of it. It becomes mind-numbing. Taken individually each event can be explained away. However, the sheer number of them raises suspicion. However, it is still all circumstantial. We may not know who the conspirators are, how they were involved, how much they were involved, or why until the Mueller Investigation provides witnesses, documents, or other evidence. But note, people have been convicted for criminal conspiracy with less circumstantial evidence.

There is so much circumstantial evidence, by the time I list it all more is found. I won’t even try, at least not yet. Instead, I will invite you to discover for yourself. My recommendation is that you just accept that’s there is more than enough and wait until the investigation is done to see the details.

As for the President committing obstruct that’s complicated, because… OK, that’s not complicated at all. He confessed to it, on tape, in front of America and Lester Holms. Any argument that it’s not is just political nonsense. The only reason he is not being impeached in because Republicans control Congress. Why Mueller is still investigating it? No idea. From what I have seen before, prosecutors look for as much evidence as they can, even when it seems like they have enough. That’s especially true when the target is powerful, like say the President of the United States.

With the question of the Trump Campaign’s involvement, I’m not sure I can do more than is already being done by your chosen news source. As for the third and as far as I’m concerned, it’s only a political question, and discussing whether or not Trump obstructed is a waste of time.

However, with how the Russian Government interfered and how we know, I can help a lot. So, check out my next post. 

Ryan, We Hardly Knew Ye

As you have probably heard, Paul Ryan, the current Speaker of the House, has announced that he will not seek re-election, which immediately prompts the question as to what that means. In particular, what does that mean for those of us watching Trump? The short answer is that it’s definitely a set back for President Trump and Republicans in general. What’s harder to answer is how much.

First off, whatever the effect, it will only be for about 8 months. After that, Ryan is not Speaker, and all changes will depend on the outcome of the 2018 elections. Also, before we consider Ryan’s retirement, we must look at what it means when any Republican Representative retires.

The first point that is always made when a politician retires is that he is freer to vote “his own conscious” and behave independently. That is undoubtedly true, but not as much as we tend to think. We must remember that just because a politician retires from his offices does not mean he retires from politics. He will still have friends who are trying to get re-elected. His next job will probably need to leverage his political loyalties and reputation. And then there is always the possibility that he might run for a higher office, regardless of what he says or even his thinking at the moment.

And then there still is the fact that his principles have not changed. (Yeah, I said principals. Don’t laugh. OK laugh a little.) Whatever you think of the compromises politicians make, they mostly do have underlying principles that motivated them to seek office. Included is the idea that their party is better than the other. And those are the principles most empowered by his retirement. So, just because a retiring politician acts on his principles, that does not mean he will act on your principles.

What changes most for a retiring politician is his ability to think long-term instead of short-term. He is no longer motivated by the next election, but by his legacy, the welfare of his friends, and the long-term effects on his political career.

That said and despite my warnings, I did update the CongressCount treating all retiring republicans as an addition to the Disaster Count and a subtraction from the Success Count. But, as always, these counts are measures of independence, not opposition. If you want that, vote this November.

As should be no surprise, President Trump's chance for Success has gone down, and his chance for Disaster has gone up. The change in the Success Count does not mean that much given how close we are to the November elections. However, that the Disaster Count has now reached a threshold is. There are currently enough independent and opposition votes to remove the President from offices, assuming such a vote would ever be called.

And that's the real question, isn't it? Now that Ryan is retiring, how much more likely is he to call a vote for Impeachment?

Well...

Now you know why I went so much into what a politician’s retirement really means. If Ryan calls for an Impeachment vote, it would require the same level of crime as before. And there is still McConnell to consider.

If you look at the Congress Count page, you will notice that I stopped tracking the House Resistances Count, which is meaningless if the Speaker of the House has no interest in staying Speaker of the House. However, McConnell still wants to remain Majority Leader, and you must assume Ryan and McConnell talk. Effectively what has changed is that now Impeachment is a McConnell decision instead of a McConnell/Ryan decision. That's not much of a difference at all.

Where Ryan could behave differently is that he is now in the position to consider the long-term effects of his decision. Consider the unlikely case that enough is found on President Trump to warrant Impeachment to most voters. Before he would be juggling the short-term consequence of losing the House in 2018 versus permanently tarring the Republican Party. Sure, Republicans now would be angry that he lost the House but could praise him years later for saving the party.

In fact, he could begin the investigation but not force a vote until after November or at all, which would be easy to do. Then, Republicans can oppose or support the President in whatever way is best for them, all the time (wink wink) blaming Ryan.

Same $#*!, Different Day

A Trump Watch Update

Given all that has happened, it does seem time to update the likelihood of a Successful, Disastrous, or Threatening Presidency. In fact, you are probably wondering why I have not done so since the Comey Firing. The reason is that, despite the failure of repealing Obamacare, staff firings, congressional sanctions, and so much more, the overall status has not shifted much by my calculations. But, a lot has happened, and it has been a while, so here is an update to the Congress Count.

Trump is Not Going to Have a Successful Presidency

OK, that a bit too definitive so let me cowardly qualify that. As of now, only external events can make Trump a successful president. His Senate Success Count is now 43, 7 senators lower than what he needs to even have a chance. Something must change. Perhaps he could change? I laughed at that as well.

The drop of 9 from the last count of 52 comes from:

1. Four Senators have criticized Trump by name for his reaction to Charlottesville: McCain, Flake, Moran, and Rubio. In addition, Flake has written an anti-Trump book and will be trying to be re-elected in a swing state in 2018.
2. Dean Heller showed clear concerns about being re-elected during the attempt to repeal Obamacare, and Lisa Murkowski was driven to out and out defiance by threats from Trump's staff.
3. Susan Collins has to remain popular in a blue state, Maine, and could be planning to run for Governor.
4. Bob Corker and Tim Scott have openly question Trump's competency and moral authority. What makes that most telling is that they are from red states, so these open actions suggest that Trump is a liability, even outside of a swing state.

That's not to mention, his conflicts with Senator McConnel.

I'm not saying, no legislative accomplishments will happen during his 1st term (at least not yet). But, whatever happens, it will be regardless of what Trump wants. Hence, Congress removing his ability to take away Russian sanctions and current legislation to prevent firing Mueller.

