Monthly Archives: October 2016

If This Had Been 2008

Politics, Uncategorized

 

Last night in West Palm Beach, Florida, Donald Trump delivered a speech reminiscent of Father Edward Coughlin.  Coughlin, who some might consider Rush Limbaugh before there was a Rush Limbaugh, used radio in the late 1930’s to challenge what he believed was an international conspiracy of financiers and the media to undermine American sovereignty.

Included in Trump’s remarks were the following.

The Clinton machine is at the center of this power structure. We’ve seen this first hand in the WikiLeaks documents, in which Hillary Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers, her special interest friends and her donors.

He went on to say that this global cabal is determined to take your jobs and ruin your lives.

In the final days of this presidential campaign, one needs to remember the historical verdict on  Father Coughlin.  Laurence DiStasi sums it up best by stating Coughlin tried to bring “a variation of the fascist agenda to the American culture.”

Trumps words were met with vociferous approval by those attending the rally.  If the polls are correct, those present at Thursday night’s event do not represent the majority of Americans.  Instead of breathing a sigh of relief, I wondered, “What if Trump had decided to run in 2008?”  Father Coughlin began his crusade during the Great Depression.  It was not his conspiracy theories which led many to rethink their belief in his message.  It was his support for the America First movement (where have we heard that recently?) when most of the country recognized Nazi Germany and the other Axis powers posed the real threat to U.S. sovereignty.  What would have happened if World War II had not become a catalyst for rebuilding the American economy after a decade of unsettling  unemployment and financial ruin?

History tells us the German people were more receptive to Adolph Hitler’s rise due to their economic condition.  And I understand much of Trump’s initial support came from those who felt they were left behind during the recovery from the last recession.  I can only imagine how successful he would have been if the announcement of his candidacy had focused on reforming the banking laws and tax codes instead of pointing fingers at scapegoats.

Desperate times cloud reason.  For example, would Americans and their elected representatives have supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq without September 11, 2001?

And that’s what brings me to 2008.  Remember, by November of that year, the unemployment rate was racing toward double digits and many Americans had lost their homes and their savings.  The same forces which produced a Father Coughlin were in play.  And his message, delivered by an autocrat who promised he alone could fix the situation, would have resonated with a much broader audience.

As any successful comedian will tell you, timing is everything.  The same is true in politics.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Why Trump Has Gone Nuclear

Economics

 

And why it won’t work.

As this election cycle comes to an end, and barring a major reversal of fortunes, Donald Trump will not be the next president of the United States.  Rather than exit with some modicum of dignity, he has elected to up the ante, trashing anyone and everyone who has abandoned his “crusade.”  Pundits attribute this to energizing his base of die-hard supporters.  However, is it more likely he views his constituents as potential consumers rather than voters?

Why do I say this?  A recent article in Fortune magazine reports there has been a 16 percent drop in business at Trump hotels, resorts and golf courses.  The target market for these properties is consistent with the demographics of business and political leaders who have publicly pulled their support for Trump.  His most ardent supporters are not the typical Trump property patrons.  Therefore, if the Trump family wants to capitalize financially on his electoral base after November 8, one should expect a number of new Trump branded products which are more likely to appear in discount stores than in Nordstrom’s or Tiffany’s.

So the question is, “Will people who were willing to spend their hard-earned money on ‘Make America Great Again’ baseball caps and t-shirts eat at a fast-food chain called TrumpBurgers and purchase low-priced, Chinese manufactured Trump clothing at Walmart?”  If 50 million Trump voters can be converted into 50 million customers, one might argue this may actually be one of the family’s most brilliant business ventures.

There’s just one potential problem.  When companies introduce new product lines, a concern is that the new items will ‘cannibalize’ the revenues from currently offered goods and services.  Now I must admit, I would not expect patrons of the new Trump International Hotel and Trump Doral Golf Club to stop going there because they are spending discretionary income on TrumpBurgers.  But there is historical precedence of what happens when a company with high-end products tries to enter a lower-income market.

In the 1970s, Rolex decided that they had an opportunity to expand their customer base by offering their watches at a discount through membership stores such as Fedco and Gemco (precursors of Costco and Sam’s Club).  The experiment failed dramatically.  Sales at the new outlets did not materialize.  More importantly, Rolex’s traditional market declined as high-end consumers felt the brand had been compromised.

One might expect the same thing to happen if the Trump organization starts catering to its carry-forward (pun intended) constituents targeted during the final 28 days of the presidential campaign.  Per the Fortune article, people most likely to plop down $780/night at Trump International are already indicating they may not want to be associated with the owner’s name.  That trend can only be expected to accelerate if the brand, once synonymous with luxury and wealth, is further compromised by appearing on mass-market goods.  And it takes a lot of low-margin discount goods to make up for the profits from one $780/night hotel room.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Assange, Can You See

Media

 

This post addresses the difference between spinning the news and yellow journalism. Spin is defined as “news and information that is manipulated or slanted to affect its interpretation and influence public opinion.” (www.dictionary.com)  For example, presidential campaign surrogates, suggesting a $917 billion business loss in one year qualifies as “genius,” are the poster boys/girls for spin.

In contrast, yellow journalism ” is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers.” (Wikipedia)   The term was first introduced when sensational and unsubstantiated reporting by newspapers such as the New York Journal (William Randolph Hearst, publisher) and the New York World (Joseph Pulitzer, publisher) was used during the Spanish-American War to increase circulation.  Today, yellow journalism is practiced mostly by grocery store tabloids as when the National Enquirer suggested Ted Cruz’s father played a role in John Kennedy’s assassination.

