The compelling reason to fire Trump and hire Biden

Is there a single reason to elect Joe Biden president of the United States and fire Donald Trump from that job?  Is there something that clearly differentiates one from the other and provides a compelling reason for change?  I believe there is.

For those who look to the future, the presidency of Donald Trump provides a multitude of reasons that scream for a change:  chaotic and ineffectual pandemic response, degraded support for public health capabilities, working to destroy the Affordable Care Act without having a replacement, disrespecting allies and subverting international alliances that have fostered American security and prosperity; these are just some of them.  It is not enough for his campaign to say that he has occasionally been part of a positive this-or-that.  Twice a day a broken clock is right, but it is still broken. 

Overall, Trump's presidency is a failure, and there's no reason to think that a re-elected Donald Trump would do anything differently -- he is on record as saying "I will never change."  As president, Trump is as broken as any person can be, with only one or two prior presidents who might be competitive in a broken-president contest (no one reading this was alive during their times).  

Trump has failed to accomplish any major effort to bring positive results to the majority of Americans.  His two touted major accomplishments -- changes to the Federal income tax codes, and appointments of Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices -- are successful only for the supporting special interests.  The great majority of the income tax benefits have flowed to the wealthiest individuals -- some were specially targeted at real estate developers, such as Trump himself -- and to large corporations, without producing the promised long-term structural investments.  The more-conservative judiciary is the result of appointments by a president who lost the popular vote by millions and has never tried to reach out to the larger part of the U.S. population.  That cannot bode well for the future.

As significant as are those failures, the compelling reason to fire Trump is something that is even worse.  It is the things done by Trump that damage the fundamental structure of American democracy.

The presidency of Donald Trump has diminished the United States of America, both domestically and in the eyes of the rest of the world.  This has been made crystal-clear by his repeated refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of presidential power should he lose the election.  In fact, he maintains that his victory is inevitable because the "only way" he can lose is if the Democrats "steal" the election.  These are the words of an autocrat or a dictator, not of a legitimate president of a democracy.

Curious to learn of reaction to this from somebody whose politics are right-of-center and who is what might be called "traditional Republican," I sought out a recent column by Ross Douthat (12/10/2020 at nytimes.com).  Douthat -- not a Trump fan -- is searing in his assessment.  He says that ultimately this will come to little, if anything, because Trump is a "weakling" president, and a "corrupt incompetent who poses as a strongman on Twitter."  Those are among Douthat's milder comments.

Having said similar things, I cannot disagree.  If Trump were a confident, secure leader he would not be saying over and over again that he, not Hillary Clinton, really won the popular vote in 2016 because of "millions" of illegal votes cast and counted; oddly, apparently and incredibly, every single one of those, in Trump's telling it, was for Clinton.  

Let's remember that one of Trump's first official acts was to establish a commission to identify and document voter fraud.  The commission disbanded empty-handed.  As also shown by independent studies, voter fraud is insignificant.  Most voters are honest people, but also numerous safeguards against fraud are built into the American voting systems.

Trump has been a weak president because he has never had a governing mandate -- the popular vote loss in 2016 denied the mandate at that point; it became three times worse in the 2018 election, as measured by votes for Democrat and Republican House candidates, when Trump asserted that people should vote for Republican candidates because "the election is about me!" -- and he has never tried to be a unifying leader who could build such a mandate.

But I think Douthat lets Trump off too easily.  There's more in this than the actions of a desperate loudmouth.  In saying he can lose only because his opponent is dishonest, Trump has announced to Americans, and to all the world, that American democracy and its supporting "rule of law" might not be the best way to run a country.  Trump is the only U.S. president to have said such a thing.

Does it really need to be said that trust in the validity of the government and the law is foundational for American prosperity and international influence?  As a reminder, at least, perhaps it does. 

If a candidate for president maintains that the only valid electoral outcome is the one in his favor, then once the election is finished how can the results be universally trusted?  If that trust does not emerge, then the entire system will be shown as a house of cards that falls in the first strong breeze.

Without even so much as a facetious apology or one of his well-known wishy-washy restatements, Donald Trump has sent a message that is heard both domestically and internationally:  The American government and its laws might not be trustworthy.  Foreign investors should view investment decisions differently, and possibly take their monies elsewhere, or at least demand a higher risk premium when going to the U.S.  Americans should prepare themselves for a less prosperous future as imports become more expensive, domestically-produced items also become more expensive and of lower quality and less innovative because of reduced competition from imports, and talented workers and entrepreneurs  from elsewhere choose to avoid the uncertainties of American governance and of the potential weakening of the rule of law.

