The Minimum Strategy for a Minimum Wage Bill

With the Senate Parliamentarian’s determination that the Democrats’ $15 Minimum Wage effort does not meet the Senate’s budget reconciliation process, this part of the bill passed by the House will have to be removed thus avoiding a no-win Republican filibuster from stymieing on the entire $1.9T COVID Relief/Stimulus package. The question now becomes “What to do?”

There are, as there almost always are, a variety of different strategies that could be chosen. There are even the strategies that there was and has been no evidence that Democrats or Republicans ever thought of for dealing with the Minimum Wage effort. Among the ‘known’ options are:

• ·    Abandon the effort, or delay it until they can find a strategy that they feel has sufficient support
• ·    Over-rule the Parliamentarian’s decision and proceed with the Minimum Wage in the bill
• ·    Put forth an independent Minimum Wage bill and see what happens
• ·    Make some modifications / compromise on the wage limit to be enacted, and see what happens
• ·    Look at, or for, solutions that haven’t been considered so far

Then there are the ‘unknown’ options, the approaches that neither political party has considered or thought of as a solution to the national issue of what the nation’s Minimum Wage should be. These ‘unknown’ solutions in a general sense would represent proposals, policies and strategies that were not used on the provisions that the Senate will eliminate from the Relief/Stimulus bill. Since the premise here is that no one in the Senate or House proposed an alternative bill that would have achieved the desired goals that none of the politicians had sound and reasoned solution which would have been a better strategic approach.

Now it is important to make sure that you know that the “goals” are when you are choosing your solution to reach those goals and the strategies / approaches that you believe will be key to the success of your plan. In that context, the “goals” are an essential element of what your solution both requires and will deliver. There were a number of widely publicized “goals” associated with the $15 Minimum Wage bill; and it is likely that there were some “goals” that may never have seen the light of day as they were the typical “behind closed doors” requirements and conditions that politicians of any orientation engage in. On the publicly presented “goals” list were:

• ·         $15 minimum wage limit
• ·         Bipartisan support
• ·         Economic stimulus effect & COVID recovery
• ·         Income equity/equality progress
• ·         Reduction in poverty levels

As to the “behind closed doors” objectives, one would have to have access to what deals were cut that have not been promoted, and of course, we don’t know these.

To have been successful where Congress and the Democrats appear not to have been at this juncture, it would seem the solution path, policy and strategies that where selected contributed to the failure of that task. This failure could be the result of poor problem analysis and problem-solving on the part of the bill’s proponents. To the extent that this was a causal element to the case, one tactic to moving forward in any attempt to pursue passing a Minimum Wage bill would be to:

• ·    Engage a critical thinking analyst or innovative problem-solver who can offer some alternative solutions.
• ·    Consider strategies that will enable the Senate & House to accomplish something on a bipartisan basis to the degree that is a ‘key’ requirement versus a ‘nice to have’ condition.

It is unlikely the Democrats will pursue a re-analysis methodology, and Republicans already demonstrated that they didn’t do such an analysis on the Minimum Wage issue. There is not much evidence that these are concepts that fit within the political mind and politicians do not appear to apply any reasonable level of problem-solving to other issues either. None-the-less, looking at the Minimum Wage issue through a problem-solving method would reveal aspects of the issue that might be what the Democrats ought to do now.

To start, is the $15 an hour rate the right amount? $15 was presumably picked in that it represented an amount that would produce an annual income level that would lift millions of people above the nation’s poverty level. Given this goal, compromising on the Minimum Wage rate that would be sufficiently acceptable to get it passed would be one approach. There was even some discussion about this idea, but it did not come to fruition so obviously as a strategy and alternative it was insufficient. However, this approach (finding an equilibrium point) is an old-strategy and an inept and enfeebled one in many situations. What is needed here is something with a little more nuance and intelligence. [Yes, something beyond the scope of a political mind.] A little thought and the question of a Minimum Wage could follow a couple of other routes to a resolution. The current proposal already contains a year-by-year increase until the $15 rate is reached. States already have different set minimum rates.  Overlay this with differing ‘Cost Of Living’ levels in different states and the number of options begins to expand geometrically. Finally, there is an accountability factor which no one has considered that could turn into the leverage that one might gain in attaining bipartisan support. In retrospect, it is obvious that the Democrats did not have a viable strategy. However, it was fairly self-evident that the likelihood of success was very much in question before this week.

