A Look Back

The Facebook Era 

It is sort of a strange thing when you realize how much of your public identity has to do with what you post to Facebook.  For good or bad (and there is plenty of both), lots of friends and acquaintances have created an understanding of me based on words and pictures posted to a computer screen. Depending on the individual's perspective, those words contribute to both positive and negative impressions of the person behind the keyboard.  Now that I've decided to leave Facebook, I wanted to reflect on how we all got to this place, where we communicate from behind a screen, and form impressions of people based on moments on a timeline and carefully constructed computer algorithms.  

I didn't join Facebook with the intention of posting political or social commentary.  Like most others, I reluctantly handed over my personal information to Team Zuckerberg long after Facebook had replaced MySpace as the go-to site for social networking.  I can even remember the final straw that convinced me to setup my account.  I got an email from someone who was very excited about another friend's new baby.  After wondering how I could possibly be so out of the loop for this important life event, I was informed that it was all clearly posted to Facebook.  Not wanting to be excluded from future announcements, I took the plunge in August 2009. 

Finding My Voice

Growing up is an interesting and complicated process.  We all get to learn about who we are, where we came from, and how to interact with others as we advance through the various milestones of youth.  At some point, usually during or shortly following the completion of formal schooling, there is a period of uncertainty.  Now that we are in control of our lives and decisions, how do we really understand ourselves and the place we are to play in the world?  

For me, the transition from college to "the real world" was pretty smooth.  I graduated, secured a big boy job, and spent the summer hanging with friends, traveling Europe, and preparing for what was next.  After starting my job and completing training, I moved into my own place, learned about paying bills and getting to work on time, and started settling into my new life.  When not working, I divided my time fairly evenly among Timberwolves games, Thursdays at William's Pub, and weekends at Gluek's, Rosen's and The Lone Tree in downtown Minneapolis.   

At that point in my life, I wasn't particularly informed or interested in "politics", even as the 2000 election cycle was already rounding into full swing.  I grew up with parents who identified as centrist Democrats.  To me, that meant that they were neither reformed "hippies" preaching peace and love, nor were they among the "Reagan Democrats," who made a party switch to become Republicans in the early 1980's.  My first major vote in a Presidential election was for Bill Clinton in 1996 and in 1998 I joined with others in my generation to make Jesse Ventura the 38th Governor of Minnesota.  In those days, my general understanding of politics was that both parties were pretty much the same, and that most politicians were interested in maintaining the status quo.  Fresh out into the working world, armed with my shiny new college degree, I felt the need to "shake things up a bit," by electing an unpolished, though generally qualified, former wrestler and actor, to lead our great state. 

Things started to change for me after the 2000 election.  Al Gore had lost to George W. Bush, despite winning the National popular vote, in one of the closest elections in U.S. history.  The election only concluded after the US Supreme Court ended a mandatory statewide recount in Florida, in an election fraught with irregularities and accusations of fraud.  In the end, Bush won the state of Florida by less than 600 votes, giving him a slim electoral college victory, despite receiving over a half a million fewer votes.  Bush, the son of the former VP and President, was relatively inexperienced in politics, despite having served as the Governor of Texas.  He got to work quickly, implementing economic and foreign policy changes driven by a cabinet of his father's close advisors.  A short time later, our country would experience the tragedy of 9/11, the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the intelligence changes that would forever impact our understanding of privacy.  

For me, these events woke something in me; an awareness that elections have consequences that extend beyond the boundaries of my social group, community, city and state.  It was at this point when I decided to educate myself about the politics that influence our lives, regardless of whether or not we choose to pay attention.  The impetus for this phase in my development was not any particular hot button issue, but rather a search for "Truth" in politics.   I was less concerned about liberal vs. conservative economic and social policies, and more interested in understanding how to avoid the corrupting effects of disinformation and ignorance in our society.  At that time, this disinformation consisted mostly of chain emails that got passed from person to person spreading false information and conspiracy theories.  I spent a good portion of my time replying to my (mostly older) family and friends explaining why 9/11 wasn't an inside job, or that people weren't leaving used hypodermic needles infected with HIV in the coin slots of vending machines. I discovered new websites such as factcheck.org and politifact.com and used them to help people separate fact from fiction.  After Bush won a second term in 2004, it became clear to me that our politics, and our country, were changing.  