None of this should be a surprise.  After all, how can Trump communicate trustworthiness when his 2016 election campaign was supported by Russian government efforts?  Remembering that Vladimir Putin, Russia's perpetual president, has publicly declared Russia's hostility towards the U.S. makes it easy to ask a question such as:  What geopolitical deals lurk in the shadows? 

Trump tells people at his mostly-maskless campaign events that his recent bout with covid-19 has left him immune from re-infection.  Such immunity is not yet established.  And in any case, the event attendees could become victims of infection, illness and possibly death from others in the crowd.  Trump's message is that people should support him notwithstanding the possible suffering.  This is simply a statement that the ends are so good that they justify any means of getting there.  Sound familiar?  He is echoing the ends-justify-the-means communist theory of the Soviet Union of Cold War days. 

Put all of this together and only one conclusion emerges:  Trump has undermined and continues to undermine democracy in the United States, he has diminished the standing of the U.S. in the eyes of the world, and he has displayed himself as un-American.

Presidential behaviors are the legacy that either contribute to or detract from making progress in achieving the Constitution's goal that reads "to form a more perfect union."  The United States of America is not perfect, and probably never will be.  But it can be made more perfect, even if that has to happen in fits and starts.

The evidence of Trump's years in office, and of his June 2016 declaration "I will never change!" is proof that he will never build on the legacy of his predecessors to lead towards the future.  Instead, through lying, mockery, ignorance, bullying, disrespect and divisiveness he indulges in self-absorbed delusions of grandeur.  In addition to seeking foreign alignments with non-democratic leaders in preference to those who are democratic, his public adulation of the white supremacist leaders and imagery of the failed Confederacy borders on worship of illegal secession.  

Sadly, these are the things that Trump does best.  But again, don't take just my word for it.  In the aftermath of the first debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump -- in which Trump would not commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose the election, and also infamously incited armed and rogue white supremacist militias to "stand by" -- Lexington, the U.S.-based columnist of the British publication The Economist, a business-oriented periodical, has this to say of Trump's behavior:

He interrupted, contradicted and traduced Joe Biden, and sometimes also the moderator, Chris Wallace of Fox News.  He cavilled and scowled; he huffed and he ranted.  The ferocity of his claimed grievances was formidable.  It was also ludicrous.  It might once even have seemed comical, were he not America's president. . .Was there a strategy to this beyond his usual refusal to be constrained by rules and need to dominate?  Maybe not; those urges explain most of what Mr Trump does.  But the strategic implications of his thuggery look no less dire for being, in all likelihood, unplanned. . .

If the need to mobilize and manage national resources to fight a pandemic has not caused change in Trump for the better -- and it has not -- then nothing will. In asserting that the virus will "just disappear" Trump displays both ignorance of, and disrespect towards, science and the disease itself.  He shows no ability to act on any level higher than one that is staged by his urges for thuggery.

There are many reasons to elect Joe Biden as the next president of the country.  He shows he is different from the incumbent because he is respectful and will work to promote trust -- he has clearly said that if the voters reject him he will accept defeat.  That right there is the basis of democracy and a hallmark of successful leadership.

There is one compelling reason to elect Biden and fire Trump.

Donald Trump is un-American. 

###

Words and innuendo from the highest office in the land

(Thanks to guest commentator Andy Garcia for these observations on free speech -- its value, and its potential for both good and bad outcomes.)

For those of us who have sat in locker rooms and listened to a coach’s emotional call to action or have heard patriotic words from commanding officers calling us to duty or who have read a poem and been touched to the bone, we know the power of words.  They are instruments that can appeal to our intellect and our emotions with the same facility. They can stir our passions for good or evil.  

Words spoken in a crowd can cause rational and compassionate citizens to forsake their reason and stampede for the door, trampling everything and anybody standing in their way.  Words can touch our hearts and make us risk our very lives for the sake of another’s. When we hear words dripping with anger and hatred, bigotry and self righteous emotion, we know these words can cause damage. We know from our common sense and personal experience that words intended to stir anger and resentment can trigger action that is both violent and reprehensible.  

We as a country took part in the most devastating war the world has ever known, costing an estimated 60 million lives worldwide, because of  the hateful words spoken by a monster who was able to convince a nation that some of its citizens were superior to others and that some among them were not fit to live.  We have seen the pictures.    