Now take on “bipartisan support”. Was it a necessity, or just a desired but optional requirement? Facts would indicate the later. It is not that the Democrats did not want or were unwilling to engage with Republicans in order to obtain some support; however, it is not clear that either the Democrats or the Republicans, who were willing to find “common ground”, possessed the skill sets or competencies that might have been necessary to find a path leading to that ground. So, if one lacks the strategies to accomplish a task, it is hardly surprising that one would fail at it. There is also one or two assumptions regarding bipartisanship that are not a given and should either or both assumptions be invalid then the possibility of success is greatly reduce or in some situations prohibits the possibility of success completely. The assumptions are that the Democrats are willing to accommodate some Republican modifications, and that the Republicans are willing to engage in accomplishing Democratic goals. It is difficult to assess if it is the assumptions that are wrong, or that failure may be primarily a consequence of not possessing the requisite skills to achieve either compromise or better yet a superior solution that delivers more that is beneficial to the nation and acceptable to both sides, a near impossible accomplishment for today’s politicians.

The economic stimulus and COVID-recovery objectives are a more ideological issue. Both sides want the same results at a theoretical level. They both want a robust, prosperous, and growing economy that restores employment and encompasses a competitive financial and business environment. Of course, the two parties have different views and approaches for how the end results are to be achieved. My perspective is that neither party is particularly adept or competent in this area, and since it is directly tied with the Minimum Wage issue, it is a central source of disagreement for the two parties. The issue seems to have boiled down to two views:

•        Raising the Minimum Wage will cost jobs.
    This is bad and will not be good for the economy.
  
  
•      Raising the Minimum Wage will lift millions of works out of poverty and enable the economy to make greater gains over time.

Since you probably have you own view and know what the answer is, it would seem pointless to state which is right (in the non-political ideology sense that is). But that does not mean either party is right or wrong. Mostly it means they do not really know because they have not so much assessed and understood the issue as just parroting the party-line. It is a tenet of faith for both. It must be true because they ‘believe’ it is true and they are ‘right’ because of that ideological requirement.

When viewing the Minimum Wage issue as a legislative effort with these diametrically opposed views, it would seem to render the potential for a bipartisan bill to be zero. However, the outcome of a purely Democratic bill would only be the result of not seeing the issue as an opportunity to take a different path than the ones the two parties follow over and over again and fail at finding common ground. If only one or the other could see the issue through a STEM perspective, they might find that rare path to success overlooked when one is wearing partisan blinders.

The goals of income equity and reducing poverty levels are targeted goals related to making the value of work which is part of a robust economy valued sufficiently to enable it to provide a living-wage. There is an economic, ethical, and humanitarian inconsistency in having a booming economy and also having members of the workforce that do not earn a sufficient wage to provide for a basic living standard.

The contest over the Minimum Wage bill could truly be a contest of ideas. However, for there to be contest there must be ideas. Absent ideas there is nothing to base a decision upon. Since there is no STEM-based proof of which, if either, of the partisan views is correct this points to an obvious STEM-type of solution. Incorporate into the Minimum Wage bill some unnatural ‘natural’ experiments. Attaining bi-partisan support ought to be quite simple. In truth, it should be almost impossible to prevent a stampede of Democrats and Republicans to support such a bill. The difficult of course would be for Democrats or Republicans to comprehend what such a bill would require and how to go about structuring and implementing it. While this solution is simple, it is not obvious. While beneficial, it is not ideological. And, while this would serve the nation’s interests it might also expose the truth about the competencies of political parties and those who claim to be leading us.

You Can't Get Back to Normal - A COVID-19 Parable

For somewhere around a year now, people have been asking: “When do you think we will get back to normal?” While I am sure there have been lots of people asking that question, the ones that I have any direct experience of doing so are journalists/reporters. The question comes up in many contexts, but it is the same question with the same thought concept behind it: When will the world be like it was before the pandemic?

Surprisingly at one level, and not surprising at all at another, the answer ought to be both simple and obvious. To keep you from what I hope is not anything like suspense, the answer is: Never. We will never get back to normal. This of course is not what anyone wants to hear, certainly not the journalists. And of course, it does and doesn’t answer the question because both the question and the answer are examples of a bad communication process. Thus, the parable.

When engaged in a communication process there are some requirements that just have to be understood. The “When” question is starting a conversation, but it is doing so without meeting the necessary requirements to do so successfully. The following mimics a song I heard decades ago but it provided the inspiration for my sad parable. If you are interest in the lyrics look up a song by Bob Gibson, titled: To Morrow. But back to the question of “When we will get back to normal?”  As you read the parable, it should become self-evident what the problem with the “When” question is.

 

“Getting Back To Normal”

By T. M. Bauer

 

It’s been a year or so I think, like for everyone,
since things have been near or close to normal.
When meeting a neighbor outside not to be out done,
we remain safely distanced as that is now what’s formal.

Even on calls with friends or family, someone is sure to ask
When do you think that it is that we will get back to normal?
It happened yet again today, and I just muttered in my mask,
This must stop. So I decided then and there I’d be abnormal.

You know, I said, that’s hard to say, when we will be back.
I don’t believe that you or I has been there less I’m a fool.
So getting back to Normal would be quite difficult in fact.
Perhaps to get to Normal we would have to go to a school.

