No, We Are Not Entertained

Due to the personality driven press coverage of politics in the U.S., nothing commands attention like the battle between the two leading party candidates for president. But the fight over party control in Congress will shape much of policy over the next four years. If Clinton becomes president despite the ferocity of opposition drummed by Trump in his public statements, what can we expect? (The following analysis assumes no severe dislocations occur, such as by violent action by self-styled "patriotic" militias.)

Intraparty squabbles have been evident in the presidential primary season and have only intensified with Trump's emergence as the nominee. Key Republican leaders and moderate candidates like Kelly Ayotte here in New England have not been able to balance holding their party together and being true to basic principles of human decency. Based on the strong commitment of these players to party unity above policy considerations, if Hillary Clinton wins election, we should expect the following:

source:wikipedia

-The question of holding hearings on the confirmation of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court will resurface. Senate majority leader McConnell has flatly stated that the Senate will not consider the nomination. We can expect some Republican Senators to suggest holding hearings on the nomination because Garland is such a moderate jurist and Hillary Clinton might nominate someone more liberal and much younger than Garland. Any decision will be based on whether the Republicans or Democrats control the Senate. Right now an approximately 50/50 Senate appears most likely. These considerations will be weighed against the advantage to Republican strategists of tying up Clinton's first year in office with a contentious nomination fight. Whoever is nominated will be made subject to an intense investigation primarily as a tactic to prolong the confirmation battle as long as possible. However, if Barack Obama is nominated, which would in some ways be fitting since his nominee was denied, the transparency of opposition for sake of obstruction may be too obvious for Republicans to pursue.

Bottom line: If Democrats win the Senate, Republican Senators will likely pressure McConnell to permit consideration of Garland and he may yield. If Republicans win the Senate, consideration of Garland in the lame duck session seems unlikely.

-If Republicans hold the House majority, we can expect intensive investigations of President Clinton. Committee chairs like Rep. Chaffetz will argue that their investigations are so important to the country, but the result will be that other pressing matters of policy take a back seat. We should expect impeachment hearings, possibly in the lame duck House after the 2018 election, if not sooner.
-Government shutdowns will be revived as a tactic to extract concessions from Democrats.  With the Republican Party in some disarray due to the Trump candidacy, there will be little appetitite even among extremists to allow a shutdown in the lame duck Congress (the continuing resolution is only good until about December 9th). But after January 20th, expect new energy devoted to shutting down the government because it is so important. We can expect the same type of gamesmanship whereby Ted Cruz and the like-minded threaten to shut down the federal government if they do not get their way in negotiations - at the same time that they argue that shutting down the government or even defaulting on the debt are not such a big deal. Congress Models Itself on the Cuban Missile Crisis by Scott C. Monje provides a clear explanation of the Republican Party tactics in game theoretical terms.
-Speaker Ryan will struggle to hold together the Republican Party coalition.
-McConnell will likely continue the strategy of scorched earth opposition to any legislation that could make the new President Clinton look successful. If this was the strategy in 2008 against Obama and the U.S., it can be expected to work even better due to natural resistance of the American public to four consecutive terms of the same party in the White House.
-Democrats will continue to struggle to defeat Republicans in the hearts and minds of Americans on the issues. Republicans will frame the issues in easily understood concrete terms, whether or not accurate, with catchphrases that resonate more than the long sentences crafted by Democrats.

Dueling Leaks

Friday October 7th was a big day in the downward slide of our electoral politics.  Within hours of each other, we received not one, but two leaks perfectly timed to throw each candidate off his or her game in the midst of the final preparations for the make-or-break Sunday night duel.

So now we have Trump on a bus and email clues on HRC talks at Goldman. Not long ago the focus would be on gaffes. "He will be our next President unless he has a big gaffe in the debate or the campaign trail." After more than a year of Trump shockers, gaffes are so passe, but not so leaks.