So, the only path left for Trump to be successful is outside of congress, such as a successful war. Yeah, that scares me too.

The Chance of a Disaster Presidency Has Not Changed

With all the senators now willing to block his success, only two new senators stepped forward to confront him, Jerry Moran and Tim Scott. And there has been no move at all by Representatives. Only two were willing to criticize Trump by name: Ed Royce and Leonard Lance. Both are from blue states. In fact, 3 representatives have been re-elected through special election while under his toxic impact, increasing his support in the House.

Most importantly McConnel and Ryan have still not shown a real will to confront him. My prediction is that instead, they are seeking ways to contain Trump rather than remove him. That's what I would be doing if I were a republican congressman.

In other words, those coming out against him over Charlottesville are mostly the same that did when he fired Comey. With the force and tone of the current opposition, I judged to remove 9 senators as support, but most were already potential opposition. Thus, the Success Count went down significantly, but the Disaster Count only went up by two.

The Chance of a Threatening Presidency Has Not Changed Either

• Attempt: High 
• Competence: Medium
• No Check: Medium

As much as his recent comments are disturbing, even threatening, they are still just words. In other words, they at best define intention or Attempt. President Trump’s remarks about Charlottesville, reinforce my description of an Accidental Dictator, which indicate a higher Attempt and lower Competence rank. But, Bannon leaving potentially removes the most threatening element of his administration, which lowers Attempt and increases Competence. Events balanced themselves out, So I see no reason to change the ranks.

While more have come to see him as unhinged, his outburst could have some strategic value with the voters that keep him in power. That's what the polls are showing me. As much as we are seeing growing evidence of his incompetence, if he can keep his 37% to 40%, his Competence rank is just high enough to be threatening, and Congress remains too hesitant to lower the No Check rank. I've already made the case that Congresses' actions are more containment than check.

In short, the reason is why he has not become more threatening is that he was already threatening when he fired Comey.

Seven Years and Bupkis

Will Republicans Pay for Not Repealing Obamacare

So, after seven years of Republican politicians promising to repeal the ACA (Obamacare) and with the first chance to do so, they could not muster the political will to do so. Despite your political stance, you would be right to rant in outrage now. One could easily speculate that elections will be lost in 2018 because of this. I'm not so sure. 

First, off all Republicans can blame Senator McCain. The House passed something. The senators voted to repeal something. The two other senators that voted against any repeals, Senator Collins and Murkowski had established their position early and with the blessings of their voters. The only politician who took a political risk was John McCain, who's in a unique position to "vote his conscience". If conventional wisdom holds and elections are all local, that is the favorite position of a politician. "I voted for the right thing, but the other guy stopped it from happening."

A more serious criticism is how it shows the Republican inability to govern. I'm sure that will be brought up by their opponents. But will that criticism hold in a primary? I would not count on it. After, getting past their primary, most senators and legislators don't need to worry about getting re-elected, given the current political landscape.

But won't Republican voters be disappointed? Again, I'm not sure. That's because I never believed most Republican voters want to repeal Obamacare. Well, I mean they wanted to repeal Obamacare, but not repeal the ACA. To explain that, I have to take you back 2007. The economy had collapsed, we were still in a pointless war, and the conservatives were all to blame.

I'm sure a conservative would disagree with that last statement, but that's part of the point. The Iraq War was not a democrat or liberal idea. The economy did not fail because of too much regulation. If President Obama had been more like FDR (or maybe Clinton), he would have launch a massive campaign vilifying Republicans and conservatives, forcing them out of power for a generation. If you sincerely believe that non-conservative governance is a danger to the country, you really needed for that not to happen. Whatever, President Obama's intentions, the survival of the Conservative Movement meant that he could not be viewed as a successful president. From that perspective, you could understand Senator McConnel's goal of making "President Obama a one term president". And, that pretty much explains the last 8 years.

But, Obama is not the president anymore, and conservatives have had enough time to offer their own explanations for the failures of President Bush. There's no need to worry about Obamacare, and "the government needs to leave their hands off of my ACA". Sure, there will remain more idealistic conservatives demanding the repeal of the Obamacare, but they also want to repeal Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare, EPA, fluoride in water, bookstore that don't sell Ayn Rand novels, the letter "M", and the Federal Reserve. (They so much want to get rid of the Fed.)

What Republicans really need to worry about is when premiums go up.

They also need to worry about the future. If you are thirty years old or younger, what you know about the Democratic Party is 'health care', 'help on your student loans', and 'killing Osama bin Laden'. (Also, Jon Stewart and SNL.) What you know about the Republican Party is 'Iraq War', 'economic crisis', and, well, Trump.

Today, I was pretty hard on conservatives which is usually not what I do. First, I'll try to do the same to liberals one day. Those unbathed, quinoa eating, kale smelling liberals. Second, if you voted for Trump, I don't care. You deserve it. And finally, you can prove me wrong. Make Republican Senators and Representatives pay in 2018.

Not Invented Here

Handel Won Because of Republican Culture, Not Politics

I’ve avoided talking about Democrats vs Republicans so far, but the recent special election between Ossoff and Handel brings up one of my pet theories. Of the elections coverage, I noticed most the difference in how they campaigned. Ossoff talked about the economy and healthcare while the Democrats nationalized the election. Handle basically said, “don’t let the outsider win’. This points to a conclusion I have long had that Republicans win elections by a reliance on culture, not governance.

There's a much longer and more evidence-based discussion to have on the cultural difference between parties, but for now, let me indulge in more speculation than I usually do. My informed opinion is that Republican's have a stronger Not Invented Here stance. In other words, Republican voters are open to progressive ideas such as Medicare Part D, increased minimum wage, etc., but only if proposed by a Republican and not called progressive.

This is not meant as I slight against Republicans. Hyper tribalism can form the virtues of loyalty and solidarity. However, I will say that this can be bad for governance because politicians can skirt their incompetence and corruption relying on the loyalty of their voters. Our democracy requires cynicism to be healthy. Again, this is a larger discussion that I can't go into now.

If I'm right, Democrats might be better served by subtlety than intensity. In the last four House special elections, the other three as well or better, though the DNC paid less attention to them.