They’d insist we would get back to normal once this virus goes away.
And in reply it seemed to me I’d have to take a stance.
Are you planning to move or just to visit Normal on that day?
It was clear to me the tune had forced us all into a semantic dance.

Which Normal are you going to then? I would ask as if confused.
They shrugged, looked at me. We don’t really know, we aren’t exactly sure.
But after so long, it will be nice to get back to normal, we’re enthused.
I am not going to Normal. I’m staying here at home. But tell a bit more.

Which Normal are you going to? Is it to Alabama or Illinois you go?
They stared at me in disbelief. No! No! We are staying here.
I cannot see how you will get back if you do not go, and so,
It is not normal to not go to Normal if you want to be back there.             

The parable, as poor as it was, hopefully made its point: It is important in a conversation (communication) to be talking about the same thing and sharing a common frame of reference. The question of “When” presumes that the concept of “normal” is understood in common but this is clearly not the case. Some people when answering even indicate in their response that “well, we will never actually get back to the way it was” and then proceed to give some time in which we will no longer be in the current situation.

I hate to say this, but we are never in the current situation after some period of time elapses. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus gave his perspective on this: “You can never step into the same river twice.” Returning to “normal” will thus require at least a brief discussion of what “normal” means. But it should be understood from the beginning that “normal” will be a different river from the one we had been in before; just as it should be.

Gerrymandering – A Constitutional Crossroads for Democracy?

The Supreme Court Justices were divided over yet another set of gerrymandering cases in 2019. If you are not aware, Gerrymandering has generally been decreed acceptable by prior Supreme Court decisions and it was deemed appropriate when used for various purposes such as in the service of promoting equality and representation in our government. Gerrymandering has of course also been used for purposes that serve less democratic interests for example a political party or incumbent strictly to retain position and power. Gerrymandering is thus a two-edge sword and not only can cut both ways; it is dangerous for everyone who does not know how to use it or against whom it is used if they have no defense. The defense against abusive gerrymandering would hopefully and ultimately be the Supreme Court unless the Court decides that it does not.

The dominant function that gerrymandering serves today is for and by political parties and politicians to retain their dominance and control of government. Some states have turned to processes and non-partisan bodies to perform the task of creating/updating their state districts independently of the politicians. Evidently in those states the public does not trust their elected officials to do the job impartially. But many states retain the process of redistricting in the hands of the legislature (those politicians that we all trust). Whether the public trusts the politicians in these states to do this task is actually not clear as the public must overwhelming pressure their elected officials to hand the reigns of districting over to someone less motivated to factor self-interests into that task and the legislatures have to agreed and do it which isn’t required.

In their latest gerrymandering cases’ decision, the Supreme Court decided partisan gerrymandering was not within the scope or purview of the Court. The Court did this by using a ‘conditional’ rationale as their bailout. Thus, they did not have to make an actual decision. While not intending to do so, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion provided the very answer to the issue that the Justices said they did not have a Constitutional standard against which to judge. That standard provides a way they could have used reliably to determine if an abuse were occurring. This means that even though the Court said this subject was not in their jurisdiction and because of that they would not hear other ‘partisan-gerrymandering’ cases, they laid out how to make the case that would require them to re-examine their own ruling or non-decision. A strange kind of irony to be sure. They ruled they could not rule, punted, and then explained all that was needed so that they could make a ruling on the Constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering cases. This is an example of why the law does not have to conform to logic, reasoning, or facts. However, the Justices cannot avoid a well-structured case even if it is the Supreme Court unless they are simply unwilling to follow their own basis for their non-ruling. I am not saying the Court would not do this, only that it would be another step in demonstrating that they are primarily interested in not getting involved in a fundamental Constitutional issue.

As our technology has advanced and more information is available, that information has allowed us to manage and control the gerrymandering process much more effectively, for good or ill. These advances have increased the ability for a political party to use the legislative redistricting process to keep political power via partisan gerrymandering for which the objective is self-defining. Our science and technology have enabled politicians to subvert gerrymandering to serve partisan objectives and away from any other purpose or rationale that is beneficial to democracy and our American values. Partisan gerrymandering is a power play, and it has a clear disenfranchising effect on a fundamental American principle and Constitutional right: equal representation under the law. When a minority of voters can disproportionately control the levers of power, the equality of the “one man, one vote” principle has been violated. The “one man, one vote” principle is a mainstay of many Constitutional ruling, with perhaps the exception of the “partisan gerrymandering” decision (non-decision) based on the Justices’ self-identified inability to see how to determine that it is overtly biased against the “one-man, one-vote” principle.

The ability to abusively use gerrymandering being increased by our technological advances can also cure it. We can do more with information and data than ever before, and we have more data than ever before. This includes how to gerrymander much more aggressively and effectively to bias election outcomes, to deprive some voters while advantaging others. Fortunately, it is exactly the same technical advances that provide the best tools for countering corruptive application of gerrymandering solely for political party biasing. The reason that technology works either way is that the technology does not care what it is used to accomplish. I would hope the Justices would decide that they can render a decision if someone simply shows them how to prevent the issue from burdening them or the courts in the future, and explaining it simply enough they understand their own rationale adequately supports it. It is not hard to do, if you have a good STEM to average person’s intellect translator.

There can be no justification for allowing 40% of voters to control 80% of the legislative structure because a political party benefits. But the majority Justices’ decision declared it was ok since it was a “difficult” problem to resolve and they could not understand the science that proved it as intentional bias for retaining political power. The more relevant argument, though a lesser one, that the majority made was that getting the Supreme Court (or courts, in general) involved in elections is a slippery-slope concern and more importantly it would promote politicians engaging in cases every time they lost an election in a state where gerrymandering lies in the hands of a political party that uses it to retain power. This last argument is a sound, reasoned and valid assessment; however, if the Justices had understood their own rationale and basis for rejecting making a determination then this concern can also be swept away with their unrecognized solution to the ‘too difficult’ assertion because of our technological prowess.

We know what motivates politicians and political parties to use gerrymandering to keep their power: it is the power, money and advantages that holding that power provides. These are the same motivations that non-democratic forms of government are dominated by, and by which other nations’ citizens are dominated by. Gerrymandering is like any tool, it can be used for good or ill; but believing that you are not making a choice of whether it is being used for good or ill is not a defense, it is an excuse of the worst kind. Dismissing the cases is just denying a willingly participating in corruption. If gerrymandering is being used to deprive citizens of their foundational right to representative government, the “difficulty” excuse is a betrayal of the Justices’ oaths to “protect and defend” the Constitution. Reaching a decision does not require that future elections will be brought before the Court. It just requires that you know enough about how to define your decision so that it obviates that consequence or concern. Perhaps the Justices do not know how preventing a flood of future cases can be done, but there is also no requirement that the Justices do know how to do it or even to know that it can be done. When the Justices do not know how to address their concern would not the more appropriate course be to ask someone who does? They just need to turn to expertise who can show them how easy it is to do. SCOTUS does not need to worry about entangling the Court in elections, no Law of Physics requires it. You just need some intelligence about problem-solving applied and set before the Justices to show how the solution the majority provided in their opinion can be delivered.

So, the Supreme Court Justices were concerned over their own competencies regarding being able to understand the basis for ruling on the gerrymandering cases. The Justices’ concerns over not comprehending how to determine whether gerrymandering has been used to biasing elections abdicates their oath.  To simply allow political parties to subjugate the populations they are supposed to serve does not seem to ring true with some American value or values. In punting to let the politicians do as they please, SCOTUS is basically saying: “Nothing wrong with an American plutocracy.” If the Justices think this complexity is beyond their understanding and thus makes it impossible for them to render a judgement based on information that they do not understand that would mean they do not have the ability to do their job and should thus act accordingly; there is after all a remedy even for a Justice who cannot perform their duties. That other concern the Justices have, that if they make a decision in one gerrymandering case that they will just be encouraging more and more election lawsuits based on a gerrymandering claim. This would involve the Court (or courts) in ruling in elections which would increase the politicization the Judicial Branch and undermine the US’s election system. One could restate this as a fear that it would draw the Court/courts into the political process damaging the public’s view of the Court’s impartiality. [Note: I don’t think the Court is aware that much, maybe most, of the public views the Court/courts as overly involved in our politics already.] The simplest solution is to understand the solution that their non-decision provides to eliminate this concern. They may not be able to do this but even Supreme Court Justices can be adequately educated on a subject that just is not within their wheelhouse. Consider that they know enough to provide a road-map for making a ruling, and that self-same roadmap provides the means to render more cases incapable of being brough by any case either self-validating the law was violated or demonstrating that it met the Court’s criteria for not having done so. Even politician and idiot lawyers are not going to try and bring a case to the Supreme Court where they are obligated to demonstrate that they fail on the facts to meet the standards set. Is any lawyer really going to go to court and argue that their client was not speeding as demonstrated by our own evidence that they were driving at 120 mph in a 30 mph zone and there are no mitigating circumstances that apply?

These Justices’ concerns and arguments justifying their decision to not intervene in the North Carolina and Maryland cases would be based on an incorrect understanding of the Courts’ own issues and concerns. A decision to not find gerrymandering to be an issue that the Justices can competently judge would mean that they are agreeing to permit the continued use of gerrymandering for political purposes to bias elections for a party’s benefit which is shown to be reducing the equality of some citizens’ votes in favor of others’ votes. This resolution (the term is being used reluctantly) is only slightly less egregious than if the Court were to make a direct ruling that gerrymandering for biasing elections to advantage one political party is completely Constitutional and aligned with American principles and values; thus overturning the “one man, one vote” principle of our representative government. An active approval of gerrymandering by the Justices will be another historic decision that could become comparable to Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott, Korematsu, Buck v. Bell, and others. The acceptance of Partisan Gerrymandering will qualify this Court to enter the historic record for the worst of reasons.

The Court could have rule that the partisan gerrymandering in these cases is unconstitutional and violates the equal protection clause. The Court did not, it side-stepped the issue. The barrier to a definitive decision rested on the Justices’ rationales/excuses for not recognizing the abuse. The majority was worrying about the complexity of how a gerrymandering bias can be determined. Complexity, in and of itself, does not quality as a reason to abrogate a Justice’s responsibility to follow our Constitutional values. The Court does not need to understand the science, math or technology behind how biased political gerrymandering is accomplished. The majority Justices even acknowledge this but without realizing that they did; and the Justices in the minority apparently failed to either see their way through the fog of complexity nor did they see the path that the majority laid out and used it to show the majority the way out. Besides, the Justices only need to know that there are skilled professionals with the knowledge and expertise to prove a legislature has violated the majority’s criteria; that is all that is required. This is just like cases where the Justices do not need to be medical experts, or pharmaceutical, or financial, or information technology experts to render decision on all the other cases related to areas beyond their competencies. The methodology is not a decision of justice but is a statistical assessment of raw information. All that is required of the Justices is that they agree that people far smarter than them on relevant areas of knowledge can provide a mathematically sound and unbiased process, which is not even a challenging task. If they do not like the mathematical proof approach, which they do not then turn to an analyst who can show them how that mathematical proof is just a simple way to show how the evidence of the criteria the Justices’ said they lacked is provided. There is even a better way to show the Justices that they do possess an adequate knowledge base upon which they can make their decision.

Their concern over promoting more and more gerrymandering cases is a judicial red-herring. To avoid the causal conundrum that the Justices fear, they only need to set an expectation with the legislatures that if you fail the “test”, you lose the case. The “test” here is using a ‘standard’ in the redistricting process which by its very nature is a partisan-biasing standard.  If the Court really wants to put teeth in their ruling, they can indicate that if you fail the test then they will invalidate the votes for the respective candidate in biased districts of the offending party’s legislature. This is not political since it doesn’t matter which party is found guilty, it’s simply that the redistricting was biased which was a choice that has consequences because you cannot seek to diminish the value of the vote of one citizen and enhance the vote of another just because it will give the politician or party in power the means to retain the advantage of that power.

So, if the Justices had a simple test (not mathematical) that determined whether a state legislature had used a ‘standard’ which intentionally biased the process so that the value of some votes were more influential than the votes of other citizens in choosing their representatives to federal office, would they uphold the Constitutional “standard” of one-man, one-vote?

Have You Heard This Problem? - Getting the American Herd to Understand Herd-Immunity

 I was watching today’s White House Press Briefing and there were once again questions about herd-immunity regarding COVID-19. You might think that there would be a respectable general level of knowledge and understanding about herd-immunity in the population since it’s been a topic for months. If you thought that, you would be wrong.

I do not know why we expect a good understanding of the public in general; when I am not convinced that the media, which “informs” the public, understands herd-immunity at a nominal or competent level. The most informative thing that the news media could probably do is conduct a survey on what the public thinks/understand herd-immunity is. Note: I did not use the term: poll, because it is and has been overly contaminated by our political parties.

A question asked today was: “When does the Administration expect the nation to reach herd-immunity?”

Now that question implies or assumes a meaning to ‘herd immunity’ that is not particularly applicable. This is not because one could not answer the question precisely enough. You could give a range or a referencing periods like a month, a season, or a year; but even then, that answer conveys a particular idea or notion about herd-immunity that is not truly informative to the nation.

What then is the problem? Partly, the problem is that the idea that ‘herd-immunity’ is a single point, state or condition which is known is misleading. So, it may well be necessary to better define what ‘herd-immunity’ means and make it clear that it is not a process or strategy that is being used to reach a goal but is a goal for the processes and strategies that are being followed to reach that goal. Even here, it will be important and necessary that the public understands that ‘herd-immunity’ does not stop, prevent, or eradicate the Corona virus.

Another facet of the problem, is that ‘herd-immunity’ once reached does not mean that treatment, mitigation, and prevention efforts are complete. This does not seem to be the concept that journalists have, else they might be asking better questions; or at least there ought to be one journalist who would ask a better question. Complicating this is the broad spectrum of differences in the population that may make reaching ‘herd-immunity’ a tad bit unbalanced. Herd-immunity will not be reached in every region simultaneously, or in every state, or within some states. It’s possible that herd-immunity will arrive in urban and rural communities at differ times. The nation may reach an aggregate measure of ‘herd-immunity’ but, in reality there may be some areas that are still far away from herd-immunity.

