15 Reasons why Joe Scarborough will run for president in 2020–and win.


Like many political junkies, I usually start my day with Morning Joe. Over the last few months, I’ve become convinced that not only is Scarborough going to run for president, but that he already is, that he should, and that he would probably win. Handily.

Of course, at one level we live in the world of the permanent campaign, and the race has already begun.  Hard as it is to believe–so powerful was the shock of Trump’s election that, for most of the country, it has still not fully worn off–the 2020 campaign will commence shortly after the midterms.  I predict that some time in early 2019, Scarborough will declare his candidacy on air and suspend the show.

Don’t take it from me. CNN’s Chris Cillizza last summer: “If you wanted to run for president in 2020, you’d be doing exactly what Joe Scarborough is doing right now.”

Continue reading “15 Reasons why Joe Scarborough will run for president in 2020–and win.”

Fake Sense

There are five problems with the Biblical justification of the family separation law policy.

First, Romans 13 is taken out of context and is cherry picking—plenty of Biblical support could be amassed for justifying opposition to unjust laws.

Second, Romans 13 has, historically, been invoked by Loyalists advocating, well, loyalty, to the crown during the American Revolution, and, more disturbingly, by supporters of slavery prior to the Civil War.  And as is well known, Paul supported the institution of slavery.

Third, even if there were clear and unambiguous Biblical support for such a policy, that is not a legitimate justification for any federal law or policy due to the first amendment.  We live in a constitutional republic and a pluralistic democratic society, not a theocracy.  It may be a nation of Christians, but it is not a Christian nation.

Fourth, this justification ignores the difference between morality and legality.  Just because something is legal does not mean it is moral. This has always been an aspect of Judeo-Christian morality and politics, from Moses’ slave revolt against the Egyptians to Christian opposition to infanticide under the Romans to King fighting segregation in America.

Fifth, even disregarding the first amendment, on balance the teachings of Jesus would almost certainly be opposed to such a policy.  The entire thrust of Christian morality tends toward a concern for the poor, the child, the stranger, the disenfranchised, toward mercy and compassion for “the least of these.”  


Beyond the Biblical justification, there are problems with the administration’s rhetoric surrounding the policy, as well as its approach to immigration in general.

First, the administration is not “enforcing the law.”  This is not a statute.  It is a matter of discretionary policy, one the administration chose to enforce.  

Second, this is not a problem created by the Democrats. Trump has employed this strategy before, e.g., claiming that the Democrats created the DACA problem.  That’s another lie.  But even worse, it’s really an attempt to extort broader concessions on immigration policy, as I’ll explain below.

Third, this is not a “crisis” in which the president’s hand has been forced.  The administration has deliberately inflated the immigration problem more broadly.  The facts are these:  Immigration across the southern border has declined precipitously in recent years, in large part because the Mexican economy has improved, its birth rate has declined, and deportations spiked significantly—under the Obama administration.  

Fourth, increasing legal immigration, and providing a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, is good economic and social policy.  First, it is not true, as Trump and co. often claim, that immigrants are a threat to public safety.  The fact is that such people are less likely, on average, to commit violent crimes.  Second, immigration is good for economic growth, which is a function of two things:  population growth and productivity growth. The US birth rate has declined, so the only way to hit the 3% or 4% growth targets Trump and co. desire is to boost immigration. Third, social security has recently started drawing from its trust fund, and in the middle future there will not be enough payroll tax revenue to fund benefits, making the system insolvent. Increased immigration means more young, productive people paying into the system. 

Fifth, the administration is pretty obviously using this policy to extort concessions on immigration in order to be able to campaign on it in 2018 and 2020.  In other words, this is all about The Wall.  The Wall—a solution we can’t afford to a problem that doesn’t exist—is, of course, not about the Wall—it’s about Trump getting re-elected.  

Sixth, there is a long history of conservative politicians cloaking appeals to resentful white voters under the mantle of “public safety,” “national security, “sovereignty,” “law and order,” and the like:  Goldwater’s opposition to desegregation by appealing to states’ rights, Nixon’s southern strategy promising to restore “law and order,” etc.  Trump doesn’t even bother with the ruse—he openly admitted that the invocation of an obscure national security law to justify the tariffs against our allies was in bad faith.


