It occurred to me that I made a New Year’s resolution to offer more constructive suggestions in the new year. It’s hard not to complain these days, but at least we can offer some suggestions in the meantime. I talked about concentric circles yesterday without offering any constructive ideas to fix that. That’s on me. I need to do better.

Our mainstream media also needs to do better. They are caught up into a both sides narrative where they feel the need to give exposure to all points of view. In normal circumstances that seems okay. Furthermore, the idea of covering the horse race nature of this thing makes sense. It sells ad space. It sells newspapers. It gets subscriptions to the subscription only services. There is a reason why Steve Kornacki is a thing.

When we were going through journalism school, one of the things they taught us was that it was the journalist’s job to call balls and strikes. Somehow that evolved into making sure there were as many balls as there were strikes. We had an equal number of walks as strikeouts. That has been the case whether it was Greg Maddux on the bump or Nuke Laloosh (from Bull Durham).

Someone came up with another analogy that made more sense. Let’s say that it is pouring rain outside. It makes no sense to run a story where you have one expert saying it’s raining and another ”expert” saying it’s not raining. Look outside. You can see it’s raining, so why in the hell are we quoting some jamoke saying that it isn’t raining? Why do we need to both sides objective reality?

What that does is allow people to believe that objective reality isn’t all that objective. In a free society it is difficult to do anything about right wing media. That toothpaste is out of the tube, but this falls into another false narrative. People just naturally assume that both sides do it. Left wing media may distort the importance of things. They are certainly guilty of overhyping certain stories and ramping up the hysteria, but they generally don’t make shit up.

It’s about pushing back. Both sides don’t operate the same way. One side lies and the other side doesn’t. Period. End of discussion. Then, the mainstream media simply reports what is actually going on. The economy is doing well. Report it. Immigration is not nearly as bad as what it seems. Report it. The so-called crime riddled cities really aren’t all that crime riddled. Report it. Unfortunately, both sidesing this thing just isn’t creating an informed public.

Again, you aren’t reaching everyone. You have a segment of the population watching a steady diet of Fox News, OANN, and Newsmax. They might be reading Breitbart on the interwebs. There is no way you can watch a steady diet of that stuff and come away informed. Still, you can inform everyone else. You can at least allow them to have access to accurate information. If the right isn’t producing truth or building arguments on facts then don’t give them a lifeline. If they aren’t participating in substantive debate then they don’t get coverage. There’s only one serious party right now and they are the only one worthy of coverage.

Iowa in particular is an anomaly. They use an old caucus system that seems a lot more exclusive than newer primary systems. As others have pointed out, about ten percent of the voting public participated in the caucus. So, if Donald Trump got about 50 percent of the Republican vote then he really got somewhere between two and three percent of the state. So, we should hold off before we write off the state of some kind of group of backwards hicks.

To be perfect fair, every state has those folks and it isn’t limited to just two or three percent of the population. Life would be a whole lot better if it was. As teachers, we see this on the front lines. We have a lot of students that are interested in the world around them and finding out more about it works. We also have students that just couldn’t care less.

However, there is a phenomenon that is beginning to cripple our politics. Iowa and New Hampshire are perfect examples. Ask them the issues that are most important to them and they will immediately point out immigration. Why? Is there a flood of immigrants moving into Iowa from anywhere? It’s in the middle of the damn country.  New Hampshire is closer to Canada, so I suppose it is possible they will literally have a higher percentage of immigrants move there, but I am reasonably sure those aren’t the immigrants we are fighting over.

The concept of concentric circles is a pretty easy one. The center circle represents the portion of the population that is directly affected by an issue. They themselves are immigrants. So, immigration policy definitely matters to them. As we keep drawing circles we keep moving further and further away in effect. So, the second circle might by a close family member and close friends. Then, we move further and further away from those directly effected.