Congressional District	2017 Margin Win	2016 Rep Margin Win	2016 vs 2017 Rep	Trump Margin Win	Trump vs 2017
Kansas 4th	7	30	23	27	20
South Carolina 5th	3	19	16	19	16
Montana	6	14	8	21	15
Georgia 6th	4	23	19	1.5	-2.5

Data from "4 charts showing Democrats are gaining a lot of ground"

Looking over the years where Democrats were successful, you could argue that they were more Republican failures. In 2006, Democrats won the House while Republican congressmen were embroiled in scandal. Also, this was post-Katrina, when G.W. Bush's support fell away. 2008 Democrats won massive majorities just after the Financial Crisis. In 2012, Obama won after Romney's 47% remark, but the House remained in control of the Republicans.

If there is a silver lining to the Ossoff's loss, it is that Republicans are less motivated to steer away from the course they are on. As is, they are standing by, as their President goes deeper into scandal and are about to pass a highly unpopular health care bill. A Democratic win may have warned them in time to correct themselves. As is, if they need to correct in the future, it will be too late.

Instead, protests, money, and endorsements may only be keeping Republicans motivated. And, yes, that also means Democrats can't run against Trump. The message being: "Democrats. Just shut up and vote."

The better strategy would be to run everywhere and keep your core voters motivated making as little noise as possible. Let Trump and Republicans create the arguments against themselves because only they can. They've been doing a pretty good job so far.

How Much Does Trump Firing ComeyThreaten Us? - Part 3

For the Good of the Country, Make Trump a 1 Term President 

Republican Lack of Will and Wishful Thinking
has Endangered Us

In part 1 and part 2, I warned that the likelihood for a Threatening Presidency though Medium is dangerously close to High.

• Attempt: High 
• Competence: Medium
• No Check: High -> Medium

Having already explained my ranks for Attempt and Competence, I will now explain No Check.

If you read the two previous posts, I had the No Check rank at High, but understandably, I’ve moved it back to Medium because Special Counsel Mueller was appointed. I am tentatively optimistic that it keeps this current threat contained. However, I am not overly so that we are safe from the next threat.

The Comey firing was a threat to our democratic progress. The only argument was whether the damage went beyond what the last two presidents have done. Thankfully, that question is irrelevant. We were alerted to it by Trump’s incompetence. And, he was checked by an institution, the justice system. Future presidents cannot hide their wrongdoing by firing their investigator.

So now, some parsing. I am watching for a Disaster Presidency and a Threat Presidency separately. They are certainly related, but as I pointed out in part 2, a potential disaster only protects us against certain kinds of threat. Wrongdoing found by the Special Counsel is a disaster that congress may act on, but future obstruction is the kind of threat they might ignore. There is a need to watch for what I described in part 2 as the Accidental Dictator.

What is concerning is that he was only stopped by the courage (or survival instinct) of a single individual, Deputy Attorney General Rubenstein. Our democracy protected by only the right person in the right place is not comforting. There may not be such an individual next time. So, far we have only been protected by leaks and the court (help by state governments). The check designated by the Constitution, Congress, has not come to our rescue, nor do I believe it will. How can I say that? History.

Fundamental to Trump becoming president is the Republican Party’s lack of will to stop him. Despite him stating he had no allegiance to their party, they let him run in their primary. Though constantly contradicting principles with which they have righteously judge the rest of us, they elected him as their nominee. Though well within their own rules and historical precedent, no one challenged him during the convention and let him have the nomination. Constantly prominent congressman voice objections to his behavior, then almost immediately endorsed him.

I understand why. They wanted to keep their jobs. Doing any of what I listed would have created a backlash endangering their re-election, even in the safest state/district. That has not changed. Of three presidents to be “impeached”^[1] (Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton), they were all done when the opposite party controlled the Congress, and many would agree that at least one of these “impeachment” was only politically motivated. We just argue about which one.

Simple fact, there is little chance President Trump will be removed from office.

But then, I am not asking him to be impeached. I’m asking the Congress to take lesser steps. How about a declaration that if he fires the next FBI director, congress will consider putative action? Congress could censure the president (though that would do little). At the very least, stop attacking one of the few checks that has been working, leaks.

Instead, they have cravenly done none of this. In their initial response to Comey’s firing, just a quarter of senators have said anything against Trump and then only in the most parsed and vague language. As I pointed out in part 2, they only increased the rhetoric when he should dangerous incompetence. Congress has been like the parents that let their kid kick strangers in the shine and says, “He’s such a handful. What can you do?”.

Again, I understand. Republican voters demand a huge price for disloyalty, and integrity gives little electoral reward. I said I understand. I don’t condone.

That the President endangers democracy is not enough. It’s also not enough that he endangers their re-election. They must be certain, with no possibility of doubt and, maybe not even then, they may embrace wishful thinking like we heard before. (He’ll change. He’ll have good people around him, etc.) Until Trump is so unpopular that they see no hope of being re-elected, we cannot expect the Congress to be a check on the President.

And there, the situation is sadder. Conservative media has fully embraced the idea that the Russian Investigation is only politics and “fake news”. There is no surprise that his aggregate approval is still above 38%^[2]. I can’t see the House become a real check until those approvals get into the low 30%, and still, it will be the least they can get away with. Only 2 senators need to worry about non-republican votes in 2018. I’m not certain there is a number low enough to move the Senate.

Considering this, I have a recently updated to the Congress Count:

• 52/238 is the Senate/House Success Count
• 64//217 is the Senate/House Disaster Count
• 16/23 is the Senate/House Resistance Count

As you would expect, the Disaster Count did go up but not by enough. (Que outrage.) Looking at senators that have spoken out, I can only comfortably add one new senator, Bob Corker. Representatives have been silent. (Que more outrage.) So, I looked at those who voted against the AHCA. This does put us just short of the 67/218^[3] we need, and you would think that would calm me some. However, there was I reason I did not make the Disaster Count the same as the Threatening Rank. The Disaster Count measures whether Congress will react to President Trump after the disaster happens. That’s reactive. What we are asking is whether they will proactively stop him. It’s the difference between taking the car keys away after the crash or taking them before the drunk driver gets into the car. For that, it must start with two people, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Therefore, I added a new count, the Resistance Count.^[4] This is the Disaster Count minus any democrats. The theory is that to push McConnell and Ryan, they first must worry about losing their majority seat. Over fifty present of their party must want it. By that measure, 16/23, means we must rely on their conscience to act. (Que shiver.)