All of which is to say that the first mistake–made by proponents–is to try to defend the policy on its merits, and the second–made by opponents–is to object to the policy because it doesn’t make sense.  These aren’t really “policies”—they’re political strategies.  Nearly none of the administrations policies make sense—from trade to taxes to energy to climate to Iran to spitting in the face of our allies to the gutting of the State Department to praising authoritarian rulers to healthcare to immigration—because they’re not concerned with solving problems, but with creating them. 

The Trump administration does not make sense.  They fake sense. 

They do not assess the factual lay of the land and decide on how best to solve problems; they assess what their voting and donor bases believe to be problems—and what will best distract, divide, and confuse the public–and then fixate on and inflate those faux problems.  The most important, long-term structural problems—reducing income inequality, funding a new infrastructure plan, combating climate change, and building a globally competitive American renewable energy economy—are neglected.

Finally, the policy is needless, and needlessly cruel, and in this way it is vintage Trump. While the Bible is an inappropriate legal foundation, its invocation in this debate is actually crucially important, because it can shed light on just how heinous, inhumane, and morally retarded Trump is as a person and as a president. What irony that the
party that claims to be so animated by family values has thrown its lot in with a twice-divorced man, a serial adulterer with porn stars and Playmates, and a bully who relishes inflicting pain on powerless people seeking asylum by separating families.


What we need, of course, is not a physical wall, but a moral one.  Trump can rip up trade deals, flout democratic norms, cancel regulations, and perhaps even obstruct justice and collude with a foreign power to sabotage our electoral process.  But the most important long-term damage he is doing is to undermine our respect for the differences between true and false and right and wrong.

The Jaime Lannister of Climate Politics

Bjorn Lomborg is like the Jaime Lannister of climate change politics:  a square-jawed, towheaded, smooth-talking semi-villain who never seems to go away.  Unlike the “Circes” of climate denial, he concedes that climate change is anthropogenic and poses a serious threat.  But he thinks devoting substantial resources to dealing with it is a miscalculation based on mistaken priorities.  He is a skeptic–not of the science, but of the policy.  His latest, an Op-Ed in last week’s Wall Street Journal, “The Charade of the Paris Treaty” (paywall), rehashes the argument he’s been making for years.

You might be surprised to hear that Lomborg’s position on climate passes as liberal for the WSJ Op-Ed page.  Despite being the most widely distributed newspaper in the world, and one of the most widely respected, and a bastion of center-right thought, count the Journal a skeptic when it comes to climate change.

Lomborg’s was the article that tipped me over the edge and led me to spend a morning penning a letter to the editor that, as it turned out, got published a week later (albeit substantially trimmed):


Arguments like Lomborg’s are actually more dangerous than those of climate skeptics or deniers because they threaten to sow doubt among those who are already on board with climate science.

Below, I re-print my original letter to the Journal.  As you’ll see, its length is probably not the only reason they didn’t print the whole thing:

“Unlike the Journal, Bjorn Lomborg (“The Charade of the Paris Treaty,” June 17-18) laudably acknowledges the reality and gravity of anthropogenic climate change.  However, his piece contains several fallacies.

First, Lomborg correctly notes that the first round of pledges will fall far short of the stated goal of 2 degrees Celsius, and cites the failed Kyoto protocol as evidence for Paris’ likely failure, but he misconstrues the long-term logic of the agreement, as well as the way in which Paris is importantly different from Kyoto.  For one, every five years pledges are reviewed and ratcheted up, which aims to foster trust, cooperation, and peer pressure between parties and gradually build toward more ambitious targets.  For another, Kyoto had binding emissions cuts, whereas Paris has voluntary commitments in order to allow flexibility to account for countries’ political and economic feasibility constraints.

Second, Lomborg erects a straw man:  no one serious is claiming that we’re sailing into the solar paradise tomorrow.  The global energy economy is an aircraft carrier, not a speedboat.  The point of Paris is to create a sea change in how countries think about climate:  to see it as deeply tied to their economic and geopolitical interests so that they begin to invest more in renewables and put a price on carbon.  Lomborg ignores the geopolitical dimension of Paris.  The Obama administrations’ most important strategic diplomatic achievement was to elevate climate to the same status as core issues in international cooperation, such as trade and security.

