I Didn't Watch Donald Trump Ramble

Tonight, Donald Trump is giving his first speech to a joint session of Congress. He’s going to call for $54 billion in new Pentagon spending, while slashing the EPA and State Department funding to the bone. He’s going to call for huge new tax cuts for the wealthy as well. He’s going to call for massive de-regulation on businesses as well. In short, he’s calling for the Reagan/Bush economic plan on steroids. The only real question is if he’s going to call for cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, or not, since we don’t know what kind of a mood Little Donald is in today.

Given that we know the utter carnage the Occupier-In-Chief wants to propose, I’m surprised to hear that some Democrats and progressives want to watch his speech. I don’t see any need to. There’s nothing to learn from listening to him speak. There’s lots to lose though.

I did not watch Little Donald’s Inauguration speech, because I know as well as anyone else that he was going to look up the ratings. This man wants our attention, he wants us to treat him as important. I’m going to treat him like he’s very unimportant. Sure, the damage he is doing to our country is bad, but we can’t remove him by a vote for four more years basically, so i’m going to focus on making his Congressional minions miserable, while treating him like a piece of trash on the highway that we drive by. No watching him give a speech that real Presidents get to give. No ratings. He is a second-class President to me.

I hope you’ll do the same, and ignore his speech tonight. Don’t give him the satisfaction of high ratings or the myth of our attention. He’ll get neither when he speaks. Treat him like an outcast, so that maybe he’ll start to feel like one.

Nerd Prom Sucks Anyway

Donald Trump isn’t going to the White House Correspondent’s Dinner this year. Honestly, good. Good for the actual White House Press Corps, who doesn’t have to listen to this orange thing babble incoherently about his “yugeee victory” last Fall, make not funny jokes about Hillary Clinton, or ramble on about how great he is. Good for all the Hollywood stars who promised to not show up anyway. More than anything though, good because no one will pay attention to it now.

Donald Trump doesn’t belong at this dinner. For one thing, we shouldn’t be treating him as a normal human being, much less President. The man has called the press an “enemy of the people” of this country in the past week, a statement so ridiculous that he should probably slap himself for saying it. He doesn’t believe in a free press, so they shouldn’t put themselves through the uncomfortable position of having to act like they want to spend the night with him. Good for them, they should honor their important profession without this enemy of the press in the room.

The other side of this is that I of course am not a fan of the White House Correspondent’s Dinner anyway. I believe in a free press, and I think they are important- I just don’t think they’re that great at their jobs. They do not cover politics as though they want to get the truth and facts out, they cover politics as though they need to show both sides. They do this even when one side is utterly ridiculous- as they have on climate change. They haven’t done the hard-hitting, investigative reporting at times we’ve needed them to- like the run up to the Iraq War. They’ve been deferential to the government- like believing Iraq had a weapons program worthy of us going to war there, when they didn’t. They treat Paul Ryan’s false math as though it’s legitimate, and they covered Hillary Clinton as though an actual crime was committed in Benghazi, or with her private e-mail server- when quite predictably, she was not ever indicted, let alone found guilty of anything. I support our press, and I want them to continue to exist well beyond the excommunication of our Occupier-In-Chief, but I also want them to do a better job at doing their job- and start to cover facts, not cover for balance.

I see no point to this event even existing. I realize that they do a good job at handing out scholarships to kids and helping the Washington-area community, but otherwise I find the idea of a bunch of Beltway occupants throwing themselves a party to be repulsive. Maybe in another time I’d support it, but I can’t back this event as a concept, let alone as a practice. Thank goodness that our press doesn’t have to listen to Little Donald ramble, but perhaps we just shouldn’t have this event for a few years, until it’s worth having again.

A Big Win in Delaware, But...

In November, things didn’t go so well for the Democrats. One of the unexpected under-performances of the election came in Delaware. Democrats came out ahead in the state’s Senate by just one vote, and a vacancy in a Democratic seat had arisen in the down state area. This meant that Saturday’s special election in that district was for control of the chamber. Democrats managed to win by a larger-than-expected 58–42% margin. The result put Stephanie Hansen in the State Senate, and Democrats in charge of a body they should be in charge of anyway.