We live in a country that values free speech.  This principle is codified in our Constitution and has been defended again and again in our courts and on battlefields around the world.  But free speech comes at a cost.  We allow the skinheads and the bigots with their tattooed swastikas to speak their hatred; allow the fear mongers and the extremists to broadcast their lies and conspiracy theories.  We do this even though we know it may cause harm and diminish our national civility.  It is the price of freedom and we are willing to pay it because we know the alternative is worse.  

But the power of words cannot be ignored and the right of extremists to spread bitterness and intolerance does not mean that the rest of us must sit silent against them, even when their appeal to hatred and call for violence is by innuendo and insinuation, even when it comes from the highest office in the land. 

###

 

About the United States Postal Service and Woodburn, Iowa

("That a line of posts be appointed under the direction of the Postmaster general, from Falmouth in New England to Savannah in Georgia, with as many cross posts as he shall think fit."  -- Second Continental Congress, July 26, 1775.

 

Guest author Guy Heston has written the following about the value of the United States Postal Service.)

My father was born and grew up in Woodburn, Iowa, joined the Navy at 17, served in Korea, and eventually settled in California, where I grew up. From time to time our family would pile into the car and take a road trip to Iowa, which might explain why to this day I love road trips and budget motels.

Woodburn is a classic small Midwestern town, beautifully nestled among rolling hills roughly one mile off the state highway. It got its start as a railroad town and its peak population in the early 1900’s was 400 or so. There are towns like this all across America.

There was a grocery store, gas station, meat locker, country school, lumber yard, tavern, telephone exchange, three churches, and a United States Post Office. All of the basic things you need to keep a small town and nearby farms up and running.

The last time I went to Woodburn was two years ago on an Iowa road trip. The grocery store, gas station, meat locker, school and lumber yard were gone. The Disciples of Christ church was still serving its congregants and had helped to restore the closed Catholic church to save the building for posterity. The Methodist church had long ago fallen in a fire. The population had dropped to less than 200. As far as I could see there were two active businesses, the tavern and the post office. If you needed food it was an 11-mile drive to the Hy-Vee grocery store in Osceola.

And there it was on Sigler St., the main street of Woodburn—the United States Postal Service’s small but neatly maintained building, only open two hours a day, but connecting each and every resident of Woodburn and the many nearby farms to the USA and the world, fulfilling the mission of the USPS.

Putting aside the controversy over mail-in ballots, President Trump seems to think this is yet another case where a mega-rich private sector person (who also happens to be a mega-donor to the Trump campaign) can come in and run a government agency more efficiently from day one. So we have Postmaster General Louis DeJoy in charge of our mail.

In my more than 30 years in public service I was often the recipient of this particular arrow: You bureaucrats should be fired and the private sector can do this at half the price. It was always from a person who was angry that I would not or could not accommodate their demand.

We are already seeing the results when a postmaster general with no applicable experience marches in and tries to run a large government agency, firing people left and right and issuing orders without even taking the time to get the lay of the land and ask people with experience and knowledge about what to do and how to do it.  He could have easily learned things from someone who has actually worked for the post office and understands how it works.

Earlier this week, Congress was in the mood to ask questions about what the postmaster general has been up to, and why, according to the USPS’s own reporting, on-time mail delivery is declining.

As The Washington Post reported, “Things got plenty heated during Monday’s hearing. Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-Mass.) mentioned the many members of his family who had worked for the Postal Service and asked, ‘After 240 years of patriotic service delivering the mail, how can one person screw this up in just a few weeks? Now I understand you bring private sector expertise,’ Lynch continued. ‘I guess we couldn’t find a government worker who could screw it up this fast.’”

Admittedly, the Congressional hearing was largely political theatre, but it was amusing when Rep. Katie Porter (D-Ca.) asked Postmaster General DeJoy the price of mailing a postcard,. He did not know, bringing back memories of George H. W. Bush’s 1992 debate with Bill Clinton when President Bush admitted he did not know the price of a gallon of milk. And it became clear that while Mr. DeJoy may be a multi-millionaire private sector expert on supply chains, he knows precious little about moving the mail.