Take it from philosopher and policy analyst Andrew Light, who worked in the Obama Administration to craft and negotiate the Paris agreement:

Trump’s decision will damage U.S. integrity at the negotiating table and impede the ability of this White House to effectively pursue other international issues that require multilateral support. Nicholas Burns, under secretary of State in the George W. Bush administration, put it bluntly: “I can’t think of anything more destructive to our credibility” than leaving the Paris Agreement. It will also make it difficult for other leaders to justify to their citizens sitting down with this White House to negotiate anything the U.S. wants, given the broad and deep recognition of the need for cooperative action on climate change among other major powers.

In the new reality, if you’re a bad actor on climate, countries can leverage this against you and make it harder for you to get what you want on a range of issues.  Or punish you—France, e.g., has floated the idea of slapping a carbon tax on US imports.

Third, Lomborg descries subsidies for renewables.  What he fails to mention is that fossil fuel subsidies far exceed the former.  This should bother conservatives, since subsidies distort markets—the price of fossil fuels does not reflect their true cost, which leads to an inefficient use of resources.  This is basic, uncontroversial, conservative economics.   And he should know, from reading energy historian Vaclav Smil, whom he cites, that no major energy transition has ever happened without massive government support.  Bizarrely, he concedes this toward the end of his piece, calling for increased spending on R and D; and indeed, one of the main goals of Paris is to stimulate such investment—hence billionaires such a Bill Gates rallying around the agreement and launching the Breakthrough Energy Coalition.

Fourth, Lomborg clings to the canard that action of climate is bad for the economy.  However, in his work he relies on a morally and economically dubious value for the social discount rate.  Even William Nordhaus, the dean of climate economics and a long time conservative on climate action, has conceded that he was wrong about the value he ascribed to the social cost of carbon.  And others, such as economist Nicholas Stern, claim that the cost should be much higher, which makes the price tag of eventual climate change much, much higher than the investments needed to decarbonize the global economy.  Again, the social cost of carbon is a fundamentally conservative idea:  individuals and firms ought to pay the full costs of the byproducts of their economic activity.  Economic growth is just one value among others, and it is unclear whether it is best fostered by weak climate policy.  Prudent investors hedge against risk.

Lomborg is right to claim that we must approach action on climate in the context of global issues such as education, health care, poverty, etc., and that, in the short term, investments in these areas would have a greater impact on welfare.  But he seems to assume that if we don’t direct resources to climate, they will indeed be devoted to these areas, which seems unlikely.  Moreover, a number of these issues are entangled with and may be exacerbated by climate change.  One reason e.g. that China and India are investing heavily in solar and decreasing their coal dependence is the costs of pollution to public health and their economies.

All told, Lomborg’s position—like the Journal’s editorial stance on climate in general and Paris in particular—is unserious, unconservative, and untenable.”

It seems to me that the winning strategy for climate advocacy is to craft arguments to appeal to 1) social conservatives and 2) economic conservatives.  How, in other words, to explain why Christianity and Capitalism logically lead to action on climate?

Don’t talk about the “environment,” talk about “creation.”

Don’t talk about “ecological balance,” talk about “economic growth.”

Don’t talk about “ecological destruction,” talk about “job creation.”

The language is jobs, infrastructure, investment, insurance, energy independence.

More later on the psychology, culture, and communication challenges of climate politics.

Trump Cards: Why the Donald is Winning, and Why That’s a Good Thing (Part 3)


(Please read Part 1 and Part 2 first)

To see how Trump’s success can be explained by how he is leveraging the Spiral, we need to look at some of the dominant memes in American political culture:  Red, Blue, Orange, and Green.