Democrats have a lot to be happy about in this victory. For one, they avoided a real embarrassment in Joe Biden’s home state. Secondly though, this was a seat they won by 2% in 2014, and they won it by 17% in a Special Election held on a Saturday in February, in a district that was not downtown Wilmington. While they absolutely should win this seat, this was the kind of race Democrats had been losing in the Obama-era. They won it, and they won it by a bigger than normal margin.

Even with all of that, let’s not write the stories about 2018 being our 2010 yet. Yes, there are some promising signs, but off-year Special Elections don’t always tell us much. Republicans lost nearly every Congressional Special Election over the course of the first ten months of 2009, and really didn’t show any signs of the 2010 wave they were bringing until the November elections of Republican Governors in Virginia and New Jersey, and of course, Scott Brown’s Senate victory a short-time later in Massachusetts. All the Democratic wins in early 2009 didn’t mean a whole lot when the 2010 mid-terms came splashing onto the short, delivering big Republican majorities in the U.S. House and in state houses across the country. Democrats might get a similar wave in 2018- but there’s absolutely no proof of that right now.

Feel free to celebrate, because winning is better than losing. Don’t get too comfortable though. Democrats could win or lose in the next big special election, the Georgia Special Election to fill Tom Price’s seat. It’s truly up in the air, because of the weird-ness of any Special Election. If they win, it doesn’t mean 2018 is going to be our year. If they lose, it doesn’t mean it won’t be. It matters though, because the winner will get a seat in Congress to vote on our laws, so pay attention and get involved- these races matter.

All Hail Tom Perez

Saturday was a big day for Democrats, but it was especially a big day for one Democrat in specific- Tom Perez. The former Labor Secretary fell just short of winning the DNC Chairmanship on ballot one, and won it on ballot two. He takes over a party that was torn apart by last year’s primaries, Wikileaks, and Donald Trump. His job is to take it back to where it was under his old boss, President Obama.

Tom Perez handled things about as well as humanly possible. When he won, he immediately accepted his former rival, Congressman Keith Ellison as his “Deputy Chairman,” a mostly made up title that will give Ellison a larger platform from which to put forward his vision for the party as a national leader. I think this was a smart move. While Ellison did support Bernie Sanders in last year’s primaries, and I didn’t, Ellison has shown himself to be an impressive national leader, who while ambitious, also seems to have a plan for how he is going to get his agenda done. The Democratic Party can use more people with actual plans, and not just ideals, and Ellison seems to fit that bill. I don’t agree with everything he says and wants, but the guy feels like a winner to me.

Beyond just handling Ellison well, Perez did a remarkably good job in avoiding getting into the general spat between the regular liberal Democratic Party and the progressive wing of the party throughout this race. He didn’t get himself stuck fighting against activist groups and people who didn’t support him, and he didn’t mix it up with the likes of the #DemExit Crowd and others who called for progressives to leave the party if they didn’t get their way. Perez kept the door open to work with them in the future.

Tom Perez also pulled both of those feats off while not alienating the base of the party that supported Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and even in some cases Bernie Sanders (90% of his voters united with the party in the Fall, after making their voices heard). Tom Perez doesn’t have to ditch President Obama’s legacy and agenda while he opens the tent to millions more across the country. Perez pulled the “win-win.”

I have no illusions that his job will be easy moving forward. There are still some fringe Alt-Lefters out there who want to tear the party apart to get their way, even primarying incumbent Democrats on tough terrain. We’re not likely to win back the Senate, or even the House, in 2018. There is no Barack Obama type of talent clearly ready for 2020. Our activists are impatient and scared by the thing in the White House. Tom Perez is going to have a tough time as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Fortunately though, I feel like we picked a man who is up to the fight.

The Only Thing I Like About Steve Bannon....

I think Steve Bannon is a Neo-Nazi. I’m not a fan of him, Breitbart, or the Trump White House. I disagree with him on virtually every single thing he believes. I don’t like the guy. I don’t mean to write much nice about him.

When I lived in Washington, DC about five years ago, I hated it. One of the things that angered me the most was the image consciousness that prevailed in that city. The suit and tie are so overplayed in Washington that they lose all meaning. Everyone wants to look important and official, even if they aren’t important or official. It’s stupid, and just an excuse for people to pretend they’re somebody they’re not, while not being who they are.