So I pose this question: what do we want from the United States Postal Service? Do we want it to run as a private sector business, in which case I can assure you the Woodburn post office would be promptly closed, as would hundreds of others across our great nation. Or do we want it to run as an essential public service, helping to keep America connected? Yes, most of us send mail electronically these days, but we depend on the USPS to deliver our packages, prescriptions, greeting cards and so forth. I vote for the USPS as an essential public service that should be properly funded. Room for more efficiency, sure, but still a government agency run for the good of the nation.

A final note about Woodburn. It is still a lovely town, and a cafe has recently opened. If you have never experienced small town America, now (please wear your mask) would be a great time for a road trip. Woodburn residents are right friendly, even if they don’t know you. And please keep an eye out for the local post office. It’s right there on Sigler St. You can’t miss it.

 

The country isn't broken -- the government is. It can be fixed.

Though Donald Trump is a weak and incompetent president, it is becoming ever harder to attribute his behavior to anything other than maliciousness.

This week he has floated the idea of delaying November's election.  Let's take a look at what's behind this. 

First, the president has no authority to do such a thing; only Congress can do this.  Through wars and depressions (and a pandemic) America's elections have been held as scheduled, without delay.  Since Trump did not use his usual "I am supreme and can do anything" style then we can assume that he already knew he cannot touch the election date.  So why talk about it?  More on that later. 

Second, do you suppose it occurred to him that he might end up vacating the White House and handing the key over to Nancy Pelosi?  A long enough delay might bump up against the immovable object of noon, January 20, 2021.  With no election at that point, the Constitution mandates that Trump would be out of a job -- the presidential and vice presidential terms in office are exactly four years -- and the fact of constitutional succession would make the Speaker of the House -- currently, Representative Nancy Pelosi -- president of the United States.

Third, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden warned months ago that Trump might try something like this.  Naturally, he was verbally accosted by spokespersons for the Trump Administration and the Republican party who were aghast and mortified at the idea.  They maintained that no responsible and qualified candidate for elected office would even mention such a thing.  (Their reaction to Trump actually doing such a thing?  Silence.)

None of this matters to Trump, of course, because he is simply trying to undermine public confidence in the election.  That is a shameful historic first for an American president.

It is also an indication of Trump's fear.  He fears the electorate.  He even fears public protest to the point where he had to seek the feeling of bunker-safety at one point, soon followed by having armed Federal forces disperse the protest with tear gas so that he could use a Bible and a church as campaign props.

And what about his use of Federal border patrol forces in Portland (and maybe elsewhere) to establish his "law and order" bona fides?  What has happened during those forces multi-weeks long presence in Portland? 

Initially numbering around a hundred or so people, the protests have grown to include thousands.  No roving bands of "violent anarchists"  (words used by Trump and his very personal Attorney General Barr) have been apprehended.  They don't exist.

The Federal courthouse is the center of the action, and the Federal government has the authority to protect Federal property.  However, the Constitution reserves police powers to the states and their municipalities, and Federal forces that venture beyond the boundaries of Federal property are therefore engaged in police work and so are in violation of the Constitution.  They have done so in Portland.

Also, keep in mind that these Federal personnel are trained as military units to intercept organized crime forces engaged in drug trafficking at the borders.  They are not trained in community-oriented policing.  That fact alone makes their presence unreasonably dangerous and provocative.

Trump owns any incitement that has caused "law and order" issues.  He has been president for almost four years.  The protests might not be perfectly harmonious -- unfortunately so, because then the worthwhile messages will be obscured -- but the reasons for the demonstrations are valid.

Those reasons have very deep historical roots.  But Trump has publicly worshiped icons of the Confederacy, and that has understandably stimulated what grows from those roots.  Ask yourself this:  Why would an American president celebrate traitors and those who would endorse human slavery?  The answer should be very disturbing. 

The top elected leader has the responsibility to reach out to others for understanding, and then to manage the development of solutions that will create progress.  But Trump fears doing so.  Reaching out to those who disagree with him would require him to change, and he prides himself on not changing.

Trump has advertised that he enjoys creating chaos.  In doing so, the Trump presidency has created disorder.  He will not change.

What about the pandemic?  Simply put, it is yet another event that has revealed Trump's incompetence at managing a complex environment.  That is apparently odd for a person who claims to be successful at business, but we don't really know how successful he has been, do we?  On the other hand, game show hosts do not have to be skilled at complex management since everything in that environment is controlled.  Which provides an insight to Trump's character.

