Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

When the media starts naming their sources then I will give them some credibility. Until then they could just as easily be making up their stories as not.

That's bogus and the worst part is that you know it's bogus.

[Vampyr]

That's bogus and the worst part is that you know it's bogus.

 

Well, Trump says that news is often made up. I'm not sure whether he really believes it. The important part is that stupid people believe him.

[cherdano]

What historical ties with Europe has he dumped? Certainly the Paris Accord is not considered historical. TPP never came into existence. We are still part of NATO. Exactly what has he dumped?

 

For ldrews, "historical ties" only consists of written contracts. A true man of the law!

[cherdano]

Judging the news media by the percentage of their stories that are "negative" about someone or something is not really the right way to do it.

Yeah, this is like the NBA coach complaining "We got called for twice as many fouls as the opponents!! The game is rigged!!!"

[rmnka447]

Personally, It think you are too smart to continue to believe the BS you are repeating. You are claiming the media is proactive rather than reactive - but the stories the media covers are after the fact. Their analysis of their stories is opinion. But Trump has created his own negative publicity; the media just reported what he says and does.

 

Your complaint is about the analysis they offer - you think it is biased.

Harvard is hardly a bastion of right wing thought. So when they say the extreme amount of negative reporting about Trump gives gravitas to a perception of media bias, that's important. Then they follow it up with comments about getting back to objectivity as a means to build rebuild credibility with the public. It's about as gentle a way as possible to say to the mainstream media that their reporting isn't fair and balanced, that is, it's biased.

 

The problem is that a bias impedes objectivity and can color the reporting of the news. It reminds me of a scene from "All the President's Men" where Woodward and Bernstein were trying to figure why they got a story terribly wrong. They concluded "we heard what we wanted to hear not what he said".

 

Fortunately, most of the public is smart enough to see through the bias and that's why the media is even lower in trustworthiness than politicians.

[rmnka447]

{Thunderous applause}

 

Something tells me those "favorable" Trump ratings at Fox News Channel will decline with the ousting and sudden death of Roger Ailes, the subsequent change in upper management, and the coincidental change in the FOX programming line-up sans Bill O'Reilly, Megan Kelly, Gretchen Carlson, and Greta Van Susteren.

The more intriguing question is whether the "negative" Trump ratings will decline at some of the mainstream media outlets who are engaging former Fox personnel.

 

One of my staunch progressive friends used to say derogatory things about Greta while she was on Fox. Now he's telling how much he likes her show on MSNBC because she asks the tough questions and doesn't let guests off the hook or change the subject.

 

I'd expect a similar no change approach from Megyn Kelly on NBC. Time will tell if their new venues affect a change in their perspective and approach or not.

 

As for Fox, I don't expect much change as what Trump does falls into the wheelhouse of the conservative bent of the channel. But Trump won't get a free pass, either. Shepard Smith, who I believe is one of the major news editors, has shown no reluctance to criticize the President when his actions warrant it.

[Winstonm]

Harvard is hardly a bastion of right wing thought. So when they say the extreme amount of negative reporting about Trump gives gravitas to a perception of media bias, that's important. Then they follow it up with comments about getting back to objectivity as a means to build rebuild credibility with the public. It's about as gentle a way as possible to say to the mainstream media that their reporting isn't fair and balanced, that is, it's biased.

 

The problem is that a bias impedes objectivity and can color the reporting of the news. It reminds me of a scene from "All the President's Men" where Woodward and Bernstein were trying to figure why they got a story terribly wrong. They concluded "we heard what we wanted to hear not what he said".

 

Fortunately, most of the public is smart enough to see through the bias and that's why the media is even lower in trustworthiness than politicians.

 

The Harvard study was a compilation of results - not the actually reporting. The reporting was negative because the actions reported about were negative. It's hard to report a positive about someone who continually lies as Trump does. The fact he lied becomes the story.

[kenberg]

Angela Merkel doesn't yet qualify for historical. The fact that the current negotiating game taking place upsets Europeans also does not qualify ans breaking historical ties. You are engaging in hyperbole.

 

Apparently Trump has a different world view and agenda than the liberal/left. So you reach for any meme/excuse to try to explain the difference. I think Trump simply does not agree with you viewpoint or agenda. From what I gather, he thinks the traditional approach to US foreign relationships is not working very well for the US, so he is going in a different direction. You obviously think the traditional approach if fine and that existing relationships should be maintained. But that is what elections are about.