Dependence on leaks is a direct result of "fair and balanced" news coverage. The logical progression goes like this:
-Objective reporting is defined as fair and balanced(FAB)
-FAB requires objective journalists to report facts without interpretation, context or meaning. The reason is that we are all voters.
-Voters make choices based on their political persuasion.
-Political persuasion necessarily makes a journalist too biased to report fairly without deferring to subject matter experts.
-Subject matter experts, one from each side of the debate, must be chosen.
-He said/She said talk-over denials and accusations are the result, which leads to dubious statements by the candidates that require fact-checking.
-Fact-checking turns into a whack-a-mole exercise. Some candidate statements are outright false, some fall into a gray area (hence numbers of pinocchios). Some are important. Others are not.
-Narrative coherence is lost
-Voters are left to their own devices to believe whatever they choose.

Leaks on the other hand provide irrefutable evidence.  (Never mind that tapes and emails could be doctored.) The big surprise is not the story told by the evidence. We all know what DJT is like. The surprise is the sudden emergence of the evidence that makes facing the truth, by the candidate, and especially by prominent supporters, more difficult.

Leaks give the objective journalist permission to report the truth in context - in the case of Trump, to say what he is really like, which we already could infer from all available evidence. Maybe not in a court of law to convict of a crime, but surely to judge fitness to be POTUS.

The fact that leaks are needed to prove what we already know demonstrates that the traditional reporting standards for objective journalism are obsolete.

Fixing a Broken System

At WTBP, we see a broken political system in the U.S. and identify key villains - not the worst actors, but those with good intentions (presumably), but lacking in the will to act to effect change. Taking the existing political structure of the U.S. as a given, we find that (1) moderate Republicans who remain faithful to their party caucus in Congress -no matter what happens- and (2) the popular mainstream press who stick to the broken "balanced" model are the two main culprits. Applying pressure to
(1) and(2) to change their ways represents the path of least resistance to meaningful reform.

Making institutional reform happen is difficult because a gridlocked legislature is not likely to reform itself. A minority party that benefits from outsized power and even control of Congress is not likely to seek democratic reforms. These challenges have prompted interest in remedies that do not require monumental laws that may never be passed.

In recent years, interest in electoral reforms has surged. Unfortunately, some creative proposals seem to be driven more by what can be done rather than what needs to be done.

The Center for Election Science (CES) does just that. The CES sees the main problem as the voting method, specifically, voter preference can only be expressed by selecting a single candidate. The CES proposed solution is "approval voting", that is, the voter can pull the lever for all candidates the voter likes. CES invokes year 2000 for their example. The result would be that Nader voters would have exercised two votes in many cases - one for Nader, their "honest favorite" and one for Gore, to register the preference of Gore over Bush. Year 2000 is not a great example of a fix, because Nader had such a small following.Any vote for Nader was clearly a protest vote or a mistake brought about by confusion over the butterfly ballot. People have to get used to the idea that when you vote you do it to affect the outcome of an election. If you are trying to feel good, there are plenty of other avenues.

California has an intriguing Top-Two Primary System for most offices.  The primary field is reduced by vote to two candidates regardless of party. This is worth exploring in other States that do not have it. California also operates an independent redistricting commission to eliminate gerrymandering. The solution to gerrymandering is not simple. The math behind voter preference and drawing legislative districts show us that solving some problems with any system creates others. (re: social choice see Arrow's Impossibility Theorem and Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem.)

The neuroscientist Sam Wang has developed a beta tool to statistically test for partisan gerrymandering.

The California efforts and the objective tool to measure extent of partisanship in creating districts show promise. But the CES proposals would require enormous effort to enact, and do not directly or realistically combat the problems with our democratic system.

Float Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Bee

Float Like a Butterfly

Mike Pence's explanation of Donald Trump's stated positions goes like this:
Trump said A.
Kain says Trump said A.
Pence says Trump did not say A, but even if he did, he is unpolished. He did not mean it, but if he did mean it, he does not mean it anymore, not really.
But, Sting Like a Bee - You and Hillary are crafty, polished politicians that no one can trust.