America has a glorified game show host as president.  His incompetence is revealed by current events.  He fears the consequences.  His fearful reaction is to spread his fear by mocking the validity of the nation's elections.  Simply put, this is maliciousness that works only for Trump's benefit and will harm the country because it damages the public's trust and confidence in the government.

The rest of the world -- with the likely exceptions of Russia's and China's leaderships -- watches this show in horror.

The government is broken.

Because Donald Trump is a failed leader for a democracy, and a failed leader for the concept of democracy.

It's time that a new president be put to work fixing the government.

Why would four Minneapolis police officers ignore a man's pleas for help?

Basic human nature is to help somebody who is in distress.  We don't do this because we are civilized.  We do this because we are human.  Prehistoric humans did this:  Skeletal remains reveal individuals whose death occurred many years after severe bone fractures had healed.  This could not have happened if cries for help had been ignored.

And yet, as of this writing, the evidence shows that a man named George Floyd was brutalized by four Minneapolis police officers after he was placed in handcuffs.  For five minutes Mr Floyd repeatedly cried out for help as the four held him in a suffocating position.  It wasn't until almost four minutes later that the officers removed their combined weight on his body; by then, Mr Floyd had perished.

These officers could not find it in themselves to behave as humanely as did prehistoric humans of 100,000 years or more ago.  Why not?

Mr Floyd was a man of color, a minority.  That he was a victim of deeply ingrained racism is an inescapable conclusion.

But there should be another conclusion, which is this:  Racism in America is increasing because it is more acceptable to be racist.

People like me are on the outside looking in.  Not being a minority means that we cannot experience racism's consequences: discrimination, anxiety and lack of opportunity.  Not having experience in policing means that we cannot understand a police officer's job.

But we can still recognize that a police department is a naturally hierarchical organization, and the people at the lower levels are subject to influence and direction from those at the upper levels.  The single person in authority at the very top of the hill of hierarchy has the opportunity to be hugely influential in the attitudes that police officers take with them as they do their jobs.

Just like anything subject to gravity, shit rolls downhill.

The election of 2016 made Donald Trump president.  Trump owes his election - at least in large part -- to the visibility he gained from claiming that Barack Obama, the nation's first black president, was not an American citizen and therefore not a legitimate president.  That is a plainly racist position intended to pander to the emotions of systemic racism.  Trump's words and actions since the election have maintained and expanded that position.  You don't need me to go into three years' worth of details on this.

There is simply no other way to say it:  That's a whole lot of shit rolling down from the top.

It is not likely that Mr Floyd's death -- and those of others -- will be fully avenged in the courtroom.  Prosecutions of police misconduct are rarely successful.  Even if this time is different, racism is systemic.  It cannot be removed in court.

And, admittedly, it cannot be removed by one future election.  Several will be needed.  Peaceful demonstrations of protest against racism will and should continue.  But this year's election can make the protests more effective by removing Trump and changing the messaging from the top into something that says "Racism is unacceptable!"  That will be better than what rolls downhill now.

###

States must start now for universal vote-by-mail; Congress and White House should help

Basic good business management says that you always have a Plan B in case Plan A won't work as expected.  Good managers recognize vulnerabilities in the organization and then design and implement a backup plan to use when the vulnerabilities become disasters.

There's no reason why government shouldn't act the same way.  Especially when it comes to voting, which is the foundation of democratic governance.

In-person voting is a great thing:  It's historic, nostalgic and sociable.  It's also vulnerable to a host of nasty things, some local at the precinct level -- neighborhood power outage; flooding from a broken pipe, etc. -- others of greater scope that could be state-wide or national -- a pandemic that interferes with the integrity of an election would be a disaster of the highest magnitude.

In-person voting is Plan A for most states.  There's a good chance it will be a failing plan for this November's election, possibly even for elections beyond this November's, because of the SARS-COV-2/covid-19 pandemic.  At this point, we don't know enough about the virus to understand what danger it presents in a few months', or a few years', time.

Vote-by-mail should be Plan B for all elections.  Or, at the least, Plan B should be a combination of vote-by-mail and in-person voting.  (In some states, it is already Plan A when combined with complementary in-person voting availability.)

I have been a permanent vote-by-mail voter for 40 years, having applied for that status based on a job that required frequent and sometimes last-minute travel that would cause me to be away from home on election days.  My experience with vote-by-mail has been flawless.

California has done away with the need to apply for such a status.  Starting with this year's recent primary election, all registered voters are mailed a ballot several weeks prior to the election date.  At least four other states also do universal vote-by-mail.  All states allow vote-by-mail for reasons of illness or travel.

Wisconsin's recent election is Exhibit A for why vote-by-mail should be available nation-wide.  Milwaukee, the state's largest city, intended to have 180 polling locations; instead, the pandemic caused staffing to shrink so much that it could open a mere five locations.  Fortunately, Wisconsin enables voters to request mail-in ballots at will, and many people had done so, thereby reducing the demand for in-person voting.

Vote-by-mail has enjoyed solid bipartisan support. . .and still does, according to a YouGov report released early this month.

But elected Republican officials, starting with President Trump, are blocking the common-sense preparations needed to have vote-by-mail universally available in time for the November elections.

An absentee ballot seems to be good enough for Trump to use for himself -- he used one in Florida's election -- and he has said that such voting should be available to older voters and members of the armed forces, voting groups that he thinks will be favorable to his reelection.

For all other voters, though, Trump says that the availability of vote-by-mail invites fraud that favors Democrats.

Voting fraud has been studied extensively and has been found to be exceedingly rare.  In fact, immediately upon his inauguration, Trump started a voting fraud investigation into the 2016 election.  After almost a year of existence, the investigation went out of business, having found no voting fraud.

The only recent evidence of voting fraud came from a 2018 North Carolina congressional election, and it favored the Republican candidate.

Anti-fraud measures for mail-in ballots are available.  At the individual voter's choice, a mailed ballot can be tracked via email and text messages, as is done in California and Colorado.  Other schemes can be devised and used, too. 

For example, my wife and I decided not to mail our ballots last month (even though we did not need to place postage on the envelopes!) and instead took them to our local voting center at a nearby fire station.  There, we were greeted by the friendly volunteer poll workers, one of whom took us on a tour of the place and described the use of the voting machines as well as the security measures available to both in-person voting and mailed ballots.  Without fanfare -- and without physical contact with a frequently-touched surface, or close proximity to another person -- we deposited our ballots into the appointed vault.

As for Trump's other complaint -- well, it's just a stalking horse.  Trump's true intent is to undermine the democratic process.  The health of our democracy depends upon the availability of the right to vote.  All political parties should want that.  At this point, Trump and the Trump Republicans oppose it.

In the United States of America, the voting process is managed by the states, not the Federal government.  However, Congress and the president can and should provide federal funding to the states to put vote-by-mail in place in time for the November elections.

Voters should not have to risk their health in order to cast their votes, or fear for their safety when they do so.  Vote-by-mail is a common-sense and proven voting method that minimizes those risks and fears.  Trump and the Trump suck-ups oppose this idea to make voting safe.  Democrats support it.

Work on this needs to start immediately in order to meet the needs of a November election.  There is no good reason not to do this.

###

Memo to: All Corporate Chief Marketing Officers

(Looking for a break from the non-stop coronavirus/covid-19 news?  Read this from good friend and contributing author Guy Heston for a few smiles and perhaps a "right on!" moment or two.)

MEMORANDUM

April 8, 2020

To:                   All Corporate Chief Marketing Officers in the USA

From:               Guy Heston, Consumer

Subject:            Market Research

Hi all.  I am writing to inform you of my new policy regarding your market research efforts. This new policy, effective immediately, is as follows:  If you want my opinion you have to pay me for it. I prefer cash but am willing to accept a prepaid debit card or, providing your company has not filed for bankruptcy or been bought by a private equity firm in the past three years, a corporate check.

I know it can be hard to adjust to a new policy so I thought it might be helpful to explain why I have implemented it.

Because you keep relentlessly bugging me for my opinion.

I go to the corporate-owned pharmacy to get my ibuprofen, and my roughly three-feet long cash register receipt (I am considering implementation of a new policy on the wasteful use of paper and will keep you posted on this), offers me the opportunity to participate in a prize drawing if I will kindly go on-line and rate my experience. The prize strikes me as cheap, and the odds of me winning it seem long. Pass.

I take my car for servicing and, since I have to give up my e-mail and phone number to schedule the appointment, the dealer staff hunts me down to ensure that, if I am contacted by corporate market research, there would be no reason to rate my experience anything less than exceptional.

The place where I used to get my morning coffee would always offer a free cup of joe on my next visit if I participated in the on-line survey in which I was randomly selected to participate. Not bad. Then corporate got stingy and my last receipt said I would get that coffee only if I bought a food item. Honestly!