Now, the democrats winning the House in 2018 has become critical to protecting our democracy. History and convention say they will, but we are far from a guarantee. The senate is almost assuredly to remain in control of republicans. Still, the House would be enough to continue investigations that neither the President nor republicans can stop. However, do not count on impeachment. The House has the power to call impeachment, but if it does not pass the Senate, Trump would more likely be helped as Clinton was. Instead, a more realistic goal is to win the House, keep him in check, and make sure the American people understand the full details of his unfitness. Then, we can end this nightmare in 2020.

How Much Does Trump Firing ComeyThreaten Us? - Part 2

Rise of the Accidental Dictator

WARNING: Do not read this while drinking. It will make you sad and drink more. A lot more.

In part 1, I warned that the likelihood for a Threatening Presidency is still Medium but on its way to High

• Attempt: High 
• Competence: Medium 
• No Check: High 

Having already explained the increase in Attempt, I will now cover Competence

The good news is that these past days does not indicate he has gained competence. The true potential dictator would have waited, coordinated a better message, and had someone to take Comey's place. He also never would have admitted to the real reason during an interview, and if he had tried to interfere before the firing, would have done so in less suggestive ways.

But, he didn't. That what keeps his Competence at Medium, and these past days a little entertaining.

However, he hasn't (yet) shown an increased incompetence. Hard to believe, but if we look overall, he is learning some (like don’t let Bannon write an executive order), but the bigger progress is with his staff. More accurately, the incompetent personnel is being replaced. But, if he can continue to demand and get personal loyalty, eventually enough competence will surround him to be dangerous. Then again, he could be plagued by constant turnover and only to get mediocre replacements. (I certainly would not want to work for him after this week.)

But the main reason I’m keeping him at medium is that if he can keep his Delusional above 35%, he does not have to be that competent to hurt us. An important distinction is that the Competence Rank is not a judgment of overall competence. It is whether he can follow through with his attempt. He is far from competent enough to execute a coup or autocratic agenda. What he is competent enough to, however, is become what I call the Accidental Dictator. The firing of Comey is a perfect example. Just by disregarding our political norms he has potentially harmed our ability to hold future presidents accountable. One can easily see a scenario where external events combined with his autocratic response bring back atrocities of the past (“red scare”, Operation Wetback, Internment Camps, Jim Crow law, etc).

To be an Accidental Dictator, you don’t need to be that competent.

Where overall competency makes a difference for the Accidental Dictator is when it directly harms his followers and supporters. We can see this when he leaked classified data to the Russians. That created more negative reaction than firing Comey did. It could be just the “last straw”, but compared to firing Comey, the leak was legal and not malevolent. However, the Comey firing was a threat to democracy with no tangible harm (for us). The leak to Russia was a plain-out threat that someone could die over.

Part of what makes a Delusional so delusional is that politics does not "feel real”. It feels like cheering or booing at a football game, or better yet the WWF. But, when a President’s actions harm national security or the economy that is real and can pierce the delusion. Again, this is why a Disaster Presidency can’t be a Threatening Presidency. At the time of writing this, President Trump’s aggregate approval rating, on FiveThirtyEight and RealClearPoltics, are at their worse since he became president. However, they are still higher than President Clinton’s was around this time. If they hit below 35%, then even Delusionals are leaving him. Also, a recent drop in the stock market is being attributed to Trump’s incompetence, which takes money away from the financial supporters of republicans. These are the kind of trends that spur politicians to action.

But don’t relax just yet. Once President Trump’s incompetence becomes tangible (low polls, etc.), he improves or at least stops making it worse. Given time, republicans seem quite happy to forget his last misadventure. Unfortunately, one-third of the country is willing to risk harm to the rest of us as long as they remain untouched. That makes me sad. If you're sad as well, again I warned you. I need a drink.

---------------------------------------------------

Just as I was writing the last line, former FBI Director Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel by Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. With only minutes after the announcement, no one can say what will happen next. (Not that will it stop us from trying.) This is a good outcome, if for no other reason than it's a return to the president being accountable to the law.

But considering what I just wrote, I'd like to engage in a little self-promotional conspiracy theory. The Special Counsel does offer one potential benefit to republicans. The Special Counsel will probably say little until all facts are known, which could be years from now. Note that this was done on the day the stock market had a big loss, and when congressmen became legitimately worried of new damning evidence (the Comey memos). Not to mention, the President is about to leave the country.

Here's what to watch for. Are republican congressmen happy or angry about this? Again, this is all self-promotional conspiracy theory.

How Much Does Trump Firing Comey Threaten Us? - Part 1

How Firing Comey Makes the Trump Presidency More Threatening 

WARNING: Do not read before going to bed. You will lose sleep over this.

So here I am. Behind on my posts. Figure I need to write one about the AHCA, and just as I hit publish… He did again. Something so unprecedented and disturbing that I must update the Trump Watch. I am of course talking about the FBI Director being fired while the FBI is investigating Russian influence into the Trump campaign.

The likelihood of a Threatening Presidency is still Medium but on its way to High

• Attempt: Medium -> High
• Competence: Medium
• No Check: Medium -> High

As we should remember, ‘Attempt’ is how likely I feel Trump is to act in a way that harms democracy. ‘Competence’ is his and his administration ability to succeed. And ‘No Check’ is how likely I think Congress will let him do it. Right now these three ranks translate to me saying he is highly likely to try (Attempt), Congress is highly like to let him (No Check), and his lack of Competence is the best chance to prevent it. For now, I’ll explain why the Attempt rank has increased. In a later post, I will go into the other two ranks.

That I had increased the Attempt rank to High probably does not surprise you. You’re probably wondering why I did not go to Very High since he arguably is attempting right now. So, forgive me, but I’m about to parse words.