Did you catch that pivot - It's Not Me, It's You!
This Deny, Deflect, Confuse, Accuse combination is a frequent tool of Trump/Pence. The move is so rapid that even when the press sees the pivot and focuses on the last punch - the accusation. The roll-right-over press is evolving after the birther insult - Insult the President, Insult the Nation - OK that's fine, but if you dare insult us, the press, we will say, "wait a second, was that possibly a boldfaced lie?"

Mike Pence is effectively claiming that he is not lying even if what he says is untrue, at least in his book, because he is capturing some vague, but essential truth that is not easily expressed. But will the press ever ask - "How can we have a President and Vice President of the U.S. who are so vague? No, of course not, because the question is so vague sounding. The press can only ask whether a candidate is lying or not because truth and falsehood can be rendered in black and white, even when the context is more shades of gray and even when degree matters.

Trump used the "it's not me, it's you" in the first debate, accusing Hillary of a "temperament" which was so surprising that it was met with laughter.

Pence had a ready deflection as a defense for Trump's history of brutal insults. "Hillary does it, too" when she called out about half of Trump supporters "deplorables". Never mind that the 50/50 remark allows plenty of room for anyone who does not want to feel insulted to consider themselves in the better half.

Like Father Like Son

During the late 1970s, 60 Minutes on CBS was in its heyday with an expanding audience in the pre-Internet world, but my father stopped watching out of disgust. At first I did not understand. The 60 minutes crew would investigate an issue, find out who was the bad guy and, on camera, trip up the bad guy in his or her own words. Of course, 60 minutes always won. The designated bad guy often stumbled on camera, caught in his or her own apparent lie. Or, the bad guy's smooth response would be followed immediately by a blanket statement of fact by a 60 minutes correspondent or a hired outside expert for the show, explaining why the statement you heard from the bad guy was false. The power to edit is the power to destroy, and 60 minutes was not afraid to exercise that power. The star prosecutor of 60 minutes in those days was Mike Wallace, who continued on the show until 2006. He became famous for this brand of "gotcha" journalism. So I started to understand something was wrong with this "unbiased" approach.

Another popular correspondent on the show was Ed Bradley, who was to speak at a conference I attended in the late 1990s. The TV show's gotcha tactics had become somewhat controversial by this point and I looked forward to Bradley's explanation and defense of their methods. Bradley's most telling point was that 60 minutes was "trying to tell a story, that's all." This was startling. I thought for sure he would say they were searching for some intrinsic truth, deep understanding, or whatever. In the end, the message was clear. Do not watch 60 minutes as a search for truth. Watch for a great storytelling.

Having seen the mainstream media continue to struggle with their appropriate role when reporting on politics over the past three decades, the takeaway is clear. They are great storytellers. That is their role.

Ironically, one of the key media moments of the current campaign was the exchange between Chris Wallace, Mike's son, and Hillary Clinton regarding the Comey report and Comey testimony before Congress. Anyone watching his prey backed into a corner would have to agree - Dad would be proud.

No Penalty for Insincerity

The strong commitment of the Republican Party leadership to obstruction in the Congress requires the use of insincere posturing as a tactic.
1. Insincerity can be used to cloud an issue by avoiding serious consideration of pros and cons or the shortcomings of a bill.
2. Insincere posturing and vagueness can be used as a tool to thwart meaningful discussion and possible compromise on legislation. If a reporter askes a question and the answer is "We blame Obama", that pretty much ends further questioning.

The result is often one-off criticism of the insincerety tactic without adequate consideration of the underlying legislative issue.

For example, McConnell complained last week, without apparent irony,  that the President should have worked more with the Congress on problems with the 9/11 bill. Thanks, Obama.
So both houses of Congress pass a bill, the President vetoes the bill and warns the Congress of the shortcomings in the bill. The Congress overrides the President's veto anyway, and the next day the Senate Majority Leader complains about the President not being cooperative. The real meaning of the complaint was the the SML found himself in an awkward position on a legislative issue and wanted to deflect criticism to his opponents. That happens all the time, but it's especially troubling in the context of ceaseless Congressional votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act and lack of interest of the Republican leadership on any legislative agenda.