Now, I don’t like wearing a suit. I’m more friendly to it now than I was ten years ago, but I don’t see any need to impress you. I wear suits to weddings, funerals, and events involving U.S. Presidents, but besides that, you’re lucky if you get me wearing a suit coat, let alone a tie and the whole get-up. I’ll either impress you with who I am and what I know, or I won’t. I don’t much care otherwise.

So, why do I bring this up? Well, Steve Bannon does something that really, really impresses me, and would almost make me like him, if he wasn’t all the stuff I said above- he does not dress to impress anyone. He doesn’t care. He looks like any normal, common guy you’d meet on the streets. I think that is actually really cool. If Steve Bannon didn’t run Breitbart and the Trump White House, I’d actually want to shake his hand for this.

As Bannon spoke to CPAC last week, only two things ran through my mind- I hate this guy with a burning passion, and he looks like he doesn’t belong there. The first means I’d like to punch him in the face, the second means I think he’s doing to DC exactly what it deserves to have done to it- bring it down a notch. Enough with the suit and tie game, enough with the appearances of being important, and let’s actually do work there- unless you’re Steve Bannon. If you’re Steve Bannon, I still hate you.

The Relationship Between Consultants and the Democratic Party

A popular attack on the DNC and Democratic state-level party organizations lately has been that the consultants “run” the party. Of course, you hire consultants to help chart your path forward, so to a certain level this is true. It’s not true though in the way that those using it believe it is.

Not all “firms” are equal. Most political staffers who plan to hang around long enough will eventually form an LLC of some kind. Some times it’s just them, some times they have partners, either way it makes a lot of sense for a political staffer to have a company. First, it offers them legitimacy. Second, many political staffers are paid as contractors, because the job has a term of life- and so having an LLC saves them money on taxes. Third, they sometimes need a way around “exclusive services” clauses, and this offers them an option. Finally, there is the utility of having a company- sometimes you have a specific skill, be it social media, writing field plans, or doing direct mail, and you want to do that skill aside from whatever campaign you are officially working on, possibly with other partners who are also off doing their own thing. There are lots of reasons that political staffers would have a “firm,” and would therefore get paid there, especially if you are working for a state or national party.

Much of the party’s money they receive isn’t for them, it’s for the campaigns running under them. Presidential campaigns will usually run their payroll and much of their operation through the state parties and DNC, as will statewide candidates for Senate and Governor. The DSCC and DCCC tend to run their funding for campaign operations on the ground through the relevant state party. Legislative caucuses will sometimes do so as well. Most of the money that state parties “raise” and then “spend” on consultants was never meant for their operations, and is being spent on the behalf of campaigns running in their states. Campaigns simply can’t absorb the kind of employment costs they would otherwise have to pay for. The consultants being paid are hired by the campaigns.

Almost all direct mail is run through the party. State and national parties have the ability to pay non-profit costs for bulk mail, and campaigns save tens of thousands of dollars every year by using that rate. State parties send the mail out and pay for it, and campaigns reimburse them. While state parties “receive” that money, they can’t use it on other things. They are paying mail consultants for work on the behalf of others.

Now, all of this may seem odd to someone on the outside, and it is. It is not some sort of scheme though to send the hard-earned donations of millions of Democrats around the country to a bunch of rich, greedy consultants. While that may be a convenient narrative for people who want to demonize “the establishment” in hopes that it can fall and they can take over, it’s just a story that is made up outside of reality.

The O.J. Trial as the 2016 Election of the 1990's

Sexism. Celebrity. Racism. Money. Media. Science denial. Ignoring past bad behavior. Over-scrutinizing the woman on the other side. A famous, bad man, with his team of loud and colorful characters beating a qualified, smart woman. If this sounds like the 2016 election, it was. If it sounds like the O.J. Simpson Trial- yes, it was that too.

Two decades before Hillary Clinton’s landmark campaign for the Presidency fell short by about 80,000 votes in three states against Donald Trump, a very similar battle played out in Los Angeles, CA. O.J. Simpson, who had a history of spousal abuse, a DNA match with blood at the scene, a motive, and the means to have committed the murder of his ex-wife, was acquitted by a jury of his peers because none of that mattered in the circus-atmosphere his trial created. Simpson won on power of personalities, clouding the facts of the case, and playing on the insecurities of his audience- sound familiar?

Much like Hillary Clinton in 2016, hindsight tells us that Marcia Clark never had a chance. Oh sure, both started as close to locks in the minds of the public, and still both were never really given a fair hearing. Like with Clinton, Clark’s “tough woman” persona was used against her, putting not her competency on trial, but how she made people feel. Just as insignificant, stupid things like the tone of Clinton’s voice and what she wore were used against her, Marcia Clark faced the double standard in appearance and tone too. For Hillary it was her e-mails, for Clark it was naked pictures that her ex-husband sold to the tabloids, both perfectly legal and totally insignificant things, but things that were used to tarnish the reputation of the woman in question. Both were given slam-dunk cases that they couldn’t possibly lose, at least in the eyes of the punditry. Both were never given any shot at all in the way they were covered.

Then there was O.J. and Trump themselves. Both were wealthy and extremely famous. In fact, they remain two of the best known men in the world. Trump’s past bankruptcies, his “grab them by the pussy” tape, his ties to Russia, and his complete and utter lack of knowledge were ignored by a public who feels like they “know” him from his television persona, and decades of fame. O.J. was pretty similar. He had dozens of domestic violence calls made against him, he tried to flee after it was clear he was a suspect, his DNA matched, he had motive, and his timeline fit- but none of that mattered either. For many people, O.J. was innocent- because there’s no way the former Heisman winner would do this.

O.J.’s team was very similar to Trump’s very public, very vocal team, as the prosecution team was to Clinton’s. Line-up Johnny Cochran, Robert Shapiro, and F. Lee Bailey with Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, and the rest of the “Trump Train,” and you see similarities- larger agendas, willingness to lie, willingness to cloudy the waters when needed, and need for self-promotion. The two teams are very similar. Meanwhile, contrast that with Marcia Clark, Christopher Darden, and the rest of the prosecution, who like the Clinton team, tried to run a text-book case and remain above the fray of their opponents. In both cases, they failed.

There are obviously lots of other elements too. The way O.J.’s team discredited the DNA evidence against him can remind one of climate change denial in 2016. The discrediting of the LAPD in that trial could have come right out of the Trump playbook, particularly because it should have been immaterial to the case, but it ended up dominating the conversation. Much like with Trump’s outrageous behavior, the media ate up Johnny Cochran’s antics, and covered them as substance, when they were often show. Ultimately, the rich, famous man won despite all of his flaws, while the competent, qualified woman lost- despite her fairly obvious strengths. Media coverage focused so much on the outrageous and over-the-top, and not so much on the substance of the discussion.

There is an 8,000 pound gorilla in this room that has to be mentioned, which is of course race. O.J. Simpson is an African-American man, and that played a huge role in the trial. Donald Trump is a racist, old white man, and that played a huge role in the election. There is probably little overlap in their support in the public, if I had to guess, yet they employed the same playbook in using race. For O.J., they played on distrust of the system, the white DA, the police, and even the victims, in a way that hit at deep fears among African-Americans about how they were treated by the police, which clouded their view of how he was. Donald Trump played on the fears of white people that President Obama’s term had marked the end of their country and way of life, and that Clinton would continue to erode their basic view of society and the world. While they both played to different audiences, they essentially played the same game of stoking fears and distrust among people who generally weren’t really racial separatists.

There is a sad outcome, one that we already know about the case, and one that I am fairly confident in predicting about Trump- nothing good comes of either instance. O.J. Simpson was hit hard financially by paying for his “Dream Team” defense, and more so by his loss in the Civil case that followed, which he lost. He tried different stunts after that to get his hands on money, but ultimately ended up attempting armed robbery in Las Vegas to get memorabilia of his back, and now is sitting in jail as he ages away. Donald Trump is sitting in the White House now, a place he knows literally nothing about, signing executive orders to ban Muslims and tear apart the government he leads. He’s being rebuked by courts, and in time will probably be rebuked by voters, and his own political party. He won’t bring back factory jobs, mines, or the “great America” that his supporters imagine to have existed in the past, and he’ll be regarded as a failure. No, Donald Trump has not brutally murdered anyone in cold blood, and so there is a real difference in these two men. Their outcomes are heading on similar paths though. I guess that will be just one more way that Donald Trump is the O.J. Simpson of his time.