In previous posts, I have focused my frustration about media coverage during this election cycle on CNN and MSNBC and have ignored Fox News.  Why?  Because I expected more from the first two news outlets.  Why get upset when Sean Hannity, the host of one of Fox’s prime-time shows, appears in a Trump campaign ad or is offered as the sole source of the candidate’s otherwise undocumented opposition to the Iraq invasion?  Spin is spin.

However, this morning Fox News and it’s latest partners Wikileaks and True Pundit crossed the line between spin and yellow journalism.  Reporting on Julian Assange’s decision to appear via video at a news conference after claiming he feared assassination, Fox included the following in an article on its website.

Though no recent public revelations directly tie to Assange’s security fears, various U.S. officials and pundits have made threatening statements directed at him in the past. WikiLeaks on Monday tweeted an alleged quote from a 2010 State Department meeting at which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked if Assange could be killed in a drone strike. That same year, former Democrat strategist Bob Beckel said on Fox News Channel that “a dead man can’t leak stuff.”

Assange also has hinted that deceased DNC staffer Seth Rich may have been a source for WikiLeaks. Rich, 27, was found with multiple gunshot wounds to the back at a Washington, D.C., intersection in July. He died soon thereafter. Authorities believe Rich was the target of a botched robbery, but his death has inspired conspiracy theories.

These are bold accusations and, if true, might reasonably require voters to re-evaluate their presidential options.  However, with one exception, none of the above is substantiated.  The exception is the Bob Beckel quote.  In 2010, in discussing how Wikileaks might endanger U.S. security, he did suggest Assange might be better off dead.  And to their credit, Fox also identified Beckel as a “former Democrat strategist.”  Other conservative and alt-right websites were not so accurate, labeling Beckel as a former Clinton strategist, something he has never been.  For the record, there was bi-partisan condemnation of Beckel’s remarks.  Moveon.org petitioned CNN, for whom Beckel is now a paid commentator,  to fire him.

Just as one bad apple spoils the whole bunch, one kernel of truth does not justify mostly unsubstantiated reporting.  First, the lead sentence refers to “various public officials and pundits.”  Various implies several, yet Beckel is the only documented case.

Second, the only evidence of the alleged Clinton quote comes from an article in the alt-right on-line publication True Pundit.  Yesterday, Wikileaks, as reported in the Fox News story, directed its followers to the story with the following tweet.

assange

The article implied the threat was consistent with a November 24, 2010 email from the Department of State director of policy planning to Hillary Clinton with the subject line “an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re wikileaks.”  Here is the text of the email.

Following this morning’s meetings I activated my four legal eagles on the SP staff — Peter Harrell, Jen Harris, Bill Burke White, and Catherine Powell (that includes two law profs and two Yale law grads who certainly could be law profs). They in turn reached out to people at the Berkmann Center at Harvard and other experts, working together with Alec Ross. Alec has been particularly useful in terms not only of his knowledge but also his sensitivity to how anything we might try to do could impact our own internet freedom agenda. The result is the attached memo, which has one interesting legal approach and I think some very good suggestions about how to handle our public diplomacy. AM

As reported by Snopes.com, “The thrust of True Pundit’s article hinged almost entirely on claiming that the term “nonlegal” essentially means the same thing as “illegal.” Dictionary.com defines “nonlegal” as “not related to, qualified for, or phrased in the manner of the practice of law (distinguished from illegal).” A big difference.  All the email suggests is that there may be legal options (e.g. seeking a cease and desist order) and nonlegal options (e.g. media campaign).  The non-threatening nature of any suggestions for nonlegal efforts is affirmed by the use of the term “public diplomacy.”  Finally, the memo includes a warning the department should do nothing that might negatively affect its own efforts to promote “internet freedom.”  It is quite a stretch to imply this email responded to a Clinton suggestion involving assassination of Assange.

Third, the second paragraph undercuts everything Wikileaks and Assange espouse as the justification for the organization’s existence.  They boast they have created a place where individuals can share sensitive information without fear of retribution.  Even hinting who a source might be is a gross violation of that principle.  When Assange raised the possibility Seth Rich might be responsibility for leaking the DNC emails, there was no evidence to substantiate his claim and it made for sensation headlines, the definition of yellow journalism.  Wikileaks is now offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich’s death. (NBC News, August 10, 2016) I am confident some of the same conspiracy theorists who believe Rafael Cruz assisted Lee Harvey Oswald are claiming the prize based on equally baseless assertions.

Why do I refer to Fox, Wikileaks and True Pundit as partners?  As demonstrated in this case, these three entities use each others reporting to substantiate a story which otherwise lacks evidence.  Why is that dangerous?  Consider the “partnership” between the New York Times and the Bush administration leading up the Iraq invasion.  On September 8, 2002, the Times published a story by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon about the existence in Iraq of aluminum tubes, whose use would be part of Iraqi programs to build nuclear and biological weapons.  That same morning Cheney appeared on Meet the Press and quoted the story to support the justification for a possible invasion of Iraq.  As we learned later, sources for the Times story where the very people who were citing it as evidence of Sadam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions.  Simply put, representatives of the Bush administration planted a story in the Times which they later quote as third-party verification of their concerns about Hussein.

And exactly how did that work out?

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP