During the campaign, Donald Trump promised to become the greatest jobs president God ever gave to America. He railed against unfair trade deals that, in his view, prompted a mass exodus of jobs to countries like Mexico and China and condemned governmental regulations that ruined industries such as coal. While his xenophobic populist speeches crossed rhetorical boundaries adhered to by major party candidates, they highlighted a theme familiar to Republican voters. Ever since Reagan, conservative politicians have characterized government as the sworn enemy of prosperity: its policies undermined economic growth and squeezed middle and working class incomes. Trump vowed to reverse this pernicious trend.

If the president elect negotiates tougher bilateral trade deals and cuts corporate taxes, will shuttered coal plants and steel mills flicker back to life, allowing him to restore these declining industries? The historical record suggests otherwise. The coal industry was decimated by cheaper and cleaner natural gas, while steel mills closed because their plant and equipment was old and inefficient and labor costs were high. As steel from China became cheaper to make, increased demand for its products resulted in greater market share. Accordingly, more favorable trade deals and/or lower taxes will not return lost jobs to American coal and steel workers.

Every player in the free enterprise economy engages in cutthroat competition that distributes winners and losers across the globe. Many refer to globalization as if it were a recent development. In fact it’s very old news. The capitalist economy has always been a worldwide phenomenon. An early 19th century example of globalization involved the destruction of the Indian textile industry by Britain’s East India Trade Company. Cheaper British textiles slashed demand for Indian products, just as Chinese producers succeeded at the expense of American manufacturers. How will private companies and government respond to the continuous evolution of the global marketplace? Will we seek to revive dying industries, as Trump promised, or identify emerging ones, like the manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines, as Bill McKibben proposed, to employ American workers at good wages, revitalize hard hit areas of the country and renew macroeconomic growth?

One recent Oxford study found that nearly half of all American jobs could disappear over the coming decades due to automation. Better trade deals and lower taxes will not reverse this trend. Democrats must address this burgeoning economic problem by ensuring that workers who lose their jobs due to technological change and/or the migration of companies elsewhere, receive every opportunity to get retrained. Moreover, public education should provide curriculums for young people to find good jobs in rising, not declining, industries. Government must assist workers as they adapt to technological innovation and ruthless competition in the global marketplace. And this effort must be highlighted as an important example of how government is a friend to working and middle class families, not their enemy as Republicans contend. Levying tariffs and taxes to protect jobs, industries and markets against foreign competition, as Trump threatened, characterizes nations that cannot successfully compete globally. Protecting jobs from automation or more efficient production elsewhere, is surely a losing strategy for American workers.

A key part of the effort to strengthen America’s place in the global marketplace involves modernizing America’s rail lines, ports, bridges, tunnels and roads. Given Trump’s promise to rebuild the nation’s decaying infrastructure, Democrats should hold his feet to the fire and insist that he honor his campaign pledge. Perhaps the Keynesian prescription of putting more money in the hands of more people, as opposed to cutting taxes for the wealthy, as the key to generate renewed economic growth, will provide an opportunity for Trump and congressional Democrats to work together.

But what happens if Trump proposes massive infrastructure spending and runs into conservative opposition in Congress? How will he square his promise to rebuild with the Republican effort to reduce the federal debt and balance the budget? Will Republicans seek to cut money for other social programs to compensate for increased infrastructure spending? There is a potential for serious conflict between Trump and congressional Republicans. One can even imagine a scenario where Trump seeks Democratic support for increased outlays over the opposition of the Republican leadership. Much stranger things have happened recently.

Trump’s compelling promise to put America back to work and enhance levels of macroeconomic growth, underscores a critical failure of the first Obama administration. Obama’s stimulus package to revive the economy was far too small. While the economy rebounded, sluggish growth coupled with the loss of jobs over a long period of time, provided an opening for Trump’s angry populist appeal. He assailed Obama’s economic program as a failure, even as the economy crawled back from the edge of an abyss. But the sad fact is that Obama’s policies did not allow more working families to improve their economic condition. And this proved fatal to the Clinton campaign.

But what if Trump fails to deliver on his promise to be a “jobs” president? What will happen to Rust Belt voters who ultimately swung the election in his favor or to all those who harbored misgivings about his qualifications and temperament but voted for him anyway because he promised jobs? How will they react when the stock market rallies and his economic policies produce an even greater concentration of wealth at the top while factories in their communities remain closed? Will white working class voters become more cynical and apathetic? Or will their smoldering anger create a potential opening for more sinister demagogues to emerge?

Neal Aponte, Ph.D.
Editor of Delano

Suddenly, the world feels more unstable and dangerous. More than 60% of voters believed Donald Trump was both unqualified and temperamentally unsuited to be president. Millions harbored grave doubts yet voted for him anyway. So the election result resembles an unprecedented crapshoot. Political developments such as mass deportations of illegal immigrants, a wall at the Mexican border, repudiation of the Paris climate accord and the Iran nuclear deal, potential trade wars with China or Mexico, a very conservative tilt at the Supreme Court, further tax cuts for the wealthy exacerbating income inequality, the denial of climate change and the dismantling of the Affordable Care Act, appear likely. With a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, Trump will be able to roll back or undo many of Barack Obama’s legislative achievements. Suddenly, all bets are off. It is nothing less than astonishing.

There is no one single explanation for the outcome. Some see it as a “white lash” against the Obama presidency and changing national demographics, while others understand it to be an expression of anxiety about electing a very smart and capable woman. Certainly, there is an urgent need to maintain national conversations about racial justice and gender equality in our political and personal lives. Insisting on these dialogues transcends a politically correct attitude or a preoccupation with identity politics. They remain central to any progressive Democratic agenda.

But we cannot ignore the impact of socioeconomic class. While most pundits continue to offer a bland cliché about Trump being a change candidate versus Clinton representing the status quo, Michael Moore, in his recent film about “Trumpland”, argued Trump would win because many construed their vote as an “anger management tool” after being ignored by Republican and Democratic elites. Their support would be like heaving a political Molotov cocktail to blow the system up.

Even though the economy is light years ahead of where it was eight years ago, after the last Republican administration left it in shambles, too many working families believe that nobody represents their economic interests in Washington. Seen this way, the election result reflects a perfect storm of race, gender and class, orchestrated to perfection by a celebrity outsider who ran a maverick populist campaign playing to the pronounced fear and outrage felt by millions.

Plant closings across the industrial heartland, resulting in significant job loss and declining living standards, devastated working and middle class families and their communities over a period of decades. Both Trump and Sanders acknowledged the economic anguish of these families and organized their campaigns around it, while Clinton was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being insufficiently attuned and responsive to it.

As Michael Moore noted in his movie, Donald Trump told Ford executives that if they closed American plants and relocated production in Mexico, he would levy tariffs on cars produced there for the US market. He threatened to make those cars so expensive, nobody would buy them. To my knowledge, no other presidential candidate has ever talked that way to officers of a major corporation. Whether or not he had the legal authority under NAFTA to make good on his promise, employees and their families waited a long time for someone to issue this kind of ultimatum to their bosses. Trump’s populist message was sweet music to the ears of workers across the rust belt that felt Bill Clinton cost them jobs when he signed NAFTA into law in 1994.

As many Trump supporters believed he was the only candidate who understood their anger and resentment, they cut him a tremendous amount of slack. So comments and incidents that would have quickly ended the political aspirations of any other candidate did not deter Trump’s fortunes. Many voters, including a majority of white women, dismissed or ignored the campaign’s unseemly moments because he stood up for their economic interests and voiced their pent up rage towards an unresponsive political system.

The alarming takeaway from this election is that many working and middle class men and women no longer believe the Democratic Party represents their interests. This time around, many placed their hopes on Trump when he accused China of “raping” the US economy or argued NAFTA was horrible for US workers. But the economic upheaval experienced by working and middle class Trump voters does not stem from a trade deal engineered by government or prevailing tax rates. Accordingly, scrapping NAFTA or rejecting the proposed TPP and lowering corporate tax rates will not recover lost jobs.

The simple inconvenient truth is this: private enterprises seek to lower their production costs and to fatten their bottom lines. Companies relocate to Mexico, China or elsewhere because loyalty to higher profits trumps any loyalty to workers, their families and communities. The global economic system based on the private marketplace has never been warm or fuzzy. It is always cruel and devastating, ruthless and relentless, demanding continual technological change and entrepreneurial risk taking. Since its inception, individuals, private companies and nation states have been among the glittering winners and ruined losers.

In this election, those ruined by a ceaseless global economic battle have spoken. How will progressive Democrats respond?   Will they initiate a national conversation about the underlying meaning of “It’s the economy, stupid” to explain and address the root causes of chronic job loss, stagnating wages and worsening income inequality? The central challenge before them will be to elaborate a cogent narrative that responds to the anguish of working families with concrete policy recommendations that distinguish them from the political right.  As Republicans repeat their mantra of tax cuts for the wealthy and fiscal austerity, they are clearly aligned with the 1%. Where do Democrats stand? Because so many remain unable to answer this question, we witnessed the most stunning political outcome in recent memory.

Neal Aponte, Ph.D.,
Editor of Delano

In the short span of a generation or two, there was a remarkable change in how we construe the role of government in our lives.  The shift from FDR’s remark that ‘government is ourselves’ to Ronald Reagan’s notorious sound bite, “the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help”, revealed just how far we traveled.

The political right wing fashions itself as the guardian of individual rights, as if citizens were like naïve and innocent children in need of protection from an army of faceless bureaucrats determined to control the lives of the American people against their will. Government as bogeyman, expressed by Reagan’s quip, represents the animating principle of right wing fear mongering.  But if we demystified what government actually does, could we diminish the political right’s ability to frighten voters?

Here is a list to get us started:  Government is the cop who keeps our streets safe and the soldier who fights wars against those who threaten us.  Government is those who protect us from fire and natural disasters and who educates many of our children. Government keeps our drinking water and the air we breathe safe from harmful levels of pollution. It ensures the medicines we take have been properly tested and that working conditions in factories and fields across the country are not hazardous. It provides our parents and grandparents and great grandparents with medical coverage and financial support. And it subsidizes important scientific research the private sector does and/or would not fund on its own. Government provides subsidies to all types of farmers. It provides security at our airports and harbors. It purchases the military hardware we need to defend our homeland and interests abroad. And it protects our natural resources from development so future generations may know and experience the majestic wonder of nature.

Is there anything nefarious and threatening here? Of course, this list is not exhaustive. And government hardly does any of these things as efficiently as possible.  Moreover, as Edward Snowden and others have shown, our government has the capacity and will to spy on all forms of personal and governmental communication.  But putting this important issue aside, does anything on this brief list interfere with our ability to live and work as free citizens in a vibrant democracy? Does any of this inhibit creative and entrepreneurial activity?  Of course our tax code should be simplified and become more equitable. Of course some governmental regulation may stifle economic innovation.  Of course there is too much red tape.  But technological hubs like Silicon Valley are the envy of the world. And is there a private company anywhere that does not have wasteful bureaucratic procedures that inhibit dynamic activity? Suffocating red tape and organizational inefficiency are features of all modern organizations, public and private. Just ask anyone who deals with an insurance company or a cable provider.

The political right bemoans the existence of governmental waste, but has little or nothing to say about subsidies to wealthy farmers or agribusinesses, or about legendary cost overruns engineered by private companies working with the Department of Defense. And if we are talking about “welfare queens”, why have we not heard anything from the political right about one of the largest recent recipients of governmental aid, Hamid Karzai, the former president of Afghanistan, and his family, who reputedly squirreled away hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more, since the time he assumed office? Why isn’t the political right, or anyone for that matter, talking about prosecuting the Karzai family for defrauding the US taxpayer? And exactly how much money was unaccounted for during the protracted wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?  How much American money was wasted and/or siphoned by private contractors hired by a Republican administration to work in these countries?

While we should address waste and inefficiency, our current political discourse dismisses how government enhances individual freedom and quality of life. Take away any of the functions cited above and our lives as citizens would be worse off, even intolerable. In addition, political oversight protects us from private sector excess.  Remember that the near meltdown of 2008-9 was not the result of government spending or the behavior of devious bureaucrats. Massive speculation by the private sector, whose focus was to maximize profit above everything else, precipitated the recent crisis. Without proper governmental oversight, the private financial sector nearly triggered a second economic collapse. And without immediate governmental response, our economy would have fallen off the cliff. The lesson here is that we need more not less political intervention in the financial marketplace.

The recent economic crisis shows that unregulated private markets, rather than governmental action, present the greatest danger to the lives of a majority of Americans and pose the greatest threat to our individual and collective pursuit of happiness. Accordingly, conservative ideology turns things inside out by asserting that government is the enemy of a free and liberal civil society. In truth, their claim functions as a powerful smokescreen. It skillfully presents an argument that benefits the 1% as if it benefitted the other 99%. As long as too many of us remain enthralled by the political right’s fear mongering, asserting that government is the problem rather than an important part of any solution, politicians who promote and defend the interests of a few against the interests of the many will remain in power.

Neal Aponte, Ph.D.                                                                                                                Editor of Delano

Donald Trump’s recent incendiary claims that President Obama is the founder of the international terrorist organization known as ISIS and that its followers would like to see Hillary Clinton become our next president, raises the issue of whether an organization like ISIS has an interest in our national election.

As the delusional vision to reestablish an Islamic caliphate wanes, another important objective will become vital to ISIS; namely the desire to foment a fundamental clash of civilizations that results in a holy war between Islam and Western powers.

ISIS wants the West to fear and distrust Islam. It wants us to believe that the terrorist enemy is the Muslim community itself, rather than an organization that perverts the teachings of Islam and attracts criminal elements and/or aimless young people to their ranks. They want us to be afraid of any and all Muslims, recent immigrants and citizens alike, who live among us.

Accordingly, the interests of ISIS are advanced when any Western politician advocates policies that drive a political and cultural wedge between Islam and the West. Their interests are served when any political figure talks about rounding up and deporting Muslims or prohibiting them from entering Western countries. Their interests are served when politicians stoke the flame of suspicion and fear to portray our relationship with Muslim communities and Islam as “us versus them” and threaten to take any action pitting non-Muslim and Muslim communities against one another.

ISIS must and will be defeated militarily in Iraq and Syria. This process has begun. But their ability to orchestrate terror attacks remains a reality. One of the significant challenges before the world is to develop a greater understanding of why disaffected Muslim youth are motivated to join organizations like ISIS and become suicide bombers? In the 20^th century, they might have become socialists or perhaps ardent Arab nationalists. Now they are steered towards religious extremism. Why are these radical organizations attractive? And what are the main sources of recruitment? Unemployed youth? Petty criminals?

As always, the way to undermine religious extremism is by establishing alliances that empower moderate leaders. We defeat the extreme by bolstering the center. It is imperative that Western nations reach out to moderate religious and civic leaders in Muslim communities both in the West and around the world. When Western leaders fail to distinguish between moderates and extremists and lump them all together, they promote the clash of civilization ideology adopted by religious extremists and strengthen their ability to recruit foot soldiers bent on generating more terror.

In fact, it seems entirely plausible to assume that during this presidential campaign, the US and other Western nations will be at greater risk for acts of terrorism, as ISIS seeks to goad the US and other Western nations to crackdown on and/or deport Muslims. Their aim is clear: to fuel more hatred towards Muslim communities in the West and towards Islam in general. Reprisals against Muslims would verify, in their eyes, that a clash of civilizations exists and that a holy war between Islam and the West should be pursued. Therefore any political candidate of any party who sows fear of Muslims and Islam, would represent their choice to become the next American president.

Neal Aponte, Ph.D.                                                                                                            Editor of Delano

The shock of Donald Trump receiving the Republican nomination coupled with widespread ambivalence about Hillary Clinton, generates worry this could be a close election.  And it raises a question about how this unlikely candidate has advanced so far?  We underestimate, I believe, the power of his unorthodox political style.   Trump does not act like a traditional candidate running for president.  The organizational disarray, the virtual absence of campaign advisors and the lack of notable fundraising underscore the fact that he considers himself to be the celebrity star of his own reality TV show, (a cross between Survivor, where challengers like Low Energy Jeb, Liddle Marco and Lyin’ Ted are voted off the island one by one, and The Apprentice, where each episode culminates with Trump telling someone they are fired), rather than a presidential candidate.

One of the more remarkable aspects of the Trump phenomenon is that he says many things that would demolish traditional political campaigns. If anyone else suggested Ted Cruz’s father was linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, raised the issue of Obama’s birthplace or wondered if Vince Foster was murdered, their credibility would plummet with their poll numbers. But unlike traditional candidates, Trump wants to shock as many as possible because his outrageous venomous remarks, delivered like National Enquirer headlines, boost the ratings of his personal reality TV show.  Likewise, Trump’s campaign rallies, filled with outright lies, empty slogans, rhetoric that smears his competition and offends broad swaths of the electorate, and even threats of violence against hecklers or protesters, have more in common with Jerry Springer episodes than traditional political events. On the one hand, the vulgar spectacle of his provocative statements fired off like verbal missiles offer the illusion of news that enables him to secure free press coverage. But at a deeper level, Trump’s inflammatory comments implore the public to stay tuned for the next episode of his tabloid campaign. And we remain riveted, whether appalled or thrilled by what he says, each of us wondering what else will come out of his mouth.

The problem, of course, is that Trump is actually running for president. The virtual absence in his tabloid campaign of any serious discussion about serious issues is unprecedented. Instead, we get bluster about building walls Mexicans will pay for, tough talk about future trade negotiations and bold predictions about the quick destruction of ISIS. Trump never provides details about how any of this will be accomplished. And given his success, why should he? He believes that wading into the minutiae of public policy is not good for ratings. Besides, his supporters experience a vicarious thrill watching him blow off steam. So it remains a better strategy to say whatever comes to mind. Trump keeps his reality TV show “relevant” with provocative free associations based on a canny intuitive feel for what has maximum shock value.

But Trump’s campaign, like any other, does not exist in a vacuum. His tabloid style registers because it responds to something in the air. And the underlying truth of this political year is that both Trump and Sanders, what could be deemed the “Bernie Trump” phenomenon, reflect an enormous rage and uneasiness many feel about their lives, whether marginalized, less educated, older white working class men and women who sign on with Trump or young college educated men and women who face an uncertain future and gravitate to Sanders. Too many people feel left behind or cast aside. So Sanders and Trump offer pushback to those who feel powerless against forces adversely affecting their lives, from globalization and international trade deals to shifting national demographics.

Can Hillary harness the widespread anger, resentment and distrust that many feel? While she might win in a landslide, her eagerness and ability to talk about the intricacies of public policy could lead many to be wary of her, because men still feel threatened by very smart women. While aspects of her personality fuel public discomfort, like her defensiveness and paranoia about the press and lack of warmth and charisma in large public settings, she knows her stuff. As Obama recently noted, she is arguably the most prepared candidate ever to seek the presidency, while even Mitch McConnell recognizes Trump is in over his head. But will it matter? This election should force us to reflect on important distinctions between leadership and demagoguery. Let us hope we have sense enough to vote for the former and to repudiate the latter in this pivotal election, that Hillary will not be the last one voted off the island and that the tabloid headline in November will read: “Nation to Trump: You’re Fired.” The alternative is just unthinkable.

Neal Aponte, Ph.D.
Editor of Delano

Groups that endorse a literal reading of religious texts are characterized as fundamentalist.  For instance, the belief that God created the universe in seven days as written in the Book of Genesis. But any individual or group that remains loyal to an idea despite empirical data that refutes it, when loyalty to that idea supersedes adherence to actual evidence, may be said to hold fundamentalist beliefs.  In the contemporary world,  we associate fundamentalism with radical Islamic groups, but does the phenomenon exist in our political landscape?

Consider the fact that the American Republican Party is the only conservative movement in the world that denies the reality of man-made global warming. Other right-wing parties may differ with their more liberal counterparts about how to respond to climate change, but they recognize there is a grave problem. When discussing this dire threat, it appears that no set of data or degree of scientific consensus will ever persuade most Republican leaders to forsake their belief that man-made climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the scientific community to advance a “liberal” political agenda; one that would undermine the fossil fuel industry and adversely affect macroeconomic growth and cost jobs for American workers.

However, the denial of man-made global warming represents the latest expression of an insidious evolution in the Republican Party that began a generation ago under Ronald Reagan. The heart of the Reagan revolution consisted of a supply-side mantra that tax cuts spur a level of productive activity that generates additional tax revenues greater than those lost by the tax cut. The idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues and reduce budget deficits represented the infamous voodoo of Reagan’s economic plan decried by George H.W. Bush in 1980.

It is remarkable that Republicans still tout the magical properties of tax cuts as a cure for budget deficits and as a primary policy prescription to restore economic growth, even as considerable historical data clearly refute their proposition. A staunch belief in tax reduction prompted George W. Bush to maintain his signature tax cut even as military spending for two wars and an increase in entitlement spending exploded budget deficits. Accordingly, the Republican Party has not only veered to the right, it has maintained cherished beliefs despite strong empirical evidence challenging their veracity. In this sense, Republican Party ideology has shifted in a fundamentalist direction.

The fundamentalist tilt of the Republican Party has transformed our political culture. While it is commonplace to bemoan intransigent partisanship, increasing levels of intolerance emanates from the fact that Tea Party Republicans and their fellow travelers view themselves as political prophets; as the true guardians of the nation’s future against serious threats to its well being. Believing their ideology to be unassailable, these conservatives maintain that liberal and even moderate opponents espouse views that endanger America’s strength. In this context, political debate becomes a Manichean struggle between good and evil that renders compromise an unreasonable or unthinkable capitulation to those who would harm the nation.

Increasingly dominated by those who espouse views impervious to change and who consider themselves to be the true custodians of the national interest, the Republican Party has become adamantly opposed to the spirit of collaboration that remains an essential feature of any democracy. As a significant factor contributing to the poisonous partisan atmosphere inhibiting the two major parties from working together, the fundamentalist tilt of the Republican Party threatens the health of our democratic system of government.

Neal Aponte, Ph.D.

Editor of Delano