You will notice that almost universally the people that complain the loudest are the people in that last circle. That also happens to be the majority of the population. On some level it makes sense. If I don’t care about anyone in that population then I also don’t care if we take care of them. I could be convinced that they are a drain on society and if I can’t put a human face on it then it is more difficult for me to push back against that negativity. Yet, there is a logical breakdown. If I live in Iowa or New Hampshire that what immigrant to sucking up my resources or taking my job?

We’ve had hysterical periods where this has reared its ugly head. We use hysterical in both versions of the word. There is a hysteria here that doesn’t make sense and it is certainly more than hysterical to the rest of us. Towns in Montana and other northern states banned refugees. How many refugees are traipsing up to Montana or Wyoming anyway?

We could certainly find other issues with this phenomenon. The LGTBQ+ community certainly faces this issue front and center. People that don’t have any LGTBQ+ amongst their close family or friends suddenly care deeply about the subject and make all kinds of assumptions about how many it represents. It is spreading like wildfire and yet they still don’t know anyone personally effected. It’s a breakdown of logic and reason.

The key is thinking of politics in terms of concentric circles. I need to vote for those issues where I or someone I care about is in the center circle. If I don’t know anyone impacted by that particular issue then why I am basing my vote on it. The secret is in letting go of the hysteria and using our brain. Am I impacted by this? Even if a politician did everything they promised would it make a positive impact on my life?

The life and times of Congress can be confusing for people that don’t follow politics 24/7. We might be thinking different things. For instance, won’t the government shutdown soon unless an agreement can be reached? Sure, but the House of Representatives has more important fish to fry. So, it’s all Hunter Biden all the time.

The hysterics over Hunter come down to three different things. First, he has had a sordid history of abusing drugs in his adult lifetime. Goodness knows what his personal issues are. I’m assuming some of it could be related to losing his mother at a very young age. Some of it could be because he lost his brother to cancer. Maybe he is just one of those people that have an addictive personality.

This is obviously where Joe Biden comes in. The elder Biden is obviously like millions of other American parents. It is the same hard decision they have had to make. If you truly love your child you don’t want to see them suffer and yet you know they likely have to suffer some in order to get better. So, when do the handouts end and the tough love begins? Unfortunately, there isn’t a manual that gives you a simple flow chart you can follow.

The second thing they seem to be focused on is what Hunter Biden did while he was abusing drugs. Apparently, he frequented the company of women of the night. There were lots of pictures and a lot of sordid details. For many with more delicate sensibilities it was disgusting and unsavory. Outside of Nevada and some foreign countries it was also illegal.

Now, unless Joe Biden was also participating I’m not sure what this has to do with the price of whiskey in Ireland. Did he know about it? Again, there is more than enough documentation that the elder Biden knew that his son had a problem. One can only guess how much he knew about the depths of that problem. Did he know about the prostitutes? Maybe. Did he know about the pictures of his son’s genitals? Maybe.

We should keep one basic thought in mind. If two consenting adults take pictures of their exploits they are free to do so. If one releases those pictures without the other’s consent they have committed a crime in most jurisdictions. That is usually what is referred to as revenge porn. It should not matter that the offending party is female. We normally see this behavior from men, but it doesn’t mean that men can’t be victims. So, when someone in Congress broadcasts these photos they are aiding and abetting in a crime.

That brings us to the third consideration and the one that actually has some legs. If we go back to the first premise of drug abusers we go back to the very human desire for parents to shield their children from suffering. Some of that includes financial support and some of it includes using influence to get them breaks and opportunities others may not have. Did Joe Biden use his influence to help his son? I am almost certain that the younger Biden got positions and assistance that someone without his last name wouldn’t get. That by itself isn’t illegal. It is unsavory but it isn’t necessarily illegal.

If Biden primarily solicited favors for his son as a former vice president then he has done nothing illegal.  What makes it illegal is when someone accepts bribes or promises goods and services in exchange for the favor. It also can be very illegal if the person in power promises punishment or harassment if the favor is not given. Anything short of that and this is all a nothing burger. Given that there is no evidence of that then we all know this is a whole lot of nothing. Of course, we all knew that anyway.

As most people know, our democracy really isn’t a pure democracy or even a pure representative democracy. There were weights and counterweights installed in order to protect the rights and interests of smaller states in comparison to larger states. When you look at the representation in Congress you will notice that it doesn’t completely represent the will of the people 100 percent accurately.

This is particularly true in the Senate where each state has equal representation. The states represented by Democrats in the Senate represent nearly 70 million more Americans than those represented by Republicans, This is in spite of the fact that the breakdown is officially only 51-49.

Notice the talking points on the right as it pertains to the last presidential election. People talk about the number of counties that voted for Trump. They look at the large swaths of land that voted for Trump. They even look at the fact that more people showed up to his rallies and bought his stuff. They look at everything except for total votes cast. They can’t really defend losing by seven million votes overall, so they gloss over it.

The concept of one person, one vote is foreign in this country as it pertains to the presidential election, gerrymandered districts, and even local elections. The idea that a majority should dictate what is going on is something the right generally wants to avoid. So, we have been subject to minority rule for the majority of my collective lifetime.

I voted for the first time in 1992. During that time period, Republicans have won the majority in a presidential election exactly once. George W. Bush handily beat John Kerry in 2004. That’s it. So, to say that the country is a center-right country is a myth. When you consider that Republicans have served three terms as president in that time and appointed more than half of the court demonstrates what has happened to our country.

My interest from a political science perspective is what happens when these overbearing laws on reproductive rights begin to crop out in red states. We saw a migration to the south at the beginning of the 20th century when jobs and air conditioning changed the population patterns in the country. Texas became a destination and is now the second biggest state in the country in terms of population.

That could reverse itself as at the very least you can expect a brain drain in the state. Medical professionals will not want to practice medicine in Texas, so they will move to bluer states. Women and young families will follow them. Younger people and educated professionals tend to be blue politically. They will move to areas in the country that will also be blue.

So, how does that impact our politics? I would argue that puts a ton of pressure on a system that does not reflect the will of the people overall. If bluer states are already amongst the most populous and that will be exacerbated if this migration occurs then you have a definite problem in the Senate. If the Senate continues to operate where you need a 60-40 majority to get things done, it will be nearly impossible for things to get through in a body that will likely fluctuate around 50-50 no matter how many more votes Democrats get nationwide.

When you consider the fact that blue states contribute more to the coffers than blue states and essentially subsidize red states you will see that get wider if this kind of migration comes to pass. How does this impact the body politic? How does this massive migration impact politics and elections in the next generation? It obviously changed politics in last century, so how will it impact politics in the next century? Time will tell.

I predicted somewhere (I’m not sure if it was here) that the gambit of using the 14th amendment to bar Trump from appearing on the ballot was not going to work ultimately. For the time being we are going to ignore the obvious pollicization of the court and just look at the law before them. My fears were realized when the attorney general of Missouri pulled the stunt I had been waiting for all along.

For those that don’t want to go down the rabbit hole, the attorney general is threatening to hold Joe Biden’s name off of the ballot in Missouri. Has Biden participated in an insurrection or done anything illegal? Of course not. He all but admitted as such.  When the provision for the 14th amendment was written, it was written in such a way for a specific purpose. Belonging to the Confederacy was by itself proof that you had participated in an insurrection. So, the authors of that amendment left it up to the states and ultimately the attorneys general to make the call.

The problem is two-fold. First, what mechanism does that person use to determine whether someone can legally seek the office? Donald Trump has not been charged with insurrection and was officially found not guilty by the Senate. So, how does one reach that determination? Forget the fact that we all watched it unfold in front of our eyes on national television. Forget that the January 6th committee has already uncovered more than enough evidence to show that it happened and that he spearheaded it. Forget that the majority of the 91 counts that he has been charged with in three of the four jurisdictions are directly or indirectly related to it. Is there actual proof in a court of law? If not, who decides on the facts and what they mean?