Beyond Indivisible- The Democrats and 2018

Somewhere in the night of November 8th, the majority of us in America came to a realization- about 63 million people in this country were comfortable with a person like Donald Trump being President. That was a sobering thought, because Trump was quite explicit with what he wanted to do as President. Immigration raids, Muslim bans, rolling back the rights of women, a wall on the Mexican border, and so much more was spelled out by Trump during his campaign. It was all horrifying.

Along came the Indivisible Guide, the Womens March, and soon the Science March. Citizens have organized themselves together to fight and resist the Trump agenda. They are doing amazing things, and causing a political earthquake in this country- particularly as Republican Congressmen are coming home to their districts and being screamed at in town halls. Groups are fighting to save the ACA. Others are fighting to stop cabinet members. Congressional phone lines are being over-loaded by the volume coming in. It is truly remarkable.

Emerging from within it all, the Indivisible Guide is becoming the bible for progressive activists to resist. Written by Congressional staffers, it is an incredibly effective guide for how to fight back against Trump and his agenda. If you haven’t read it, do so. If you want to understand what is happening in this country right now, or take part in it, the Indivisible Guide is the best way to do so.

Eventually though, we have to get out beyond the protests and the yelling, and actually think about the most important thing- winning elections. That will start soon, particularly for people in states with state legislative, judicial, or governor’s races- places specifically like New Jersey and Virginia. It will start for the rest of the nation in just a few short months. There is a huge difference in resisting Trump’s agenda and defeating Trump’s agenda. We need to resist it right now. We need to defeat it in 2017 and 2018’s general elections. This will eventually require a tactical change from the rallies, marches, and yelling of right now, as even the Indivisible writers would probably concede. After all, their guide is “A Practical guide for resisting the Trump Agenda.” We hope to soon not have to resist it anymore.

Here’s a little truth for everyone in the streets right now- we’re underdogs in 2018. There is just one Republican Senator, out of only eight total, who has to run for re-election in a state that Hillary Clinton won. Democrats have to win three Senate seats. In addition to defeating Dean Heller in Nevada, Democrats will desperately need to contest states like Arizona (Jeff Flake) and Texas (Ted Cruz), that are admittedly long-shots. The Senate is going to be really hard.

The House offers a better opportunity, if Democratic activists can swallow a little bit of the “electable” pill for 2018. Democrats need 24 seats, and there are 23 seats that Hillary won who currently have Republican Congressmen. These are not seats situated in the urban areas that are home to our liberal, Bernie base, or our minority driven Hillary/Obama base either. These are largely white, highly educated, traditionally Republican seats. These are seats like Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional district, mostly based in Delaware County and held by former U.S. Attorney Pat Meehan, or Pennsylvania’s 6th Congressional District, stretching across Chester and Montgomery County, held by former Chester County Commissioner Ryan Costello. They are districts like New Jersey’s 7th district, held by former State Senator and current Congressman Leonard Lance, someone who spent years crafting their “moderate” image. These districts aren’t “liberal” by any means, they’d better be described as competent. They’re socially moderate to liberal, not interested in deporting millions and “putting women in their place,” by any stretch, but they are also fiscally moderate to conservative, not the types who want to pay huge tax increases for huge increases in spending. In other words, the “low hanging fruit” for Democrats are white, educated moderates, living in suburban districts, who traditionally have been fiscally conservative Republicans, but are socially liberal Clinton voters, and are repulsed by Trump. Even so, those 23 seats aren’t quite enough to re-take the House, which is where some of the Bernie activism has a strong place. There are a lot of districts, like Iowa’s 1st district, Pennsylvania’s 10th, 11th, and 12th districts, and many other “Rust Belt,” blue-collar districts where Bernie’s populist economic message might be able to bring back seats that were lost in 2010 and 2014’s waves, or by re-districting in 2012 to make Republicans “safe.” To be clear, there aren’t enough of these Clinton or Bernie type of districts on their own to win back the House, because gerrymandering, but if the party can walk and chew gum at the same time, we might be able to build a majority again. The noise out of Georgia, where it seems that we’re going to nominate the activists’ candidate of choice down there in a district that doesn’t really match, isn’t making me hopeful, however we shouldn’t over-read that. Republicans lost nearly every special election in 2009, while they were trying to organize all of their activist energy, but by 2010 they won over 60 seats in the House.