I go to a department store for a clothing refresh and upon check-out the sales associate flashes a four-star smile, writes her first name on my receipt, and says she hopes I will give her an excellent rating in case I am contacted by corporate (yes, they have my e-mail and receipt number, and apparently can match it with the first name of the clerk).

I visit my doctor in my new clothes (see above) for the annual physical, and sure enough here comes an e-mail survey from corporate health care asking me to rate my doctor. I have been going to the same doctor for more than 20 years, so I think corporate can safely assume I believe he’s a fine guy. Even so, just to be nice to my doctor, I fill out the survey, rating him a 10.  Two decades makes this a solid relationship, so this one’s given for free.

You get the drift, and I think you are, on a scale of 1 to 10,  making a 9.3 marketing mistake with way too much emphasis on the metrics. I imagine you sitting in a conference room reviewing said metrics, concerned and drinking strong black coffee when the overall customer satisfaction rating dips from a 9.2 to a 9.1, or excited and having donuts with coffee (maybe the fresh-ground Kona variety) and cream when the rating goes from a 9.2 to a 9.3, based on customers who have been offered a potential prize to part with a casual opinion and employees who know how the system works.

Metrics are fine to a point, so to speak, but toss in a little more qualitative data to brew up a better blend of customer reactions. I once took great heat from the management team at the company I was working for when I implemented a policy requiring all managers to spend one day either answering the customer service phones or being  in the field mingling with customers. Some of the managers were not happy campers with this policy, but I remain convinced they came out of the experience better informed about customer opinions.

Hopefully, this explains my new policy of cash on the line if you want to know what I think. Incidentally, I know you can pay cash to ask me and other consumers for our opinions—I was once paid several hundred dollars to drive new cars and pipe up with my opinions, and a few hundred dollars more to walk around a make-believe showroom, observing and commenting on mock-ups of prospective new car models. I think I used the proceeds to buy some more new clothes.

If you have any comments regarding this new policy, please let me know.

Hope everyone has a good day. Cheers!

Guy

Five minutes was it all took to be counted for the next 10 years

A couple of days ago the U.S. Mail delivery to the LeftWingCapitalist household included a mailing from the U.S. Census.  It had an "Occupant" sort of addressing, not a name.  Inside the envelope was a brief letter providing an an introduction to the 2020 United States Census, with directions for how to respond via an on-line service.  Responding would require about 10 minutes, according to the letter.

We did it in five minutes.  Not because of anything special -- no super-fast internet connection; no extraordinary keyboarding skills; no skipping of questions.  The questions were few, they were clearly stated, and the "user experience" (business-oriented buzz-words) was clean.  It was quick and easy.

There was no question about citizenship.

Here are a few census-related factoids.  You probably have plenty of time to read these while you are waiting out the coronavirus Covid-19 restrictions on normal activities.

The first known census (many years before the first U.S. census) was conducted so long ago that the Egyptian pyramids still reflected the bright sunlight in the Valley of the Nile.  About 3800 years past (around 1800BCE) a Pharaoh of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom required a census of the realm's population.  The era of great pyramid-building was past, but at least some of the pyramids would have still been covered in their finish of polished limestone to provide a mirror-like reflection of the daily sunshine.

In the U.S., we do a census every ten years.  This is a Constitutional requirement.  The first was done in 1790, and they have been conducted every ten years since.  The results of the census will determine each state's number of representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives (and therefore also presidential electors) as well as allocations of hundreds of billions of dollars of Federal funding each year (probably growing to trillions of dollars annually within the next decade).

The 1790 U.S. census reported a total population of 3,929,214; New York was the nation's largest city with a population of 33,131, or about .8% of the total.  This year's census will reveal a population of about 330,000,000; New York City remains the nation's most populous city, with about 8.5 million residents, or approximately 2.6% of the total.

April 1 is the official "census day."  The census questions are asked with respect to who is to be living where on April 1.  If the occupant(s) of a residence has/have not responded to the census invitation by or soon after April 1 (yes, the invitation letter includes a code linked to each address that must be entered as part of the on-line user experience mentioned above) then whoever lives at that address should expect to see one or more reminders showing up in the mailbox.

Anybody who totally blows this thing off should expect a U.S. Marshall to. . .no, that's not going to happen.  Responding to the census is required by law -- it's in the Constitution, that can't be changed without an Amendment -- but no law enforcement agency is tasked with compliance actions.  Instead, the extremely friendly, patient, understanding (and unarmed) employees of the Census Bureau -- mostly seasonal hires, just for this one job -- get to make the visits.  (However, the first U.S. census was conducted by U.S. Marshalls.)