A Political Awakening

In early 2007, I became aware of Barack Obama, then a first term U.S. Senator from Illinois.  I was drawn to him mainly due to his message of "Hope and Change," now easily accessible to me due to videos of campaign speeches posted to YouTube.  After that initial introduction, I took the time to read his books - first "The Audacity of Hope" and then "Dreams From My Father," which had been written years before his improbable rise to prominence.  For the first time in my young life, I felt that this was a politician who actually understood me, and who shared the dreams that I had for my country.  For the first time in my life, I felt the need to "campaign" for a political candidate.  Still years before Facebook or Twitter for me, my campaigning mostly consisted of sending mass emails to friends, and the occasional conversation over dinner or drinks.  Most people seemed to appreciate the information and resource recommendations, though there were a few others who expressed their desire to do their own research.  Whether or not my outreach had much impact on my social circle, this initial foray into politics convinced me that I had something to say.  

As personal email gave way to text messages, and political messaging increasingly took the form of viral videos, blogs and memes, the landscape changed quickly.  I could no longer knock down a disinformation attempt by posting a link to PolitiFact or Snopes.  Conspiracy theories took on a mind of their own, driven by democratized access to information, expanding social media platforms, and sophisticated microtargeting and profiling technologies.  Eventually, we were introduced to the concept of "fake news", which were articles made to look legitimate, despite being completely devoid of factual information or journalistic integrity.  With the election of Donald Trump in 2016, these technologies and strategies were weaponized by Russia and others to further divide an already divided nation. With the help of Trump and others, the line between "fake news" and political bias was intentionally blurred, and most Americans found themselves without a trusted news source.  This created a vacuum of information and truth for most Americans, and many organizations were happy to step in and fill the void.  

Today, we live in a world where basic facts and science are questioned.  Those traditionally viewed as experts, such as doctors, professors and scientists, have their opinions questioned by anyone with access to Google.  We are stuck with legitimate media organizations who worry more about giving equal credence to both sides of an argument rather than focusing on which argument is actually supported by facts.  Worse than that, we have been inundated by illegitimate media organizations that present politically charged opinions as if they are established facts.  We are left in a space with very few trusted sources of information, and a population that picks and chooses what information to believe.  In most cases, we choose to believe information that supports the views that we already have, also known as "confirmation bias." Facebook and other social media giants, which could have been platforms to disseminate factual information, have instead become the preferred tool to spread disinformation, on a scale unimaginable just a decade ago.  

I guess that is what has brought us to where we are today.  Despite efforts to combat the spread of disinformation on platforms like Facebook, the problem continues to get worse.  The companies, who by their own admission, could employ resources to censor false information, argue that they have no role to play in deciding what content is displayed on their platforms.  Those of us who attempt to spread factual information on these same platforms find ourselves overmatched by the capabilities of those who aim to deceive.  I find myself arguing basic facts with friends instead of engaging in real political and moral conversations that are the bedrock of our Democracy.  My goal is to start having those American conversations again.  I want to engage in conversations that are grounded in facts and science.  I want people to see that our history is defined by a long series of factual events that must be understood from potentially unfamiliar (and uncomfortable) perspectives. Over the next several weeks, I plan to start these conversations, and hopefully improve upon the toxic discourse that has taken over our politics and strained our relationships with those we care about.  I invite all of you to take this journey with me, though I'm not quite sure where it will lead.  

Will it lead us to a better world devoid of toxicity and lies?  Probably not.  My modest hope is that it will at least make my life, and possibly yours, a tiny bit more tolerable. 

Thanks for reading!

Goodbye Facebook!

It has been a good run, but all good things must come to an end. I've known for years that Facebook is a horrible company, but for some reason, I felt that the occasional good things could make up for all of the bad. I've now come to the conclusion that I was wrong, so I will be moving along to greener pastures. Over the years, I've watched as so many FB Friends have come and gone...some quietly slipping away or "taking a break", and others leaving with a bang and a giant F-U! I'll be taking a slightly different path.

