Partisanship is Killing Us

Why aren't we, as Americans, dropping the usual partisan divide, all agree that we need to know what Russia did in the last election and, most urgently, prepare our country for their next moves?

I worry that our political divisions continue to make us vulnerable to actual, sometimes lethal, threats. I have seen far too many divisions on the threats posed by Islam radicalism that follow the partisan divide. I get that we may look at solutions differently, what I don't understand though, is that we cannot agree on the nature of the threats. I fear it is the same thing happening with Russia's attack on our democracy, which in my view, is greater than any threat we have seen so far. If you rightly fear about Islam radicalism, bear in mind that it's a threat to our lives, not to our way of life. Russia, with its post-cold-war resurgence is overtly trying to attack and continuously weaken the fabric of our western democracies. Imagine if they indeed can, one day, penetrate our voting information systems? We have no idea if they can, and we need to prepare for it. While we bicker internally, Russia is still attacking the US. Last week we learned that Marco Rubio's office is currently being targeted. But the Kremlin is also deploying its nefarious will against European democracies, with a keen eye on France's upcoming presidential election. Frankly, I'm less interested in implicating Trump's campaign (although if there's proof of collusion, it needs to be dealt with) than in making sure that we are ready to wage this existential cyber warfare. We all need to realize that Russia is not doing this in a vacuum, there's a larger context at play in the world. Indeed, the middle class declines in western democracies coupled with the increase of terrorism has given rise to a right wing populism that is a direct threat to our liberal democracies based on the rule of law. Countries like China and Turkey are two other countries pushing for a 3rd way of governing, i.e. an authoritarian nationalist government with cronyism based on some level of capitalism. It's ironic though that the Republicans are now the ones minimizing that threat whereas they have always positioned themselves as hawks on national security and as guardians of our constitution. As for the Democrats, they are only outraged at bad jokes, seeing sexism and racism in all of them. They also seem to have a bigger interest in impeaching Trump than in addressing Russia's onslaught on our democratic foundations. The sad thing is that the left has been mostly intellectually absent in the western world for the last 40 years. The reason why the current populism wave is coming from the right, is in my opinion, the left's inability to articulate, first, a coherent analysis of what happened to the structure of our societies as they underwent economic change and, second, a realistic agenda that could protect a middle class squeezed by technological changes and automation.

But all this is of no interest to our politicians. They are mostly interested in keeping power and, because of us, the ideological electors, our representatives will once again fail us, but this time with dire global consequences.

Making Sense of the O'care Debate

With the debate on Obamacare being potentially repealed and if so, hopefully replaced, I tried to better understand the mechanics behind the law. I would appreciate any comments on what I got wrong or potentially missed. So, here goes. The bargain between the government in ACA is as follows:

• Private insurers can participate in ACA's exchange marketplaces (i.e. more business for them), but in return,
• Participating private insurers must accept anyone who wants to buy insurance
• To address potential profitability risks, the US government gives A.C.A. tax credits to insurers, aka carriers.

Unfortunately, here is what happened and that was not well forecast, i.e. integrated, by the Obama administration in their financial models:

• Too few enrollees, half as many as they actually projected
• The ratio between healthy vs. not healthy in the enrollee population has skewed too much on the not healthy side and beyond the range that would have made the ACA business model sustainable
• As a result, insurers hiked the premiums, which make the plans less affordable
• Another consequence is that young healthy people are being charged way more than they would outside of the exchanges, and that is to subsidize the less healthy folks that insurers are obliged to take on.

That's why it's probably not sustainable in its current form and that would explain why carriers are pulling out. It's costing them too much and the ACA doesn't give them enough tax credits to recoup their losses. So what's the way forward? I guess it first depends on your political philosophy:

1. If you are on the right, then you feel that the government has no business in insuring private citizens. That means you stop ACA and you don't care that about 40M Americans will go back being uninsured
2. If you are on the left, then you would want something like a public option. It would not be like France, where it's a single payer, but a hybrid where the public option carries enough weight to push competition on the private carriers.
3. If you are against too much government involvement but do not want to have Americans without insurance, then I guess you make the ACA more affordable for the carriers by increasing the subsidies somehow.

Personally, and if my analysis above is correct, then my heart is with #3, but I am afraid that at the end the private carriers will get so much out of the government in subsidies, that the government would be better creating a public option that will put the carriers under pressure to cut the fat in their cost structures. So in the end, #2 is probably the answer for me.

Coming Back To My Senses

This week has been surreal for me. I have seen, in my opinion, the most unfit, unqualified politician become the most important person in the free world. I went through a few stages of emotional reactions and I am finally coming back to my senses.

I am now trying to understand what happened. You can listen or read the media and have all these “pundits” explain it to you, but you will have to remind yourself that the same pundits have spent the last 18 months explaining to you that DJT had no chance of winning.

So I have looked at the data myself and this is my humble analysis of the situation.

1.     Not All Trump Supporters Are Racist- Asserting the contrary would be inflammatory and simply inaccurate. Of course that all the white racist people in America who voted on November 8 voted for Trump. He naturally attracted them with his racist and divisive rhetoric; they even made him their hero. But an analysis of the counties that Obama carried in 2012 reveals that a third of the same counties voted for Trump last week. These guys voted in office, for a second term, a black man whose name is “Hussein”. They are not racist.

2.     It’s Not Only About Jobs In Rural America- Sure the DNC and Clinton’s campaign have not spent a minute identifying with the ordeals of the globalization’s left-behinds, who usually are white blue collar folks in rural America. But a closer look at the exit polls show that 49% of white college graduates have voted for DJT versus 44% for HRC.  So something else is at play here. CNN data shows that after the economy (52% of respondents), the most important issue facing the country is terrorism (18% of respondents). Additionally, of these 18% who considered ISIS to be the key issue, 57% voted for Trump versus only 39% for Clinton.

3.     Trump Is A Good Product Marketer And His Campaign Was An Acceptable “Minimally Viable Product” (MVP)- My geek friends will understand this analogy, but for the other readers, what commentators and analysts call a good politician is a man who knows how to read what electors (i.e. the market) want and give them a campaign (i.e. a product) that would answer their expectations. In the world of product development we call this PMF, a.k.a. Product Market Fit. A MVP is a less sophisticated product that still fits the market.  DJT, as it turns out, is an apt product marketer and has put forward a MVP (i.e. campaign) whose 3 must-have features were:

a)    Emotional empathy for white blue collars. Since there’s no actual solution to these lost manufacturing jobs, Trump identified with this group by defending their values: guns and god.

b)   Acknowledgement that there is a problem within Islam. Here Obama, Clinton and the Democrats largely helped Trump by never naming the problem or using the words ‘Islam fundamentalism’.

c)    No filter. Trump’s straight talk seems to have struck a chord, especially with independents, which voted 48% for DJT vs. 42% for HRC.

All the other aspects of Trump’s campaign were overlooked by his voters. Indeed, they didn’t care that he could be racist, sexist, a liar or a conspiracy theorist. The MVP analogy explains this quite well. Imagine looking for a product that addresses your needs. As long as the key identified features are present in the product, the other features seem less important and are overlooked, i.e. not used.

Paul Ryan’s Moment

     

Last August, Justin Gest, a political scientist shared in a Politico article that 65% of recently surveyed white Americans would support a party committed to “stopping mass immigration, providing American jobs to American workers, preserving America’s Christian heritage, and stopping the threat of Islam.”

If anything, Gest’s article and research show that even if Trump loses in November, Trumpism has already won with a core group of voters in the Republican Party. There is much speculation about what a defeated Trump would do after the election. He could retire, start a media company to cater to his audience, try to lead the GOP, or create a 3^rd party. Whatever he does, he isn’t going away and neither is his base.

Paul Ryan, the current leader of the GOP, has an opportunity to finally show leadership on November 9.  He shouldn’t wait for Trump or some Alt-Right leader to start a 3^rd party, he should force them. Indeed, by officially repudiating all Trump voters who are interested in a populist, protectionist, nationalist party, and by inviting them to leave the GOP, Ryan can reach three lifesaving goals for the GOP.

First, he would get rid of the toxic elements that the GOP has let grow in their ranks over the last two decades. Second, he could recommit the party to its 'Reaganesque' ideology with limited government, free markets, entitlement reform and an assertive foreign policy. Finally, and most importantly in my view, Ryan could reclaim many centrist Democrats and independents by suggesting that the new GOP will not consider science, religion and abortion to be partisan issues anymore. The new GOP could embrace the overwhelming climate change evidence and state that abortion and religion are issues that should be dealt with at the family and personal levels, not at the political level.

Many of my conservative friends will disagree with me on this. Also, I believe my wish is a long shot, but if it were to happen, the new centrist GOP would take enough voters from the Democrats and independents to largely compensate for the extremist fringe that will leave it for Trump or any of his successor.

President Donald

 
Monday April 3, 2017 

It’s a snowy day in DC. President Donald and Ivanka Trump, his chief of staff, are in the oval office working on the week schedule.

Ivanka: Mr. President, we have Angela Merkel visiting next week. When would you rather have the press conference with her, next Tuesday or Wednesday?

President Trump: Ugh….

Ivanka: Mr. President, next Tuesday or Wednesday?

President Trump: I don’t want to do it. I don’t want to meet Merkel. In fact, I know that it makes sense for me not to meet her.

Ivanka: Why?

President Trump: Because she doesn’t like me. She will ask me tricky questions, I know it. I know a bad deal when I see it.

Ivanka: But you never met her before.

President Trump: It doesn’t matter; we have a common friend who told me she was unhappy that I was elected. Plus, who knows if she’ll be at that period of the month. I don’t want to deal with that.

Ivanka: Dad! You cannot avoid meeting people you don’t like. You created a huge diplomatic incident last month already when you went to Iraq and refused to show up at a planned conference with their prime minister.

President Trump: Oh please. The guy hates me; he said so during the general election. But I did well; in fact I did very well, by holding that event in Baghdad instead.

Ivanka: You mean the event when you auctioned Iraqi oil to raise money for the Mexico wall? It is their oil, not ours. It didn’t go that well.

President Trump: of course it did, it was great. We got a super deal. I know a good deal when I see one. Trust me, I am super intelligent; I know what I am doing.

Ivanka: Mr. President, with all due respect, there is no going around Angela Merkel, she is the most important leader in Europe!

President Trump: Who cares about Europe? They’re dead, I tell you, they are dead.

Ivanka: The whole word cares about Europe. You will meet her on next Tuesday, that’s it.

President Trump: No, no, no. Don’t do this to me.

Trump starts stomping his feet.

Ivanka picks up the phone on the President’s desk: please bring us a tape of the Apprentice ASAP. The President is having another tantrum, this will calm him down.

Iran Nuclear Deal

My position on Iran having a nuclear weapon is clear, they should never be allowed to have one, at least while this current pro-terror and religious fundamentalist regime is in power. My thoughts on Iran having a peaceful nuclear energy program Iran are also clear. Why would one of the most energy-rich country in the world need a new source of energy? Given the deceptive behavior Iran has had since 1979, I wouldn't bet that their intentions are peaceful. Then there is the host of problems that comes out of a nuclear Iran: existentialist threat to Israel, Sunni's escalating reactions, emboldening of Iran's proxy terror groups (i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah), and I could go on. 

I have always been skeptical of the deal the Obama administration has been negotiating with the mullahs. Moreover, the constant posturing of the ayatollahs during the negotiations on key points like immediate sanctions relief, no snap backs and no 24/7 inspections left me extremely worried. So when CNN broke the news this week, my angst level shot up. I was in China and could not access the Internet easily to educate myself on the deal's content. I still haven't looked at all the details, but it seems that important aspects have been negotiated by the West. First, snap back mechanisms are in and should be automatic. 24/7 inspections of key sites, including military sites, seem to be covered as well. It looks like Iran can object to specific visits by the IAEA, but that would give Iran a maximum of 3 weeks, after which sanctions will automatically snap back if an acceptable solution has not been negotiated by Iran and the P5+1. This is good and better than what I expected. However, this deal falls short on 2 points: 10 year timeframe and fast sanction relief. 

10-year timeframe:

The US objective of the deal silently went from stopping Iran nuclear program in return for Iran international legitimization, to Iran becoming a nuclear threshold power, while getting legitimized. That's indeed one of the main danger of this deal. In 10 years from now, assuming Iran hasn't broken out, Iran could legitimately become a recognized nuclear military power. 10 years is not a lot of time, it's actually very little history-wise. The counter-argument is that if legitimized, Iran could be a very different country in 10 years, in a very different Middle East. That's true but it's a big gamble.

Fast relief of sanctions:

It is wise to reward good behavior with sanctions relief. However, and I may be mistaken, it looks like Iran will get an enormous amount of frozen oil money just for signing the deal. That is of great concern, especially for Israel, whose mortal enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah, will get a new lifeline to dramatically advance their terror agenda against the Jewish state. 

So what to think of all this? And what should be Israel next steps?

Let's face it, this deal is far from being ideal, but we have to think of the alternative. What would happen if we had no deal? First, deal or no deal, Iran will get the bomb. However, no deal means Iran stays a pariah state, Iran most likely continues enriching uranium, and Iran chooses their moment to break out. So on that point, assuming Iran sticks by its covenants, the deal gives us 10 years and a timetable to prepare. At least that should give Israel time to strategically prepare for when the outcome turns ugly. Then there's the lifting of the sanctions and the resulting money in Iran's coffers. As I explain above, that's  an issue, a real one. However, there is evidence suggesting that apart from the U.S., the international community appetite for sanctions would have seriously waned down in case of no deal. That's because Iran can buy a lot of contracts and the world wants in. 

Bottom line- this is a bad deal but it's an OK "bad deal". Congress should make sure it clarifies the snap back mechanisms and inspection clauses instead of rejecting the deal, as Obama will veto a rejection anyway. Congress should also offer Israel an enhancement to the current security arrangement between the 2 countries and the U.S. President should openly state that the U.S. will consider any heightened Hezbollah or Hamas attack on Israel as an attack on the U.S. itself. As for Israel, the Netanyahu government should bury the hatchet and work with Obama on a joint plan to address the new threats from Hamas and Hezbollah. In my humble opinion, it would be an unwise course of action for Israel security to lobby Congress to stop the deal at this point. The train has unfortunately already left the station and Iran will get the bomb, no matter what.

Iraq Should Not Be US Responsibility At This Stage

Yesterday, the Obama administration declared that it could not be in charge of Iraq's security anymore.

For once, I agree with Obama that Iraq should not be America’s problem, at least at this juncture.

To be clear though, I care about Iraq, I see ISIS as a global threat, and I believe in troops on the ground in certain situations. Also, even though I believe we should never have gotten into Iraq, I do believe that we got out way too prematurely. But we got out, and since we have left, the geopolitical context has substantially changed.

By that, I mean Iran’s assertiveness and Syria’s civil war.

In Iraq and Syria, Iran and its proxies, are determined to fight ISIS. It’s not that Iran’s mullahs disagree with ISIS view of the world; it’s that old Shia-Sunni rivalry that is at play. That rivalry is so acute, that I am actually convinced that Iran wants to see ISIS decimated more than the US or any Western country. So why not let them do the dirty work for us? We should, and here are further reasons that we, in fact, must do so:

1. Sucking Iran In- by not bringing its firepower to Iraq, the US is inviting Iran to get involved even more seriously to defeat ISIS. That’s a lot of fronts on which Iran will have to be seriously engaged- Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Consequently, Iran’s hands become tied and less free to project their terror agenda elsewhere.

2. Casualties Are Not Us- it may sound horrible to say this, but I am all for having fanatics on one side fighting fanatics on the other side. Let’s have each side inflicting many casualties to the other.

3. Iran Nuclear Deal- getting out of Iraq reduces one important US dependency on Iran, which should hopefully lessen Iran’s leverage on America in the current dangerous nuclear deal negotiations.

4. Israel’s Security- Former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy declared this week “Hezbollah, day by day, is contributing to the security of the state of Israel”. It may sound counter-intuitive, but it’s actually quite logical. Hezbollah, a proxy or Iran, armed and trained by Iran Revolutionary Guards, has been summoned by Iran to help fight ISIS in Syria. If Iran has to double their effort in Iraq, due to America’s position, then Iran will make more demands out of Hezbollah, first in Syria and probably in Iraq too. This means less Hezbollah’s provocations in the north of Israel. This also means Hezbollah’s well-trained fighters both dying and inflicting casualties on ISIS in a way that neither Israel nor America can. Indeed, if Hezbollah or Iran creates collateral damage or destroys a place of worship, nobody in the Muslim world would condemn. You can, however, imagine the outcry if it were the US or Israel doing so.