Here’s my fear though- activists love protests, marches, and direct action- but the track record on that turning into mid-term waves for Democrats isn’t very good. The protests of 1968 and 1969 against the Trump of his day, Richard Nixon, eventually lead us to the 1972 slaughter that was McGovern. Everyone loved having events and rallies, but when it came time to behave like a cohesive party, we didn’t. We resisted very well, we didn’t oppose so well though. We have a bad track record here.

What I’m saying is complicated and has many steps- read Indivisible, join the protests and marches, make your voice heard, but then put your pragmatic hat on and start working to win elections in the Fall, or in 2018. Politics is about winning power, as people out of power cannot do any of the things they want, as the American left is learning now. Don’t bother re-litigating 2016’s primaries, don’t get mad no matter who wins the DNC Chair race, and don’t fight among yourselves- the small differences on how you want to regulate banks, extend health insurance to all, and protect the environment are still all tiny, when compared to the differences you have with Donald Trump and anyone who supports him. Yes, we have to accept we’ll have some differences of opinion with some of our candidates, and our fellow activists, and that’s okay. Yes, we will also have to accept that what we are doing now, making noise at town halls, marching in the streets and holding rallies, while very useful, is just a precursor to running actual campaigns to oppose the President. Politics is hard, but if everyone on the left commits to doing the right things, and not the wrong ones, we can and will defeat the disease plaguing us in Washington.

A Bolder, Smarter Left

If politics were ruled by “black and white” polling, Democrats would be set. Ask voters if they want good health care, clean air and water, good schools, and most of the other things Democrats espouse, and large majorities of the electorate answer yes. The last two Democrats to lose Presidential elections, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, both won the majority of the issues polled in the exit polls among the voters who rejected them. Both still lost.

The problem for Democrats always starts when we leave the hypothetical and stop talking about ideals, but start talking details. Generally somewhere around the point that the price tag, and subsequent tax bills, start being a part of the discussion, popularity for the programs end. When you start discussing job losses, which programs lose money to fund new programs, or the taxes to finance a new program, our advantages with the electorate on the ideals begin to dissipate. They love our ideas, they hate the costs.

One would think, given that reality, that Democrats and the broader left in general would be the party taking a serious look at tax reform and a major budget overhaul- but we’re not. Instead, Democrats have ceded that ground to Paul Ryan for the better part of the past decade, putting progressive tax reform and re-prioritizing our budget expenditures on the political back-burner while we try to argue for the large-scale domestic programs we want, even though they aren’t politically feasible. It is a hopeless cycle, and yet Democrats have literally chosen to live in this political impotency- for no good reason.

If what Democrats want is large scale new investments in health care, education, and renewable energy, and they want those positions to be politically tenable with the public, then what Democrats need to be fighting for right now is progressive tax reform and an entirely re-worked budget that shifts spending towards the programs that match our values. A Democratic Party that really wants to make progressive change would start by immediately calling for:

1. A shift in taxation off of the middle class by increasing the number of income brackets, removing tax loopholes, reasonably taxing inheritance, and generally moving the tax burden from middle-class suburbanites, and onto wealthy interests and people.
2. An end to corporate welfare, particularly for industries that use the money to cut their workforce or generally harm the health of our nation.
3. A shift of our budget priorities, away from a massive military industrial complex, and towards the bread and butter needs of our people at home.

The net effect of making this the liberal economic agenda is that we would free up more dollars for domestic policy programs, without a net massive tax increase that is easy for the right-wing to attack in an effort to win the argument without winning the merits. It would give Democrats some more serious street-cred on being good stewards of tax dollars, but also give Democrats some actual tax dollars to work with in a hypothetical future Congressional majority where we have a shot to re-write existing domestic programs, and create the ones that our activists constantly pine for.