If this news makes you sad, don't worry -- I'm not leaving just yet!

If, on the other hand, you're popping the champagne -- you may want to put it back on ice or just block me right now (if you haven't done so already).

On November 4th, 2020, the morning after the election:

I'm gone (like Keyser Soze).

Until then, expect to hear from me (a lot), though most of the content will actually reside on my blog:

https://sota-politics.blogspot.com/

For those of you who read my posts, thank you for all the comments and criticism over the years; I promise that I listen closely to both. I hope to continue writing on my blog -- hopefully you'll follow me there instead of spending time on this toxic platform. If you are sick of hearing from me, but haven't blocked me yet, consider it an early holiday present.

Whichever category you personally fall into, I do hope that you follow along for the next 40 days, listen to what I have to say, and add your thoughts to the mix.

It should be a fun ride!

Super Tuesday 2020

It has been a long ride already, seeing the entry and exit of big names such as Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Beto O’Rourke, Amy Kloubachar, as well as lesser knowns Tom Steyer, Pete Buttigieg, John Hickenlooper, Andrew Yang, and Jay Inslee.   As the results roll in from Super Tuesday, it is almost certainly down to three candidates to take on Donald Trump (no, I don’t consider Bloomberg a contender, but more on that later). Whether you are a supporter of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Joe Biden, it has become clear that one of those three is going to take on Trump in the general election.  Now that things are getting real, I figured I’d attempt to summarize my thoughts about the “Big 3+1” finalists, and what we can expect from now until November 3^rd. 

How did we get here?

For many people, their preferred candidate is no longer in the race.  From a field that at times included as many as 20 candidates, the vast majority are now sitting on the sidelines with the rest of us.  I’ve talked to people who think that Kamala Harris dropped out too soon, or that Beto O’Rourke would have gained popularity had he stuck it out.  Unfortunately, the reality with such a big field is that it is “All About the Benjamins” (I may be dating myself).  It costs a ton of money to build a national operation, hire staff, travel to events, and promote a candidate’s vision on TV, radio and social media.  For most of these candidates, the well simply dried up before they could mount a real challenge.  Bloomberg, and to a lesser extent Steyer, could afford an extended run all the way to the convention, even if their support doesn’t justify such actions.  For better or worse, Biden, Warren and Sanders are the three candidates that have both the following and the finances to stay in the fight. 

Where are we now? 

We are now officially down to Biden, Bernie, Beth plus Bloomberg (3B+1).

Joe Biden has been the presumptive nominee since before he was officially a candidate in the race.  His support generally draws strength from his familiarity and name recognition.  He was a seven term US Senator from the state of Delaware and two term Vice President to Barack Obama.  Ideologically, he profiles as a “centrist” or “moderate” Democrat and has the most support of the remaining contenders from “the party establishment.” He is also the candidate with the most momentum heading into Super Tuesday, fresh off a big win in the South Carolina primary and high-profile endorsements from former rivals Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and O’Rourke.   

Bernie Sanders has been a mayor, US Representative, and US Senator from the state of Vermont as part of a nearly 40-year career in politics.  For most of his long career, Sanders did not belong to either major political party, deciding to run as an Independent until his unsuccessful 2016 run in the Democratic Presidential primary.  A self-avowed “Democratic Socialist,” Sanders has argued for progressive social and economic policies and has warned against the corrupting influences of capitalism.  He favors a Democratic system of government with strong government services like Denmark or Finland, rather than authoritarian “socialist” countries like Cuba or Venezuela.  Like Biden, Sanders had a significant head start from a name recognition and fundraising standpoint due to his extended Presidential run in 2016. 