Before Trump being elected I asked if he was a “threat to democracy”, which if anything, he is less of a threat. As I pointed out in The First Step of Many, to reach the final steps of an existential threat, he needs the support of the military or a paramilitary. Firing Comey looks like this will alienate the FBI and does not help him to organize his own paramilitary. To change that, he would have to appoint a fanatical FBI Director and purge resistant FBI agents, which we have become more alert to (hopefully)

However, we aren’t asking if he is a “threat to democracy” anymore, we are asking if he is ““threat to democratic progress””. Does firing Comey, risk rolling back our democratic progress. Yes. Yes, it does. That should be obvious. What is not obvious is whether it does more than previous presidents. So, let’s look at some comparable actions in the past two presidencies.

1. Rolled back Civil Rights (W. Bush through the Roberts Court)
2. Mass dismissal of U.S. Attorneys (W. Bush)
3. Increased surveillance (W. Bush, Obama)
4. Questionable use of Signing Statements (W. Bush)
5. Assassinated a U.S. Citizen (Obama)^[1]

This list is incomplete and you may object to items that are included. Also, W. Bush and Obama progressed our democracy. That's not the point. This is an exercise to keep President Trump actions in perspective.

What is in common with the firing of Comey is that they all have little proven^[2] effect on us. They also share the concern that each erodes a check on presidential power. However, in that sense, President Trump has not only attempted but succeeded. He has already removed the norm of a presidential candidate showing his tax returns and not having business ties while serving as president. Regardless of what would be found, if the Russian Investigation is not completed, we may never be able to investigate a future presidents’ wrong doings.

Here is the troubling difference. All that I listed for W. Bush and Obama was for, what they viewed, the good of the country. There was no opportunity for gain. Trump fired Comey only for Trump. Only a Trump Delusional would not see this. More worrisome is that this fits an autocratic pattern that I can no longer ignore.

I've been hesitant to base my reasoning on Trump's personality, but he has consistently dealt with confrontation the same way that I feel more confident now. The pattern seems to at first threaten or bully, and if that does not work, charm. I won't go as far as to say that he has an authoritarian personality. A narcissist can also act authoritarian. However, I have enough experience in a hierarchical organization to say that he behaves in an authoritarian way.^[3]

The problem is that the U.S. is not an authoritarian country. We have checks and balances, and so the President must expect to be checked. More importantly, he must be checked sometimes by those that work for him, like an FBI Director. An authoritarian politician will eventually adapt to this. As well can an authoritarian CEO. Even high-ranking military officers do. But a, born rich, 70-year old who’s only run a family business never needs to adapt. He only needs to threaten, bully, or charm.

At this point, I no longer ask if Donald Trump will try to threaten democratic progress. I only ask when. He will keep running into situations he cannot solve by threatening, bullying, or charming, and then will take extreme acts in conflict without democratic norm. Each time he succeeds, he gains the ability to do worse and worse. Eventually, that will reach beyond the processes of government to the rest of us being harmed.

If that make you unable to sleep, remember that I did warn you.

A Biased Morning

This is going to be quick, and I can only touch the surface. But, this morning was such a good example of what biased and unbiased news sounds like.

At 8 AM I listened for about 5 minutes each to the following:

1. NPR News Recap Podcast
2. Beginning of "Morning Joe"
3. Beginning of "Fox & Friends"

Here's what's was on each and how they are biased.

NPR News Recap - Unbiased News

That President Trump contradicted the original reason for firing Comey in the most anodyne language possible. And...

That China is considering allowing the import of hamburger from the US, and in exchange, the US will allow cooked chicken to come from the China.

Morning Joe - Left-Biased Opinion Show

That President Trump and his spokesman have been lying (actually used that word) about Comey being fired. The Republican Senators are being used. Joe Scarborough spoke in particularly condemning language.

Fox & Friends - Right-Biased Opinion Show

Geraldo Rivera gave a long tortured explanation saying that the Russian Investigation will not lead to anything, and if the collision happened, it is not a crime (entirely misleading). He did so in as close to as scholarly a voice as he is capable of.

Then a guest came on to report how China and US may improve trade (the same news NPR reported). He then followed on how no one else is reporting this, again to discredit the Comey news.

In Summary

First, I have to point out that there is a difference between a news show and an opinion show, so you can't condemn "Morning Joe" and "Fox & Friends" for being more biased than "NPR News". Also, both examining the content and how they are biased deserves more discussion than I can give at the moment.

This was just too good an example for me to wait until I can discuss news bias in depth. The main takeaway is that bias is more about emphasis than content and noting how "Fox & Friend" complains about news not being reported that had just been reported by NPR.

Republicans, There's Something On Your Shoe

How the AHCA Hurts Republicans

So, we have a new republican health care bill, and there is a lot of celebrating on both side. So, who’s right? Will this be the doo doo on the republican’s shoes? Could this swing the 2018 elections?

It’s early. Really early. But, maybe can look at some signs and trends.

Bad Signs for Republicans

I've been looking at what conservative media been saying, and they are not talking about it as much as liberal. From what I’ve could see, the passage of the AHCA is being reported on, but not analyzed on Fox News as much as on MSNBC. Instead, Fox News wants to talk about something else. That’s a sign that they don’t think their audience is liking what they hear. Considering that this could be touted as an ant-Obama accomplishment, like the Supreme Court, there should be some trumpeting (pun intended).

The second bad sign is that I'm only hearing defensive arguments from republicans. Their message is about how it’s not as bad as the democrats are saying, the Senate will fix it, etc. If you told that to your boss, would he be thinking you did a good job?

Bad Signs for Democrats

They’re happy. Yeah, I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but have you noticed that republicans are almost never happy, at least not for long. That’s because anger and fear are more motivating than happiness and satisfaction. It’s one of the reasons republicans win even when most of the country is against them. Instead of gloating, democratic politicians and pundits should be screaming in outrage and how we cannot let this continue. Gloating makes your supporters relax and, worse, can galvanize the other side, even if they are being screwed by their own.

This happened in May, not November. There’s lots of time for republicans, not to fix the bill, but fix their message. Just as bad, there’s lots of time for democrats to get it wrong, which they have a history of doing.

What We Need to Consider and Still Watch For

After the 1st Delusion of Politics, there is the 2nd Delusion of Politics, “politics should be fair”. Saying politics is not fair is stating the obvious. But, here’s what we forget. Complaining about fairness only motivates people that are already on your side. Those in the middle think both sides are unfair, and the other side thinks you deserve it.