While what Missouri (or one man in Missouri) is proposing is preposterous, it does highlight a problem. It is a human one. You can write all the laws you want and you can write them as carefully and clearly as you like. It still relies on someone or a group executing that law.

This fundamental failure is on two groups of people. The first guilty party is the Republican party. They could have stopped this nonsense at any point. They could have done it in 2015 when he decided to run. They could have done it any number of moments during his reign of terror. They could have done it immediately after he left office at the second impeachment trial. They could have simply said you aren’t running anymore. They could do it now. I’m not sure what the Democratic party would do under the same circumstances. I really can’t say because there has never been a Donald Trump before. It is a uniquely Republican problem at this point in history. The Democrats have tried to bail them out in multiple instances and they refuse to take the lifeline.

The second group of people are the voters themselves. This isn’t about liberal or conservative anymore. Values are values after all and he is a man that has none. I remember talking to a former colleague (that I have snoozed on Facebook) that argued that he was a honorable man with a ton of positive qualities. I dared him to name one. He couldn’t. He couldn’t because you can’t. It was never about him or the positive qualities he supposedly possesses.

The Supreme Court will likely strike down Colorado’s decision. They will do it for craven and political reasons, but they will also have legal and ethical ones. In a democracy can we allow one person to determine someone’s fitness for office? Wouldn’t that be antithetical to what we are at our core? I know people want to find some way to save us from ourselves. I get that completely. Unfortunately, there is no easy way out. We will have to vanquish this pit stain of a human being the old-fashioned way. The GOP certainly isn’t going to do it. Our courts might catch up to him one day, but ultimately it will have to be us. Buckle up folks. It will be a bumpy ride.

The secret to all demagogues is fear. That shouldn’t be a revelation. Fear is a powerful motivator. There are a number of people that are afraid of any number of things. It usually comes down to an us versus them situation. The them just changes depending on who you are talking to. It could be all of the immigrants pouring over the border with drugs, mayhem, and the ability to work for cheaper wages. It could be the LGTBQ+ community as it seems to grow by the minute. It could be racial or ethnic minorities that seem to want more and more things. It could be women and their desire for bodily autonomy and equal rights. It could be the so-called woke mob that seems to want to indoctrinate our kids with whatever nonsense they have. I could go on and on.

When we see terms like liberty and freedom being misappropriated we see this and exactly this going on. People are afraid THEIR freedom will go away because more of THEM are appearing in their lives. When you are being bombarded daily about invasions and mobs of woke people then you think your rights and your freedoms are being threatened. Therefore, it becomes paramount that you pass laws that protect your way of life by limiting those other ways of life.

This is how demagoguery works. Someone takes those fears and absorbs them like some kind of evil antibacterial cream they can rub into the body politic. They rail against those people. They hate those people. They promise to fight for you and your values. They promise that those other people (whoever they may be) will never succeed in changing your way of life.

So, we get to the part of constructive suggestions. I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating. The lunatic fringe has 35-40 percent fairly entrenched and ready to vote based on their fear. Trying to convince them otherwise is a waste of time. It is important to understand where they are coming from if only to navigate our relationships with them. If you know the motivation then you can tiptoe through conversations and family gatherings without too much incident. That is of course unless you enjoy the fireworks.

The key group is not the right or the left. The key group are the people we might label as the “I don’t cares.” I’m not calling them undecided voters anymore. They rarely vote because they don’t see the relevance to them. They are unengaged by their own choice. They see this as a both sides are corrupt kind of deal. So, the key thing is making them see the distinct difference between what both sides view as freedom. How do we define freedom? What realistic limits do we set on freedom and why? Most importantly, how does it impact you?

The key is in identifying who these folks are and targeting them with repeated messaging. It is about bodily autonomy and not just abortion. It is about what they want to censure next and not just a few books in the library. It is about what will happen to you if THEY deem you as unfit. Are these fear tactics? Sure they are. We should be afraid and we need to make sure everyone sees what it at stake.