Elizabeth Warren is currently a second-term Senator from Massachusetts and a former Harvard law professor.  She rose to national prominence in the months following the 2008 financial collapse when she chaired the Congressional Oversight Panel, which helped to manage the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP, aka the “bank bailouts”).  Warren later went on to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a new independent government agency designed to protect and advocate for consumers in their interactions with the complicated US financial sector.  In the primary, Warren has positioned herself as a unifying option between Sanders and Biden ideologically; a progressive voice who believes in regulated Capitalism as an economic system.  Throughout her campaign, her anti-corruption message and litany of plans have resonated with voters, even as she has struggled to keep pace with frontrunners Sanders and Biden.

Mike Bloomberg is a multi-billionaire media mogul and three term New York City mayor.  He is also a “former” lifelong Republican who entered the 2020 Democratic race in November.  His campaign has consisted almost entirely of flooding the airwaves with advertisements, jointly trashing Donald Trump and promoting himself as a viable alternative.  As the 9^th richest person (Forbes) in the world, Bloomberg’s obscene wealth (~$53 Billion in 2019) has propelled him into the conversation despite his lack of formal organization or campaign infrastructure.  His rising polling numbers recently allowed him to join the others on the debate stage, even though he wasn’t even on the ballot in pre-Super Tuesday states.  At this point, there doesn’t seem to be a reasonable path to victory for Bloomberg, though his continued presence in the race is likely to muddy the waters a bit.   

Where do we go from here?

Today is March 3^rd, also known as “Super Tuesday” with respect to the 2020 primary season.  It is a day where 14 states have chosen to hold their primary elections, and the biggest single day of the election cycle.  After all the votes have been cast and counted, the overall picture should be clearer. With the recent exists of Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar from the race, the moderate wing of the Democratic party seems to be lining up being Joe Biden. Sanders, on the other hand, enjoys a clear advantage among the growing progressive wing of the party.  At this point, there are many things that are still unknown, including:

• Will Klobuchar and Buttigieg’s voters throw their support behind Biden?
• How much support can Bloomberg’s money and message buy? 
• Which candidate(s) does Bloomberg’s support pull from most?
• How long will Bloomberg stay in the race?
• Can Warren maintain her presence as a significant player now that the field is reduced?
• Can Warren generate momentum as a true 3^rd option between Biden and Bernie?
• If Warren can’t mount a charge, will she endorse one of the remaining candidates?  Who?

It is possible that some of these questions will be answered in the coming days, but I don’t expect clarity anytime soon.  Most of the polling that I’ve seen suggests that Amy and Pete’s voters will not necessarily line up behind Biden but will spread their votes around.  Bloomberg’s money will allow him to easily remain a thorn in everyone’s side for as long as he wants, but he’ll likely end up pivoting to support whoever is best positioned to beat Trump.  Warren is the true wild card, as one of only three remaining candidates with a viable path to victory.  If she can pile up a significant number of pledged delegates in the coming days and weeks, her campaign becomes even more intriguing.  A disappointing Super Tuesday for Warren would essentially end her chances, though I’m still not sure where she’d go from there. 

Final Thoughts

Before the polls start closing across the country, prior to the final tabulation of votes, and ahead of the endless stream of pundits telling us “what it all means,” I’d like to conclude with my own personal thoughts. 

Donald Trump is the worst President in my lifetime, and possibly the worst President in the entire history of the United States.  He is an ignorant, race-baiting, narcissist with an extensive history as a sexual predator and serial abuser. Since taking office, he has managed to chip away at the pillars of our system of government and widen the already deep divisions of our nation.  His corruption and criminality will forever be a stain on the office of the Presidency that will take years to recover from.  His legacy will eventually show that he was an illegitimate President installed with the assistance of hostile foreign powers, an ineffective leader whose actions were in service to himself, and a criminal who tarnished everything and everyone that he touched.  It is imperative for the survival of our nation that we accelerate his exit from our government.  Given the failure and cowardice of a criminally complicit Republican Congress, our next opportunity to act is on November 3^rd, 2020. 

Mike Bloomberg is a “Never Trump” Republican.  He is not, and has never been, part of the Democratic party, and, despite his advertisements, does not share the ideas or ideals of Democrats (moderate or progressive).  To his credit, he recognized that Trump was a dangerous experiment before most of his Republican colleagues, and supported his opponent in 2016.  His efforts to highlight the danger that Trump presents to our nation are welcome, though his presence in the Democratic primary is not.  I sincerely hope that he decides to exit the race and let the actual Democrats put their best candidate forward.