Right now, the republicans are hoping to be treated “fairly”. They want us to remember that the Senate will change it. That provisions will not happen immediately. This is the responsibility of state governments. That Obamacare was going to fail anyway. Yes, republican Delusionals will all believe that. No one else will care.

Passing the bill did worse than doing nothing because it showed us they can do something. Now, arguing that it is Obama’s fault is like me saying the previous owner of my car is still responsible for changing the oil. Republicans are now responsible for every premium increase, deductible increase, and policy denial, even if the bill never passes or no measures take effect before 2018.

Is that fair? No, it isn’t. What goes wrong with healthcare in the next year and a half could have nothing to do with what Republicans did or could do. Does not matter. It was not fair for President Obama, either.

What republicans have going for them is that they can makes this up with other bills. One of the more politely rational arguments for passing the AHCA is that it makes lowering taxes in the next bill easier. If it’s visible to lower-class and middle-class taxpayers, those not liking the AHCA could still like republicans.

And what they also have going for them is what they always have going for them. They’re Delusionals outnumber democrat Delusional. The AHCA may hurt those that voted for Trump, but they may not see it that way. And those, may not be the voters that are part of the smaller midterms electorate. However, that is why we need to know how conservative media is reporting on this. Those voters are not as loyal to their congressman as they are to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. That conservative media hasn’t yet, is a bad sign for republicans.

Therefore, I would recommend to democrats to focus on the AHCA increasing costs for older people, who do vote in midterms. If you’re worried about younger voters, there's more than enough reasons for them to vote against republicans. Remember that those willing to take away healthcare won't think twice about taking away help for student loans. (Yeah, that got your attention.)

This is where democrats need to be careful. Too many offensive comments or talk of single-payer can be just what conservative media is looking for, and that could be enough to maintain or even increase support for republicans.

And in the same way, democrats need to keep their voters motivated on this. If democrats cannot get voters to turn out on healthcare, they won’t be able to on Planned Parenthood, Russia, or any other issue. So, we should keep watching to see if democrats stay motivated.

I could once again point out that it’s way too early to make predictions on the 2018 Election, but I really can’t back out in the last paragraph. Even I would not make that cowardly a qualification. So, I will definitively say this hurts republican chances of keeping the House more than it helps. And this is already in an environment where history and conventional wisdom says they are at a disadvantage. I would say it pushes their chances down to a totally made up 30% of keeping the House. But remember, as I kept warning, those were the same odds Trump had of becoming president.

The First Step of Many

Update to the Threatening Presidency Watch

As I’m sure you heard, as of five days from writing this, the U.S. Navy launched and air strike against a Syrian airfield in response to Assad’s latest chemical attack. Talking politically about such a subject is in poor taste too soon after such an event. That has not stopped partisan media, however, which I feel is too soon. Unfortunately, I must be a hypocrite on that sentiment. My defense is that there are dangers that can sneak by while we adhere to the demands of empathy and patriotism. For me, that means I need to update the Trump Watch for a Threatening Presidency.

The rank has moved from Low to Medium:

• Attempt: Medium 
• Competence: Low -> Medium 
• No Check: High -> Medium 

Before I go further, let me clearly say that I tentatively support the President's actions in Syria. As of now, the attack was appropriate and well executed. I say 'tentatively' because we cannot know the full wisdom of such actions until we see the results and follow-up over time.

Having said that, let me now get into why it raises the risk of a Threatening Presidency. The simple answer is that it was a well-executed attack and military competence is a precursor to exactly the kind of increased power political leaders use to harm their own people. This is why I moved the Competence rating from Low to Medium. As I pointed out before, the dilemma of wanting competent leadership over the next 4 to 8 years is that it makes a Threatening Presidency possible. Military competence is the greatest threat because the President can achieve it unilaterally and the support of the military is a requirement for the most dangerous threats, such as a government overthrow or civil war.

Ok, that sounded pretty disturbing, but don't panic (yet). There are many many steps before we get to that point. And that is the reason for me doing this kind of Trump Watch so we can keep a balanced assessment without devolving into a panic. Furthermore, at the same time, the failure AHCA, republican senators’ current behavior in the Russian investigation, and the recusal of Rep. Nunes are all indications that the let me lower the No Check rank from High to Medium.

To clarify, let me talk about the Syrian strike in terms of good and bad news.

The Good News First

1. The Syrian strike was a conventional action. Reports are that President Trump relied on the advice of serious generals and not his inexperienced and ideologue advisors. The initial indication is that, at least, in military action, he will behave conventionally, which reduces chances of disaster and him using the military to promote a Threatening Presidency.
2. The worst of his supporters were put to the sideline. Reports are that Bannon influenced has decreased, and the attack is contrary to the political philosophy Bannon has been advocating. Lately, there have been some signals that Bannon's issues have been resolved, so it's too soon to tell. However, if Bannon continues to be distanced from the President, I would consider lowering the Attempt rank.
3. This is more evidence that the President "has a heart". I have no doubt that he is capable of viciousness, but remember that people are always more complicated than that. I've noticed for some time that he has not yet countered DACA. There are rumors and threats, but his hesitation, to me at least, suggests that when the President is confronted, in a personal way, with the harm he can do, he is drawn to decency. His response to the Syrian chemical attack is more evidence of this, and, hopefully, decency could stay his head from other actions. 

Now the Bad News

1. This could escalate. I won't get into all the ways the Syrian attack could make the situation worse. There's plenty of other articles detailing this. For our purposes, if our military engagement increases, this creates opportunities for the President to claim more power.
2. The President could learn a bad lesson. There's a good chance the President's approval will go up. Historically, it will not last long, and I doubt it will go beyond the high forties. However, there's about 20% of the population looking for any reason to feel better about the President. Given past behavior, this could lead the President to believe that any kind of military intervention helps him. Where that goes gets scary.
3. This is a return to the Imperial Presidency. Since the 1930s, the presidency has increased in power, especially in the use of military power. Now, this is something, only a portion of political junkies care about, and all presidents have added to this concern, including President Obama. But President H.W. Bush did make a step back by asking for congressional approval to enter the Gulf War. No President has conceded they must get approval, even though the Constitution clearly states so. However, presidents have made either a pretense of constitutionality, before issuing the attack, or directly asked for congressional approval. That President Trump did this unilaterally puts the Imperial Presidency back on track. Normally this would be just academic, but the concern was that if we continued to let the Presidency get unchecked power, one day we would get a president that truly abuses them. Well... 