So, what is the “right” answer to this well-conceived question of when does the nation get to ‘herd-immunity’? I suspect that it might be the same time at which the news media understand what ‘herd-immunity’ really means. No, that can’t be right. America will reach ‘herd-immunity’ way ahead of when the bulk of journalist probably do. When with the public understand what ‘herd-immunity’ is and what it means to reach it? I can’t say that I am any more hopeful than I am about journalists.

A Momentous Biden Administration Opportunity from the Momentum of COVID-19

 To Xavier Becerra: Nominee for Health & Human Services (HHS)

As you prepare to take up your position as HHS Secretary, there is a relevant opportunity that depends upon quick attention and prompt action. With the transition to the Biden Administration, the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic will be a most significant and difficult challenge. It is thus imprudent to not recognize and seize an appropriate strategy to avert criticism and blame for results that are pre-ordained by the laws of physics and our STEM-based knowledge and understanding of the virus.

As surely as the sun rises in the east under the laws of physics; the continued transmission, hospitalizations, deaths, and other associated damage that will be done by the Corona virus will proceed according to the forces that have been at play for months. More importantly, given the dynamics of the disease, what will happen for the next several weeks and months are to a large degree set in stone. This points to a clear and key strategy in establishing smart and informed expectations for the Biden Administration’s goals in combating the virus.

The most effective way to do this is to provide a clear messaging on what HHS’s forecasts are for key COVID-19 metrics and to present them in terms of two or three delineated time-periods. The CDC and other public health agencies have forecasts for a number of the metrics that are monitored, reported upon and used to plan going-forward efforts and decisions. At a minimum HHS should provide a projections on key metrics based on these three categorizations. As an example, the number of ‘new’ COVID cases forecast for the next 3 or 4 weeks these should be termed as explicitly “Inherited From Trump” (IFT) projection, then a “Transition to Biden” (TTB) projection (perhaps 4 weeks, based on policy and plan changes that are put into effect), and finally after meeting key implementation conditions/requirements the metrics would fall into a COVID-19 “Biden Era Science & Technology” (BEST) policy(ies).

The purpose of these intervals is to establish for the public a connection between efforts and policies taken by the Biden Administration and the inherent delay required before these actions can show results in the daily data and news coverage of COVID-19. In relying upon the science to guide public policy, it is also necessary to place those decisions and policies into the context of a “cause and effect” perspective. Politics does not change the laws of physics and a change in Administration does not mean that the changes that it will make happen until those laws of physics produce their outcomes in the time-periods which they require. In releasing an arrow, the arrow doesn’t hit the target until the necessary time has passed; so it will be with actions taken by the Biden Administration.

This same reasoning and reality apply as much to America’s COVID-19 conditions as it does to a decision to any other changes that the Biden Administration brings about.

 It should also be noted that where there are regions, states or jurisdictions which choose to reject, resist or follow different policies then those differences provide a form of ‘natural experiments’ against which to measure the effectiveness of competing policies, decisions and actions. It would thus behoove HHS to require that regions or states that choose to follow paths that you see as contrary to the nation’s interests that those regions/states provide the appropriate forecast for their polices, efforts and goals. Just as the Biden Administration’s HHS should not be solely accountable for the first three to four weeks of ‘new’ COVID cases, HHS should not be the primary accountable entity for those who act on their own approaches.

If you and HHS do not seem the wisdom of providing a definitive forecast based on these three categorized intervals, then by default you are accepting the accountability for the COVID-19 data starting on Jan. 21, 2021. I can see no logic in such a decision or in the failure to have considered this aspect of the situation which the Biden Administration is inheriting.

How Not To Steal An Election

On January 6^th, 2021 the nation and the world witnessed the most visible demonstration of how not to steal an election. If you are one of the self-deluded people who believed in the “Big Lie” then I must warn you the attempted theft of America’s right to self-rule by Trump was the foiled crime. America should not be surprised that Trump attempted to rob Americans of their freedoms, it is completely consistent with his character, behavior, and corruption through out his life and businesses. Perhaps more surprising is that the Idolatry of Trump depended upon the acceptance of one Big Lie after another which were and are accepted as a matter of faith, not in the law but in just a severely flawed man.

While Trump’s efforts to steal the Presidency were fortunately thwarted, they have and will continue to damage and threaten America for years to come. In many ways, the cult of Trump provides numerous lessons about how not to steal an election. [Note: Learning how not to steal an election does not provide a one with a means to competently steal one. As long as America can maintain a minimal level of “informed citizenry” than stealing an election will be fraught with risks. This is of course was what Jefferson advised us, and Franklin cautioned was a condition to “keep it”.]

So, what are some of the lessons that we can learn, if we want to follow Franklin’s advice?