Red:  Power


The Red meme is egocentric.  Historically, it emerged during hunter-gatherer times, when tribes came into conflict or needed to bind together in order to survive and were united by strong, powerful leaders who instilled fear, garnered respect, and got people to do their bidding.  Red seeks control through the exercise of power, often through force or intimidation.  It is what comes out when we get into a fight with our partner and say things we later regret or “didn’t mean”; it is the raw expression of anger, frustration at “not getting my way.”  In disputes, Red seeks not just to win–to be on top–but to conquer–to put others down.  When wronged, it seeks not justice, but revenge.  In fact, Red does not think there is any justice in the world; people are inherently self interested, and social order is maintained only through the fear of punishment.  Red sees the world as dog eat dog, “red in tooth and claw”; the only way to get ahead in life is through force and fraud.  Only suckers play by the rules.

Key values are control, strength, power.

Examples:  the terrible twos, the schoolyard bully, Achilles, prima donna athletes, Thomas Hobbes’ state of nature, horrible bosses, the Joker, most of the characters on Game of Thrones, and of course, Donald Trump.

The world is divided into the strong and the weak.

Blue:  Traditional


Blue is ethnocentric.  It sees the social world as a hierarchy of clearly prescribed roles governed by rigid rules.  Here, the individual’s identity is determined by his or her social role and membership in the community.  This is a corrective to Red:  the dangerous desires of the individual must be checked and harnessed for social good; a classic example is the medieval knight of courtly romance, whose destructive potential must be sublimated in the service of society.  For Blue, the cosmos is regarded as the ordered plan of a personal God who determines good and evil.  Blues tend to see the world in black and white, us vs. them, absolutistic terms.  Blue is the platform for patriotism and nationalism; “protecting the homeland” is Blue language, and it is no accident it became prevalent after 9-11, when Red Islamic Terrorism struck at the heart of the country.

Key values are loyalty, humility, sacrifice, and a strong emphasis on law and order.

Examples:  the military, the police, social conservatives, the Catholic church.

The world is divided into saints and sinners.

Orange:  Modern 


Orange is world-centric and holds a cosmopolitan outlook.  People find their identity as free and equal human beings, first and foremost, regardless of religion, ethnicity, sex, ability or nationality.  Orange tends to see the world as a free market of individuals using their talents and labor to compete and engage in exchange for mutual benefit to attain the most optimal distribution of resources.  When Margaret Thatcher said “There is no such thing as society, there are only individuals,” she was speaking Orange.  Where Blue is aristocratic–social rank is determined by birth, tradition, and rules of inheritance–Orange is meritocratic.  Orange tends to prefer limited government:  the sole job of the government is to protect individuals rights, particularly their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as defined by the individual–not the State, the Church, or any other external authority.  Orange tends to be materialistic rather than moralistic:  it does not place as much emphasis on character formation as Blue; what matters is that one shouldn’t physically harm others.  Orange is thus the father of classical liberalism, the political DNA of modern societies.  Likewise, Orange is the home of empiricism and the scientific method,  basing knowledge on experience, not tradition; it is thus skeptical of religious authorities.  It cares about what works.  It prioritizes progress, particularly scientific and technological progress.  Orange “thinks for itself.”

Key values are freedom, independence, adaptability, innovation, experimentation, conscientiousness.

Examples:  businessmen, scientists, Ayn Rand, Francis Bacon, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and of course, Donald Trump.

The world is divided into winners and losers.

Green:  Postmodern


The Green sensibility came on the scene in the countercultural revolutions of the 1960s and 70s.  Green has a deep distrust of any kind of centralized authority, institutional hierarchy, or mainstream establishment.  It tends to see these as power structures created to oppress people, e.g., “the Man”  Mindful that history is often written by the winners, Green rejects “Master Narratives” in favor of “Slave Narratives”; one example is Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, which overturns the Founding Fathers-as-demigods story and points out how the country was built on the slaughter of native Americas.  In general, Greens tend to be highly critical of the United States, particularly the military and big business.  It seeks community as a reaction to the alienation brought on by Orange individualism, and has a deep yearning for existential meaning as a reaction to Orange materialism.  The phrase “identity politics” is a Green phenomenon:  it means that individuals see themselves first as members of a particular group–women, gays, Christians–rather than as individual citizens.  Green sees modernity as an artificial environment that has removed us from–and despoiled–Mother Nature.  It wants to go back to the land and live organically:  When Joni Mitchell sings, “They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot,” that is a Green lyric.  Green prioritizes cultural sensitivity and the inclusion of marginalized groups:  gays, racial minorities, Muslims, etc.  It also goes beyond Orange in extending the circle of moral concern to nonhuman animals and the environment.  It thinks from a global and ecological perspective, tending to focus on what is wrong with the world, and prefers international over national solutions to global problems.  “Think globally, act locally” is a Green slogan.