There is a temptation to say that the attack on Syria was politically motivated. From my research, thus far, I have not found a case where a past president has use military action only to promote him politically. However, there are cases where they have done so to become president. (We now know that Nixon sabotaged Vietnam War peace talks to improve his chances of being elected.) With any other president, I would not have these concerns. Once assuming the office, the awesome responsibility of military action made them act under conventional norms. But, what we all agree on is that President Trump is unconventional.

How We Got Here - Post 6

The Progressive Era and the Power of the People

Exactly when the Gilded Age ended and the Progressive Era began is, as always, a bit of a historical debate. As I discussed in the last post of this series, progressivism grew in response to the excesses of wealth, so some of its advances had already begun such as the Pendleton Act, American Federation of Labor, and Sherman Anti-Trust Act However, I like to see it as beginning with a gunshot.

Governor Theodore Roosevelt had proven a thorn in the New York republican party leadership with his progressive ideas of reform. Then, Vice President Garret Hobart died, leaving President McKinley in need of a new vice president for his re-election. The party bosses now had a tried and true way to get an unwelcome politician out of the way. They convince Roosevelt to be McKinley's new vice president.. With Roosevelt, McKinley won in a landslide only to be assassinated in his first year. Suddenly, for the first time, against his own party’s efforts, a progressive was the most powerful politician in America.

You might not call President Roosevelt a progressive by the standards of today, but he certainly made steps towards a more progressive government. He argued along, what he would all later the Square Deal, that government had a role in protecting workers and consumers from "predatory wealth”. These sentiments live on within the democratic party, demonstrated when President Obama invoked Roosevelt's famous New Nationalism speech, echoes the words, and made them his own:

"But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you want from whoever you can. ...And today, they still can’t. 

"... this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone plays by the same rules ..."

From President Obama’s economic speech in Osawatomie, Kansas.

Starting with the Coal Strike of 1902, President Roosevelt did something not done before, the government took the side of a union. Before when the government got involved, it was to break up a strike taking the stance that the property of the business owner needed to be protected. Instead, President Roosevelt forced both sides to negotiate for the good of the Nation. The precedent was set.

After that, mostly under pressure from the public, activists, and muckrakers, more restrictions on business pass such as the Expediting Act, Elkins Act, Pure Food and Drug Act, and Meat Inspection Act. These were small actions, but they were the beginning of the “regulatory state”.

For the most part, progressive reforms were bipartisan. Each party wanted to do something progressive, they just differentiated on the details, how progressive to be, and who should get credit. That’s where the votes were. Much of the country were those that had been abused by the Gilded Age now, not the ones who prospered. America had been reshaped by immigration, economic turmoil, and technology, but what became of a common thread is this. Most American wanted the government to help them with their problems.

To go over the list of progressive acts and reforms passed would consume more than one post, but up until now, they were limited regulations on business, reforms of government corruption, and the building of public works. This was also the time when 4 significant amendments were passed, the 16th through 19th.

The 16th Amendment made it legal for the Federal Government to collect income tax. You really can’t underestimate the political significant. No one wants to pay taxes, so politics is always about them. However, with such taxes as tariffs, the opposing sides did not depend on wealth but how the wealth was made. Wealthy businessmen wanting fewer imports would use their influence to promote more taxes. However, income tax means the wealthy are always incentivized to use their wealth for lower taxes that can only be countered by populace arguments motivating the masses. Maybe over simplified, but that can sum up most of the political arguments for the last century.

The 17th Amendment made senators elected by democratic vote. This made the lower income voter more significant especially in low population states. Given what we learned in post 1 that seems more significant than it is. However, the number of senators per state did not change, which is what creates the biggest discrepancy. Also, lower income voters had a say before in who their senators were in that they elected the people that voted appointed them. This just made their power more direct. In other words, now senators had to campaign.

The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. Obviously, this is the most significant in that it doubled the electorate. But, I’m going to tread lightly here and not say much. I can be stupid, but not stupid enough to claim women vote differently than men without a lot of thought and facts to back me up.

The Progressive Era did have its darker roots, though. Because progressivism includes the idea that science should be used to govern, many progressives advocated eugenics. ^[1] You will notice that progressives of this era made no opposition to Jim Crow laws. Partly it was political expediency, but it was also because many progressives embraced white supremacy and, even if well meaning, believed social problems required “racial” solutions. For example, President Woodrow Wilson segregated the Federal Government and the Chinese Exclusion Act was renewed. Fortunately, these attitudes only form intent and did not successfully lead to much legislation or permanent effects (which is why you hear so little of it). What it did mean is that while advancement was made for women and the poor, nothing was done for different races.

When progressivism dealt with democratic expansion, civil rights, government corruption, and business greed, it proved successful (at least politically so). It’s when it attempted social engineering problems started. The most visible example is the Temperance Movement and the 18th Amendment. We discussed the Temperance Movement when covering the Jacksonian Era. The movement was apolitical, but more closely aligned with republicans. Besides the fact that much of these movements had, historically, associated themselves with republican abolitionists, the Republican Party chose as a political strategy to promote temperance as an attack against democrats. Most Irish and Germans being democrats, republicans used stereotypes of them to paint the democrats as lacking character.

Progressives embraced temperance based on sociological reasoning. The temperance movement did not just want to ban alcohol because of morality, but a belief that it was the cause of many social ills including familial abuse, unemployment, crime, and so on. ^[2] (This is also why the Temperance Movement and Suffrage movement became linked. It's not an accident that both amendments were passed next to each other.) Now, we know alcohol can contribute to these problems or be a symptom of a mutual cause, but outlawing alcohol does not cure these problems. It can even make them worse. Prohibition proved a failure to be undone by the 21st Amendment.

Although, the end of the Progressive Era had begun before the beginning of Prohibition. What began the end is what ends most eras, war. Up until now, politicians, for the most part, agreed on what American foreign policy should be. There should be as little as possible. Staying out of other conflicts, especially European, was the consensus, what we would call isolationism today. The Spanish-American War was America's first attempt at imperialism ^[3], and Americans found they did not like it. ^[4] But, progressives often viewed foreign affairs as the opportunity, even a responsibility, to make the world better, not just America.