In very rough terms, about a third of federal budget dollars goes towards discretionary domestic programs, while another third goes towards mandatory spending dollars. This leaves Democrats strapped for the dollars to make the bold change they promise the electorate, and forces them to make deals and cut corners that undermine their political argument. This is simply unworkable.

Activists don’t like to hear about pragmatism or strategy all that much, it’s a lot less fun than talking about the grand plans we have. Unlike the right-wing, we want to do things with government, not just tear it all down, and that is a much more difficult task. If the left wants to go bold, and make transformational change, we need to take a good look at the nuts and bolts, and figure out how to make things work better. We have to be the “smart” party, and stop ceding the important work of deciding how the government works to the people on the other side who don’t want it to work. We have to be smart. We have to think three steps at a time. We have to be bold. Mostly, we have to realize that government can’t do all the big, bold things that we want, because of politics, until we make government work again. That must be our immediate agenda.

Secretary of State Burroughs? USA and Iranian Wrestling Show How Diplomacy is Done

We live in a pretty messed up time. Society is divided in ways we haven’t seen in a half century, and that’s just here in America. Globally, it’s not much better. After the U.S. President made the boneheaded decision to make good on his “Muslim Ban” promise from the campaign, the Iranian government made the equally stupid decision to reciprocate- and Olympic Wrestling’s World Cup event, scheduled to be contested in Tehran, Iran, was suddenly in doubt.

Fortunately, we have courts and laws, and the Iranian public’s desire to have the World Cup of their most favored national sport won out over political stupidity. Team USA made it to Tehran. Both teams competed in the tournament and did really well. The two teams ended up in the finals. They had a really great, exciting match, which Iran won for their sixth straight World Cup title. The Americans had a few individuals win in that match though, including both Olympic Gold Medalists on their squad. The crowd was loud and intense, but also more than respectful of their American guests. They treated America’s top competitors like rock stars during the event, taking pictures, giving them ovations, and cheering them on during other matches of the tournament. If you want to believe that people are generally good, and that peace can be achieved even between rivals, you should do some googling and check out the videos and coverage. It was awesome, and it will make you feel better amidst the sea of negativity coming out of coverage of our new President.

I don’t think we can say enough about the performance of USA Wrestling in this event, on or off the mat. Jordan Burroughs, a 2012 Olympic Champion, seemed to take a particular leadership role off the mat, and represented our country not just like a champion athlete, but like a diplomat- something sorely needed right now. One of the iconic pictures of the event was him taking a picture with the statue of Iranian Wrestling legend Takhti, something i’m sure did not go unnoticed by the great wrestling fans of Iran. Whether it was Burroughs interacting with Iranian wrestling fans throughout the event, David Taylor’s breakout performance featuring two victories over Olympic Champions, or 2016 Olympic Gold Medalist Kyle Snyder’s continuing mastery of the globe’s biggest freestyle wrestling stages, the American wrestlers performed like mini rock-stars- on and off the mat.

I don’t like writing something so negative, but I do believe there’s a chance we end up at war with Iran in the next four years, a terrifying outcome for people in both countries, truly something we don’t want. I don’t like to make too much of a sporting event against such a bleak global back-drop, but I don’t think we can make too much of the importance this event took on. The U.S.A. Wrestling team almost didn’t go to Tehran for the World Cup. Instead, they did, and the images of Iranian wrestling fans greeting our national freestyle wrestling team as heroes in their country went such a long way to turning the psychology of doom into one of hope. For a few minutes, you could watch the match, or look at the photos coming out of Tehran and feel hope. Sports can literally serve no higher value than that.

May I just suggest, based on this event, that the new President, and future ones, could consider Burroughs or literally anyone on this U.S. Team as a future leading diplomat, and probably be done pretty proud by their performance. If the skill needed to forge peace and bring rival people together has ever been shown by Americans going abroad, U.S.A. Wrestling just aced the test. If you needed to see a higher value in sports, a group of Americans just went abroad and showed us how it’s done.