The 2020 census began on January 21 in the small Alaska village of Toksook Bay.  This one was done in person, not through the internet; about 5% of U.S. households are expected to be done in similar ways.  About 95% of U.S. households will respond via the internet (hopefully so, anyway).

People who don't want to respond are going to have to be really determined because the Census Bureau intends to keep pestering them (both by mail and in person) at least into August.

This is the first time that the Census Bureau has used satellite imagery to verify addresses that have been added or changed since the last census.

Individual responses -- in other words, personal identification -- are confidential by law for 72 years; this information cannot be disclosed, and cannot be shared with other government agencies.

The census is conducted in multiple languages; the on-line version provides toggles for the languages.  It will be interesting to hear how well this works.

Five to 10 minutes.  That's all it takes.

###

Let’s Celebrate Government Bureaucracies!

(My friend and contributing writer Guy Heston has always been a keen observer of the doings of bureaucracies of all sorts.  It's good to have him send his thoughts on the subject for publication.)

Just so you know, next Tuesday is National Government Bureaucracy Appreciation Day. How do I know this? Because I have declared it so.

I always thought there was some government bureaucracy in the deep bowels of Washington, D.C., that approved national days of this or that, but it turns out there is no such bureaucracy. There is nationaldaycalendar.com, a website that makes a valiant effort serving as a gatekeeper of its officially approved national days of this or that. But anybody can declare a national day and promote it on social media, or if they've got extra money laying around, a full-page ad in The New York Times. Thus we have National Coffee Day, National Hazelnut Cake Appreciation Day, National Squirrel Appreciation Day and the quaint National Heimlich Maneuver Day. That squirrel day really fries me as I have spent many an hour trying to keep squirrels from pilfering in our back yard, but let the squirrels have their day of appreciation.

And now, thanks to yours truly, we have National Government Bureaucracy Appreciation Day—please mark your calendar for next Tuesday. Why on earth would I declare such a day? Because, having spent 32 years as a government bureaucrat (I preferred to think of it as public service) many a time I suffered the slings and arrows of public comment along the lines of I was feeding at the public trough and wouldn’t be able to make it in the private sector if I tried. For the record, I did work in the private sector and got along quite nicely; and, for the record, most of the public vitriol aimed at me was because I wouldn’t or couldn’t do what the commenter was demanding and I was therefore deemed a miscreant.

The worst slings and arrows were often, unfortunately, from the press. This is not a media bashing article, but I do wish to point out that in their role as government watchdog, some members of the fourth estate rely on tired stereotypes of government officials, assuming we are clueless, insensitive and cavalier.

Here’s an example. In his January 11 commentary column in The LasVegas Review-Journal -- he could have subtitled it “Give up your cars!” -- columnist Victor Joecks held court on his theory that global warming is highly over-rated and unloaded the usual vocabulary about government officials when you disagree with them. In this case said officials were bringing forth such proposals as more high occupancy vehicle lanes and reduced use of natural gas, which Mr. Joeck’s vehemently disagreed with. So said officials were naturally described by him as pen pushers and bean counters. 

I have no problem with Mr. Joecks opposing HOV lanes and such. But he could show a little more respect for those who work in the public sector. Pillory the proposals if you wish, but let’s not get into stereotypes about pushing pens and counting beans. There are many tired stereotypes of journalists (see Rosalind Russell and Cary Grant in “My Girl Friday”), but I’m not going to go there because it is a disservice to journalists and the country. I submit the same holds true of public servants.

Finally, now that the Super Bowl is over and our great nation prepares to celebrate National Government Bureaucracy Appreciation Day, may I call your attention to the President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, the famous expert on Middle East relations, who according to The Washington Post has created the Office of American Innovation, dedicated to improving how the government works. Speaking as a former government bureaucrat, I can confidently advise Mr. Kushner this office will require bureaucrats to run it. There is delicious irony in his creating a government bureaucracy to address the government bureaucracy.

Personally, I’m kind of fond of most government bureaucrats, such as the ones who get me through the airport safely, make sure the road gets fixed, etc. It isn’t always pretty and there is sometimes corruption and certainly room for improvement, but it’s a pretty good system in my view.

As the famous journalist Linda Ellerbee says, “And so it goes.”