1. A.      The “Big Lie” can be difficult to get acknowledged if there is even a “Little Truth” that is presented in opposition to it. Thus, the necessity to maintain a free press, not controlled by the government, not beholding to political parties, and not in-service to those in power.
   
   
2. B.      The “Big Lie” can’t be something that is easily disproved or rejected due to facts that even the deluded can’t explain away except by repeating the “Big Lie”. Something is proven to be true because you say you “know” something but can’t provide proof of what you “know”.
   
   
3. C.      You cannot surround yourself with incompetent supporters. Ineptitude and stupidity demonstrated by those attempting to support the “Big Lie” degrades the effort and provides counter-arguments against the very lie they are struggling to push. Claiming over and over that you have proof of your assertions is typical, but not bringing that proof forward or even claiming the charge in judicial proceedings is sheer incompetence. Consider the sage advice: “When the law is on your side argue the law. When the facts are on your side argue the facts. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side make an ad hominem attack.” Even supposedly respected individuals (who may only receive such respects as a common curiosity) that are seeking to protect their own interests will demonstrate the incompetence of their support by being evasive, waffling, duplicitous, and weak-kneed in defending or arguing for the “Big Lie”.
   
   
4. D.      Don’t base your “Big Lie” on logical pillars that are tenuous, fragile and self-contradictory. If you had foreknowledge of your claimed act(s), if you had undertaken efforts to prove your claims and failed, if you had the opportunity to prevent the now claimed “Big Lie” but did nothing, and if you provide evidence against yourself of your own culpability in being engaged in the “Big Lie” then you are making the “Big Lie” a visible farce. It easier to believe in the “Big Lie” when all elements that it depends upon are kept in the dark; actively exposing the “Big Lie” to the light of day just results in the predictable disinfectant effect. These are all acts of incompetence at all levels.
   
   
5. E.       Do not allow supporters who present themselves in visually inconsistent attire with themes of the “Big Lie”, or who speak in support of your “Big Lie” with messages that undercut logic, reason, or intelligence. While the icon of the “Big Lie” is important, it is tarnished if the images tagged to it are incongruent with that of the idol’s.
   
   
6. F.       It is extremely important that you do not appear to be stupid on any front. You can’t make missteps related to the “Big Lie” and certainly not over and over. If every time the “Big Lie” is put forward there are more challenges to it, then you are exposing all the vulnerabilities of the ”Big Lie” to numerous points of attack. The “Big Lie” like any organism can die from many factors including “death by a thousand cuts”, even a thousand cuts self-imposed.
   
   
7. G.      Always remember that there is a high risk to your “Big Lie” when it also applies to your very own situation. It’s one thing to put forth a “Big Lie” that has not connection with yourself, doesn’t relate to the other side of the same coin, or can become an “equal and opposite” force applied to you. Being the lead on the “Big Lie” give you vulnerability but no plausible deniability.

While Trump will not and cannot benefit from these lessons, the American people could. It’s even possible, thought it is probably a remote possibility, that our elected officials could not just learn valuable lessons; Congress could act to deal with the many vulnerability that this “Big Lie” has put on display front and center. This would be relatively easy to accomplish, but you need a degree of competence in these efforts just as much as you should avoid the levels of incompetence demonstrated in the attempted execution of the “Big Lie”.

This may indicate one of the biggest lessons that the public needs to learn. It is actually important to elect officials who are competent. Why voters seem to fail at electing intelligent representatives in government is a remarkable state of affairs. How much this is the fault of and a failure of our political parties might be worth consideration.

It Is Not Surprising People Are Gullible; Hence Politics

There seems to be some astonishing recognition and amazement expressed by many in the news media and by many in the population about how many people are accepting the claims that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen via numerous methods. Why news professionals or even the general public should be surprised that such claims are believed is even more surprising to me. On what basis do they expect that people are not gullible, are not easily lead and deceived, or are predisposed to sound and reasonable judgement on the facts related to an issue?

Consider the ‘common wisdom’ of our culture and history that would inform and instruct us against such naïve notions. Consider the science of human behavior regarding how individuals, groups and communities deal with information and facts, not to mention they deal with scientific information itself. Consider what the news media and journalists themselves present and discuss on many issues and events that they themselves challenge individuals, groups and political parties on that does not conform to the facts, data or knowledge which is rejected or denied by those segments of the public. There is plenty of evidence that tells us that it is not just unlikely but that it is very typical for some people to be deceived, gullible or self-deluded about a topic.

I remember learning what some easily recognizable American figures have advised the public to be aware of as ‘informed’ citizens, consumers or just individuals. Abraham Lincoln provided a classic adage that applies not just to politics but to every aspect of our lives. When Lincoln said: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time; but you can’t fool all the people all of the time”, he was instructing the public that politicians (and others) will try to deceive you for their purposes. This has not changed since Lincoln said it. It was true before Lincoln, after Lincoln, is true now, and will continue to be true in the future. A consequence of this is that there will be people in the population who will believe what they are told is true, even when it is not.