Like it or not, the world had changed, and America, like everyone else, was drawn into WW1. President Wilson delayed America's entrance until the war was almost over, but there are two beliefs about WW1 everyone, even today, agrees with. It should not have happened and it should not happen again. For President Wilson, the second provided the opportunity to apply his theories to prevent war, in particular, the League of Nation.

America wanted no part of it, and the League of Nations failed. Combined with its failure, a post-war economic decline, the death of Theodore Roosevelt ^[5], and Prohibition, the progressive movement had been mortally wounded. It may not have ended yet, but it did enter a decline.

And then there were the communists. You will remember that during WW1 is when Russia became the first communist state. Fear of communists, bolsheviks, and anarchists had begun when these ideas were first heard of, but the hyper-nationalism brought by WW1, the shock of the Russian Revolution, and terrorist acts done by these leftist groups created what would come to be known as the 1st Red Scare. Hysteria rose beyond the threat, causing deportation and persecution. Within a year, when the predicted Bolshevik revolution did not happen, the panic had faded, but the damage had been done.

Slandering progressivism as communism-lite is not hard. Certainly, if you believe in the most limited government possible, you would inevitably see it that way. However, most of us don’t. But, the communists, Bolsheviks, and anarchists of 1919 made that association all the easier even for those of us not prone to see it. You will still see many conservatives and other groups claim the progressive movement had been “invaded by communists”, and they will point to the 1st Red Scare to justify it.

Ironically, as a progressive, you would not promote a reaction like the 1st Red Scare, realizing you would be its first victim. However, what makes such hysteria more threatening is when it happens with an overpowerful intrusive government, which progressives tend to promote. Then, you see the beginnings of a police state. Fortunately, American has never come anywhere near to being a police state, compared to actual police states, but you can understand the fear.

There is a natural tension in democracies between the needs of the majority versus the rights of individuals. Too much power to the majority and we risk becoming a police state. Too little power, then individuals through wealth and influence become robber barons. The Progressive Era had happened in response to the latter. But, behind that, there was always a fear that the majority would go too far. Perhaps, Prohibitions and the 1st Red Scare were examples of too far. Perhaps not. But, if you know just a little of the history to follow, you know in about twenty years it's going to get a lot scarier.

The Presidential Elevator Pitch

What Does a Successful Presidency Mean

Let’s talk more about the Successful Presidency and let me extend on that definition because I need to. My previous definitions have been too vague. As I have already pointed out. I can only measure if President Trump is perceived as successful. By that standard, many would not call Obama' presidency successful (about 40%). I'm also sure that if Trump's presidency is not a disaster, many (probably the same 40%) will declare him the greatest president ever. (He certainly will.^[1])

What I'm really thinking of is how the President's party will treat him after his term is over. A party will always refer to the last president they view as successful enough to associate with. Republicans usually use Reagan because they did not want to be associated with the 2 presidents after him. President H.W. Bush had only been elected one term and President W. Bush had.... well you know.

For democrats, they could go back to President Clinton because the economy had been so good. Before that, they usually went back to President Kennedy.

Obviously, that changes over time. President W. Bush is looking a lot better compared to the current President, and President Clinton is looking worse due to revisiting it in the Hillary Clinton's campaign. But, at some point, we start talking about how historians will think and not what politicians think.

Usually, this means that when you think of a president, mostly good achievements come to mind. Here's what I mean:

Reagan (Success)

• What 1st Comes to Mind: defeated the Soviet Union, the "Reagan Revolution", Tax Reform
• What 2nd Come to Mind: Iran-Contra Scandal, 1983 Beirut barracks bombings

H.W. Bush (Failure)

• What 1st Comes to Mind: a bad economy, not re-elected, Savings and Loans Scandal
• What 2nd Come to Mind: 1s Iraq War, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Clinton (Mixed)

• What 1st Comes to Mind: a good economy and tech boom, sex scandals, NAFTA
• What 2nd Come to Mind: Bosnian War, checks against Saddam Hussein's aggression, Welfare Reform balanced budgets, tax increases

W. Bush (Disaster)

• What 1st Comes to Mind: 2nd Iraq War, Financial Crisis, 9/11
• What 2nd Come to Mind: Medicare Drug Act, aid to Africa

Obama (Success for now)

• What 1st Comes to Mind: ACA (Obamacare), killed Osama Bin Laden, kept us out of a depression
• What 2nd Comes to Mind: failure to close Guantanamo Bay, BP Oil Spill, VHA scandal
• To Be Determined: ISIS

I'm sure you would come up with a different list. Many do remember the 1st Iraq War and don't even know there was a Savings and Loans scandal when thinking of H. W. Bush. Also, some are subjective. The "Reagan Revolution" is the greatest thing ever to a conservative and a horror to progressives. Don't even get me started on deficit spending. But, hopefully, you see the point. After writing down your own list (without falling to the Great Delusion of Politics), you will see one president harder to sell, then others.

But, who does the selling? Why other members of the party hoping to be elected, and that's what the Success Count should measure. How much other politicians think they can sell this president. In other words, the Presidential Elevator Pitch. Thus. it’s not an idle exercise. If other politicians believe they will not be able to sell him in the future, they are encouraged to distance themselves from him and no longer defend him. That will harm his legacy and mean the difference between success and failure.

Now look. Whatever happens, his Delusionals will insist he was great and any failure was just the system being rigged. The question is this. Will there be enough fans, after he is no longer president, for politicians to invoke his name or pretend he was never president?^[2]

In this way, the Presidential Elevator Pitch can become a shorthand for the Success Count. Think of three outcomes that a non-partisan would be most likely to remember. Don’t forget to avoid the Great Delusion of Politics. Here would be my list so far:

1. Travel Ban
2. Russia
3. Twitter

Unless you are a Delusional that list looks bad. Perhaps, there will be enough fervent support to continue to pressure republican politicians, but that tends to hurt as much as it helps.^[3] Without a better list, the Trump Presidency might at best be remembered as a good reality TV show.