Key values are tolerance, inclusivity, equality, sensitivity.

Examples:  Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Henry David Thoreau, hippies, environmentalists, New Agers, Occupy Wall Street.

The world is divided into oppressors and oppressed.

So how do these memes help us understand the culture wars, presidential politics and, ultimately, Trump’s success?

Continue reading “Trump Cards: Why the Donald is Winning, and Why That’s a Good Thing (Part 3)”

Trump Cards: Why the Donald is Winning, and Why That’s a Good Thing (Part 2)


(Please read Part 1 first)

So why is Trump winning?


One way to understand precisely how he is doing it is with the help of a little-known theory called Spiral Dynamics.  Spiral Dynamics is a theory of cultural development pioneered by psychologist Clare Graves in the 1970s, developed and applied by Don Beck and Christopher Cowan in the 80s in apartheid in South Africa, and adapted by Ken Wilber in his Integral Theory in the 2000s.  And just to reassure you that I am not pulling this out of left field:  when Al Gore was asked to name his favorite philosopher during the 2000 campaign, his answer was “Ken Wilber” (Bush’s was “Jesus”), and Clinton has quoted Wilber’s work at Davos.  Many politicians at the highest levels know about and use these frameworks.

The atomic unit of the theory is the “meme.”  The theory holds that throughout history, human beings have responded to the challenges of surviving and living together by evolving different memes–forms of consciousness and culture.  Each meme is a creative response to life conditions, an organizing structure that helps people make sense of themselves, their place within the social order, and humanity’s place within the natural world.  In short:  a meme is a worldview–a vision of the way the world is–and a value system–a vision of the way the world should be.  It is a mental and moral matrix that shapes consciousness and culture.

8 Different Views of Life

The notion of memes–ideas that are rapidly transmitted from individual to individual, like a virus replicating itself–has become a mainstay of cultural theory and pop sociology, but Spiral Dynamics applies the concept in developmental terms.  Memes unfold in a predictable and developmental fashion; they are like waves or stages in the evolution of consciousness and culture.  A meme emerges because it solves certain problems, performs critical functions, and fills certain needs for individuals and cultures within a particular historical, environmental, economic, and technological context–for awhile.

But when conditions change and new problems of living arise, a new worldview and value system emerges in order to make sense of the new world order, and the old one is displaced.  The latter does not disappear; it continues to play an important part in the life of the individual and the culture, and it is recruited and activated at key times, but it is no longer the “center of gravity.”  An analogy to the Spiral is Maslow’s needs hierarchy; the rungs on the bottom levels don’t disappear once moves to a new one–you still need to eat!–but they are no longer the main goal of life.

This is the Spiral:


A few things are worth pointing out.

First, there is nothing essential about the colors (though some of them are obviously intuitively appropriate:  Red is prone to impulsive rage, and Green is a lover of Nature).

Second, these are not types of people; they are types in people.  Every person–like every culture–is a unique mosaic of multiple memes that ebb and flow.  But people do tend to have a center of gravity that acts as their default setting.  Different situations call forth different elements.

Third, no meme is inherently good or bad:  each has healthy and pathological expressions.  Though, as I explain below, the fuel of the culture wars is the friction between the memes; in general, a new meme tends to demonize the one before it, highlighting its weaknesses while ignoring its strengths (while also being blind to its own weaknesses).

Fourth, no meme is “better” than another in an absolute sense; each has a unique and necessary role to play.  However, problems arise when one meme attempts to dominate at the expense of others and deny them their relative truth and proper place in life.  Hence, Spiral Dynamics holds that there is a kind of evolutionary progress:  perspectives that include and integrate more perspectives are better–they acknowledge and encompass more of reality.  Only in that qualified sense can one perspective be said to be “better” than another.