P. T. Barnum also provided sage instruction to our society. He is noted for saying: “There’s a sucker born every minute.” This advice is not all that different from Lincoln’s in that it warns each of us that you can be fooled. A reasonable parsing of his adage is that anyone can be fooled [is a sucker] if you recognize that the ‘every minute’ conditions was how often a person was born, thus everyone. He based his assessment on his own success in his business enterprises, which while entertainment, remains valid and applicable to any other area of life, especially politics.

H. L. Mencken over half a century after Lincoln provided yet another insight into how human nature and their ability to be deceived, to be gullible, applies in throughout our society at that time. His advice was perhaps more a commentary on business in America but at it’s root it informs us about what once should expect of some part of a population. There is plenty of evidence since Mencken’s observation that suggest he was correct regarding what once can rely upon from some among us. Mencken noted that “No one has ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the people.” This is just a reframing of Lincoln’s, Barnum’s and many others who have stated that people can and are fooled routinely. It’s just as true today as a century ago, perhaps even more so with the advent of the internet, e-commerce and social-media.

These three historic figures are hardly alone or even in a small and select group when it comes to assessing the vulnerability of people to be deceived, fooled, conned, deluded, and exploited by others based upon what people are willing or choosing to believe. There would not be the extent of scams and conspiracy theories pervading the nation or the world if the vulnerability to people being fooled were not as easy as it turns out to be.

If you don’t have much confidence in the views of past individuals, perhaps you might be amenable to the information and data that science provides. There has been ample evidence gather by STEM-oriented research that demonstrates that people can and are deceived on almost any topic or issue. Self-deception is studied by psychologists, economists, artificial intelligence & computer science researchers, marketing experts, lobbyists, political advocacy entities, and of course politicians & political entities. Knowing how individuals and groups can be ‘influenced’ is a valuable knowledge-set and service/product offering. Even if you don’t believe that many of these areas validate that there are ways to deceive people, especially particular groups in a population then you haven’t noticed how many different ‘information’ sources and programs there are today that focus on particular views. These entities don’t engage in their activities for purely selfless reasons. They are engaged because there is money to be made for those that they can ‘win over’ to the ‘context’ of the information they provide.

STEM has shown and uses what has been learned about human behavior to target their messages to their revenue sources. Just the phenomena that people are prone to interpreting information to conform to their views/beliefs is a scientific explanation for Lincoln’s, Barnum’s and Mencken’s observations. People are subject to their own ‘confirmation-bias’ when seeing, hearing or discussing the same information. When different people interpret the same information in a manner where both or multiple ‘interpretations’ cannot be right, true, valid or provable then there’s plenty of research that demonstrates that self-selection of information is occurring, that the information is being distorted by views of the individuals not of the reality of the information.

Now while there is no guarantee that any one, any group or segment of the population is right; because every one or every group could be wrong. Logically, if there are at least two differing interpretations of the information then one of them is closer to the truth than the other. Since the same information is used by both groups the difference has to come from how the individuals interpreted and used that information. If each individual had a different interpretation one could conclude that there is just to much variation in how that information was used. However if you have for example two major interpretations emerge from the same data than there has to be an underlying process that is driving and determining this ‘group-think’ consensus. One of those principles is ‘confirmation bias’. People are choosing what to believe and adjust their understanding of the data, the information and of reality to conform to that belief. This is one of the factors that creates the ability for people to be gullible, to be deceived. This is the factor that is used to manipulate people and groups.

Add to the ‘confirmation bias’, the principle of ‘belonging’ and you have another factor that causes people to ‘want to believe’ in something despite facts, truth or reality. Human being want to belong to groups, to be a member in good standing in their community(ies). They are happy to ‘go along’ to ‘get along’. Is this self-delusion, self-deception or being gullible? Yes, it is. You don’t have to do it consciously and with an intended objective. You just have to be subject to it’s influence over how you process and understand information. You aren’t necessarily doing it knowingly, though some may be for other reasons; but not knowing or being aware of how you are understanding the facts doesn’t mean you are not subject to the distortions and errors that they produce for you.

The whole purpose of this assessment on how people are deceived, gullible, and used by others was to point out that the news media and journalists who are ‘surprised’ by there being groups or portions of a population in denial about an issue just seems to be just another example of self-delusion. Do they really not know and understand that this happens all the time and on many, many issues?

Perhaps, journalists should wonder if they are doing their jobs sufficiently to confront this issue. There are things that they could do to help deal with this problem, and it is a problem. How does one defend our democracy if Jefferson was correct; that a free society depends upon its citizenry’s knowledge in that “whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." If the people are to be ‘well-informed’ then self-delusion and gullibility would seem to be a corrosive force acting against defense of democracy.