 

Yes, I do realize this. And I am sure you realize that my designating DT as a Sunni is a little gallows humor. But here is an at least slightly fuller account of my views.

 

WWII ended when I was 6. I was old enough, or soon old enough, to catch on to the general consensus that helping with the recovery of Europe was not only right in some moral sense but also worth doing in our general self-interest. So my life, largely from my earliest memories, has been of acceptance of The US and the Western Democracies of Europe working together. Yes there have been quarrels. There was the Suez crisis in 1956. There was the Cuban missile crisis. Of course there was Vietnam. The MLF. or, as Tom Lehrer sang, "We've got the missiles, peace to determine, and one of the fingers on the button will be German". Quarrels, but families have quarrels. What Trump is doing seems like a filing for divorce. I can't see this ending well. I like Paris, I like London, I like Madrid, I like Athens. I would like us to all stay on decent terms. We don't have to love each other.

 

Trump whines, and he lashes out. After a while, others walk away. Of course this is true personally, but it can also be true in international relations. I think that this is happening. I regard it as a very bad development.

[Al_U_Card]

Yes, it would be correct to say it's historic, not historical.

Maybe hysterical? ;)

[diana_eva]

 

Trump whines, and he lashes out. After a while, others walk away. Of course this is true personally, but it can also be true in international relations. I think that this is happening. I regard it as a very bad development.

 

Trump doesn't understand why US is necessary in international relations, he thinks this is about America or about him. I'd really like to see less pieces about why Trump sucks and more about how the balance of power shifts on the international plan.

 

When he failed to say with his own mouth that US commits to protect any NATO ally if they are attacked, he gave free hand to expansionist countries to become more aggressive. And since Trump has no f clue what happens elsewhere he won;'t care that Putin builds up his rockets, or that North Korea tests missiles until a bomb drops on the white house.

[ldrews]

Yes, I do realize this. And I am sure you realize that my designating DT as a Sunni is a little gallows humor. But here is an at least slightly fuller account of my views.

 

WWII ended when I was 6. I was old enough, or soon old enough, to catch on to the general consensus that helping with the recovery of Europe was not only right in some moral sense but also worth doing in our general self-interest. So my life, largely from my earliest memories, has been of acceptance of The US and the Western Democracies of Europe working together. Yes there have been quarrels. There was the Suez crisis in 1956. There was the Cuban missile crisis. Of course there was Vietnam. The MLF. or, as Tom Lehrer sang, "We've got the missiles, peace to determine, and one of the fingers on the button will be German". Quarrels, but families have quarrels. What Trump is doing seems like a filing for divorce. I can't see this ending well. I like Paris, I like London, I like Madrid, I like Athens. I would like us to all stay on decent terms. We don't have to love each other.

 

Trump whines, and he lashes out. After a while, others walk away. Of course this is true personally, but it can also be true in international relations. I think that this is happening. I regard it as a very bad development.

 

I understand. One of the base assumptions of many people seems to be that since the US has been the major power in the world since WW2, and has been instrumental in helping Europe regain its feet afterwards, that this is obligatory role for the US now and in the future. That the US is like a daddy that is responsible for taking care of the family, even disciplining it at times.

 

But times have changed. The US is suffering its own problems, Europe is now robust with an economy approaching the US. As a result of the above mindset, the US has entered into a number of agreements that disadvantage the US.

 

If one takes the attitude that the US is simply one nation among many, and is no more or no less responsible for the world condition than any other country, then to me it makes sense to get our own house in order before trying to project our values and processes onto other nations. And it seems the US has plenty to get in order: health care, education, immigration, infrastructure just to name a few.

[RedSpawn]

Updated proverb: Be sceptical of ascribing to unlikely coincidence what you can, instead, attribute to stupidity, ignorance, deadly sin, or (usually) all of these. .

AMEN!

[RedSpawn]

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community-banks-dodd-frank-000197

 

Dodd-Frank hurts small community banks. They can't afford to devote 3 floors

of lawyers for compliance. Small businesses are having difficulties obtaining

loans.

Small businesses are having difficulties obtaining loans because our central bank has been promoting an "easy" monetary policy since late 2008. For example, our central bank is lending money to commercial banks at a low APR of 1.5%. It is more profitable for retail banks to park their money short term at the Federal Reserve Bank than to make small business loans to customers since the default risk on said loans is high and difficult to mitigate.