Finally, the memes track both individual and cultural development.  In the Middle Ages, for instance, the center of gravity was Blue, but each individual had to go through all the stages; e.g., no one gets to skip the “terrible twos” (Red).

In Part 3, I sketch the contours of four of them since they help explain our political culture in general and Trump’s rise in particular:  Red, Blue, Orange, and Green.

Trump Cards: Why the Donald is Winning, and Why that’s a Good Thing (Part 1)


The question on everyone’s mind is this:  How is Donald Trump winning?  Why is he winning?  And how long is he going to keep on winning?  What few people–other than his supporters–seem to be considering is how this might be a good thing.

Despite a history of derogatory public remarks towards and about women–in an age when one tone-deaf Tweet can destroy a political career–he polls well with them.

Despite a coordinated attempt to sink his candidacy in the first debate by Fox News–the visible hand of conservative voters’ thinking–his support has only grown stronger.

Despite the conventional wisdom that the GOP needs to court Hispanic voters, he promises to build “the greatest wall you’ve ever seen” to keep out Mexican “murderers, drugs, and rapists.”

Despite Lord Reagan’s “11th Commandment” that thou shall not speak ill of another another Republican, he declares that senior statesman, former GOP presidential nominee, and Vietnam veteran and torture victim John McCain is “not a war hero.”

Despite being previously pro-choice, twice divorced, and the overseer of an empire of sin, he glides through the moral gauntlet.

Despite having funded liberal candidates and causes–at a time when ideological purity tests have become the norm in conservative politics–he keeps on attracting conservatives.

Despite an almost total lack of policy positions on his website or in his speeches, people are flocking to him.

Despite all this, he keeps on winning.

Of course, he hasn’t actually won anything yet, and despite his incessant boasting, he does not win all the time.  A number of explanations have been given for Trump’s temporary triumph:  he is entertaining, he is blunt, he tells the truth, he is not a politician, he’s a successful businessman, he is who he is, he dishes out populist pablum aplenty, and more.  I don’t think any of these are wrong, but I think there is a more elegant, satisfying, and comprehensive explanation for why he striking such a chord with so many people.

Put simply, Trump is speaking to people on multiple levels simultaneously in a way none of the other candidates are.  Just as the greatest gift the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist, the greatest gift a politician can every pull is to talk down to voters while making them think he’s not; to make everyone think he is taking directly to them, personally, at the same time he talking to everyone else; to make them feel empowered even when he knows they are going to get screwed.  Call it inspiring condescension, call it parallel processing, call it what you want:  whether by instinct or design, Trump has assembled the perfect rhetorical ingredients to win the ears of a stunning swath of voters.  Trump may not be a “career politician,” and he has convinced voters he is not a politician, but he is a gifted politician.

But what exactly are those ingredients, and why are they the right ones?  To answer those questions, we need to look at a little-known but, in political circles, widely used theory of cultural development called Spiral Dynamics.  Check out Part 2 to find out what it is and how Trump is leveraging it.


(photos courtesy of http://www.blacksphere.net, http://theblacksphere.net/2015/08/republicans-fox-news-thank-donald-trump/ and flickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/entirelysubjective/6733416743)

The Climate Candidate: Al Gore 2016


In the wake of the recent waves of news regarding the recent EPA regulations and the National Climate Assessment report, I’ve been thinking a lot about climate change and American politics, and yesterday, a crazy idea popped into my head.  I googled “Gore 2016” and, lo and behold, found that Mark Halperin, of Game Change fame, had recently floated the idea on “Morning Joe” a few weeks ago:

When you start to really think about it, it makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.  

Continue reading “The Climate Candidate: Al Gore 2016”

An Inconvenient Storm

As Sandy approached, the media compared the storm, in its scope, rarity, and composition, to the three-headed monster that hit south of Nova Scotia in 1991 and was featured in the best-selling novel and feature film, The Perfect Storm.  In addition to the multiple meteorological elements, many all but immediately started speculating about the human element that magnifies the storm’s disruptive power:  next week’s election.  But there is another dimension to the storm that makes the moniker, “perfect,” even more apt:  climate change.

Continue reading “An Inconvenient Storm”