Joe Biden is a good man, and a lifelong public servant.  His long history in politics brings with it some admirable achievements as well as significant baggage.  He is not a good speaker, is sub-par as a debater, and has a well-documented history of gaffes and missteps.  He is 78 years old, unlikely to serve multiple terms if elected President, and his politics don’t speak to younger voters.  His extensive experience in both domestic and international politics will serve as a welcome change after 4 years of Donald Trump incompetent administration.  Unlike Trump, he likely does know many of the “best people,” and I have no doubt that he’d have an army of qualified candidates to help him rebuild the federal government if elected.  His extensive history in the public view will give the Trump campaign plenty of red-meat to chew on for attack ads, and his lack of support for progressive priorities risks alienating the fastest growing parts of the party.  If progressives fail to “turn out” for Biden, this will also put the Senate majority and House representation at risk. 

Bernie Sanders is another high risk, high reward candidate.  While his candidacy comes with a built-in army of (mostly) progressive supporters, social media superiority, and fundraising capabilities, he is also viewed by many Democrats as an outsider.  He has a long history of clashing with the Democratic “establishment,” insists on embracing the “socialist” label, and has his own long history in politics for opposing campaigns to exploit. Bernie’s history in Congress has been praised by many for his consistent stance and support for issues such as universal healthcare, workers rights and progressive economic policies.  He has also remained remarkably consistent in his opposition to involving the United States in foreign wars. At the same time, he has held questionable positions on gun rights, crime and social justice issues, and seems to have an odd infatuation with Russia.  The Russia concerns include voting against the Magnitsky Act (2012), which imposed significant financial sanctions on Russian oligarchs, and is seen as one of the underlying reasons for Russia’s election interference in 2016 (Sanders was one of only 4 votes against this legislation).  Much like with Biden, many Democrats fear that nominating Sanders could suppress certain voters, specifically moderates, independents and former Republicans who aren’t sold on Trump’s performance as President. 

Supporters of Elizabeth Warren (like myself) tend to see her as a viable third option who exists somewhere between the perceived extremes of Bernie and Biden.  Her personal story is a compelling one which is grounded in both personal and professional experience.  Her actual policy positions are quite progressive, which should have obvious appeal to Sanders voters.  Her approach to these issues is much more pragmatic, however, and she is appropriately seen as less of a “radical” than Sanders.  Her journey is intriguing, as a former registered Republican whose groundbreaking research into the causes and effects of personal bankruptcy transformed her into a fierce advocate for financial reform and consumer protection.  

Her leadership in the fallout of the 2008 financial collapse led to greater financial regulations and the creation of the CFPB, which has returned more than $12 billion to consumers from penalties enforced on large financial institutions. As a Senator, she has been instrumental in holding companies like Wells Fargo accountable for scamming customers.  As a candidate for President, her “I’ve got a plan for that,” slogan highlights the detailed nature of her policy proposals, showing both what she is proposing, AND how she will pay for them.  Warren also provides a good compromise between the “career politician” label of Biden and Sanders, and the “political outsider” label that some candidates (such as Trump) have used to their benefit.  She has limited political baggage from previous votes such as the Iraq war resolution or the 1996 crime bill, while her experience working with the Obama administration and her two terms in the Senate make concerns about lack of experience fall flat.  Finally, if anyone has any doubts about how she will perform in a head to head debate with Donald Trump, the bloodied corpse of Mike Bloomberg has a message for you (she’ll be fine). 

I have no doubt who I’d like to represent the Democratic party (and the country) as we continue our march to November.  I hope that by reading this, others can gain some perspective into how we got here, where we are at, and where we’re headed.  If I’ve convinced anyone to support Elizabeth Warren, that’s good too.  What is more important than anything else, however, is this:

The perfect candidate does not exist.

No candidate is going to check all boxes for all voters.

We must ALL support whichever candidate emerges from this crowded field if we are going to finally rid ourselves of Donald Trump.