One Hand Clapping

The sound you hear of one hand clapping is back slapping. The NYT does this today, congratulating themselves on the "scoop" that comes with receiving a snail mail containing copies of the first page of three tax returns from 1995. You can already imagine the deliberations of the Pulitzer Prize jury - the news people pleasure awarding themselves is only exceeded by Hollywood.

In their latest podcast the NYT drags out the story of receiving the the three pages, called a "bombshell", wondering about the authenticity, bringing in tax experts and the accountant who prepared the 1990s era Trump returns in the most dramatic tones to verify the authenticity of the documents.
But the only dramatic information in the documents is the $916 million figure which we already knew. WaPo provides the legitimate treatment in How Donald Trump and other real estate developers pay almost nothing in taxes. That is the real story - the context. Not "in context", but the context itself. No one in Donald Trump's situation as a real estate developer would be expected to pay much, if anything in taxes. That is more a story about us - the nation and its tax laws - than him, Donald Trump. Unfortunately, reporting in context can only occur on the so-called WaPo Wonkblog, a title that conjures up an image - fasten your seatbelts, average intelligence necessary for the remainder of the flight.

source: delta.com

Reporters, even political reporters, are expert storytellers. They need to bring in the subject matter experts when they have leaked documents. But we already knew all of the key elements of the story:
1. Trump has consistently bragged about making maximum use of the tax laws and bankruptcy laws to his personal financial advantage.
2. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 lowered marginal tax rates as it closed many tax loopholes, but advantages that especially benefit real estate investors were preserved.
3. The $900 million loss figures for Trump due to bankruptcies were floating around in the 1990s, as noted by today's WaPo story.
So it is no surprise if Trump's accountants and tax lawyers were able to finagle a tax saving windfall in the neighborhood of $900 million.

Is it news when the media uses leaked documents to tell us what we already knew?

The headline that "Trump could have paid no taxes for 18 years" could have been written without the "bombshell" disclosure based on the public information without the leaked documents.

In their self-congratulations, the NYT compares the "whistleblower" who leaked the three pages to the whistleblower who leaked the Brown and Williamson internal documents that exposed the tobacco industry years-long campaign to discredit the fact that smoking causes cancer. Hubris anyone? That was a different situation - a matter of potential civil and criminal liability to the tune of many billions of dollars and  a smoking gun that led to smoking policy changes throughout society.

The only question about Trump is whether or not one decides to vote for him based on
(1) the preponderance of the evidence or
(2) the preponderance of the evidence, plus a few tax pages that support the preponderance of the evidence.

So why does this matter? This "revelation" shines a bright light on the other side of the defective "fair and balanced" coin.

At NYT, the storytellers see their job as telling the truth, usually without meaningful interpretation, based on the position that interpretation is a red flag of possible bias. Reporters are led wherever the "facts" take them, which, in politics means, facts or allegations supplied by whichever campaign is most aggressive with accusations about the opposing candidate, as supplemented by whichever news source is most aggressive with their accusations and innuendo, which happens to be Fox News.
As a result, the "bombshell" of the tax form leak is not the revelation about Trump's taxes. It is the permission the NYT needed to remove their "fair and balanced" blinders to report more fully on a story we already knew.

As a profession, the prominent press needs to step back and question a system that relies so heavily on leaks. With the possible exception of Watergate, for the list of leaks below, we probably already understood the backstory pretty well - the reality - but the press used the leak-event as a pretext to treat the reality as fact without shedding their appearance of objectivity.

The Pentagon Papers (Daniel Ellsberg)
Watergate  (Mark Felt)
George Bush National Guard Story (fake source)
State Department documents (Manning)
Romney 47% remark (Carter grandson)
NSA documents (Snowden)
DNC emails (Russian hackers)

The NYT loves leaks to their news department because they have difficulty working with abstract ideas and need a concrete document for the story to coalesce around. Suppose the heart of the story is that Donald Trump is an extremely selfish, extremely narcissistic man. If so, we do not need three pages of 1995 tax documents to understand that reality.