 

The central bank must increase the discount rate significantly and thereby make the cost of short term borrowing more expensive for commercial banks. Then banks will have a profit motive to park their money elsewhere and/or offer small business loans to customers who qualify.

[RedSpawn]

Ken, I admire your spirit, but I think you should open your eyes a little more to reality.

 

The large majority of non-violent drug offenders serving prison time are black. That's despite the fact that recreational drug use is pretty much equally common among all races. This means that the USA's drug enforcement system is racist (in the sense of having racist results). But it doesn't make any single human being racist, even if they are part of this system.

 

Now consider Jeff Sessions. There is a broad consensus (among conservatives and liberals) that in the US, most prison terms for non-violent offenders are too long. Here comes Jeff Sessions, and specifically asks his prosecutors to seek the maximal possible sentences. Combined with the reality described in the previous paragraph, that request will have racially disparate results.

 

Does that make Jeff Sessions a racist? No, he could just be cranky 71-year old law and order guy.

 

But now consider who Jeff Sessions is. He grew up in post-war Alabama, and lived there most of his life. He is literally named after a Confederate general. He has said plenty of racist things in the past - racist enough that his nomination for district court in 1986 didn't make it through the Senate.

 

Jeff Session was 56 when his home state struck language from the constitution that would prohibit interracial marriage. He was 60 and 68 when voters in his home state voted to keep school segregation language in the constitution. (*)

 

Sometimes, you have to allow for the possibility that the simplest possible explanation is the correct one.

 

(*) I should admit that this shorthand is a bit unfair to Alabama with regards to the 2012 referendum - there was quite a bit of opposition to that amendment that seemed to have good reasons.

Also, consider the letter Coretta Scott King wrote to the Senate opposing Jeff Session's nomination to become a federal judge.

 

Hopefully, AG Sessions has evolved since the 1980's.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-coretta-scott-king-jeff-sessions.html

[barmar]

But times have changed. The US is suffering its own problems, Europe is now robust with an economy approaching the US. As a result of the above mindset, the US has entered into a number of agreements that disadvantage the US.

We're all having problems -- the economic crisis affected all Western democracies, Islamic extremists are a threat to all of us, and global warming is "global". Working together we have a much better chance to solve these problems.

 

Trump likes to say that these agreements put us at a disadvantage, but he's just wrong or lying. The Paris Accord didn't make us pay for other countries' work, it provided economic opportunities for everyone. No one was laughing because they'd pulled a fast one on us. Now they're laughing because he's so misguided. Luckily, state and city leaders are planning on continuing environmental projects that conform with Paris, they don't depend on the US being officially in the Accord (and we won't actually be out of it until after the next election).

[rmnka447]

The Harvard study was a compilation of results - not the actually reporting. The reporting was negative because the actions reported about were negative. It's hard to report a positive about someone who continually lies as Trump does. The fact he lied becomes the story.

There's no doubt President Trump has done enough to warrant plenty of negative coverage, but when the reporting reaches the point where it's virtually all negative you have to seriously question its objectivity.

 

On the lighter side, I liked the quip by Gov. Mike Huckabee during the campaign. He said, "If Donald Trump was out in a boat, got out, and walked on water, the New York Times would report 'Donald Trump can't swim'." Cute remark, but illustrative that one's prejudices can color one's perspective.

 

It's no secret that most of the "mainstream" media espouse a liberal/progressive view of the world. But if they are to be a credible watchdog for our republic, they have to try to be as impartial as possible in reporting the news. Unfortunately, in large part, the media has not chosen to take the high road and do that. So, it's no surprise that they are viewed as biased.

[ldrews]

We're all having problems -- the economic crisis affected all Western democracies, Islamic extremists are a threat to all of us, and global warming is "global". Working together we have a much better chance to solve these problems.

 

Trump likes to say that these agreements put us at a disadvantage, but he's just wrong or lying. The Paris Accord didn't make us pay for other countries' work, it provided economic opportunities for everyone. No one was laughing because they'd pulled a fast one on us. Now they're laughing because he's so misguided. Luckily, state and city leaders are planning on continuing environmental projects that conform with Paris, they don't depend on the US being officially in the Accord (and we won't actually be out of it until after the next election).

 

Interesting political history of the US involvement in the Paris Accord: http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/03/obamas-decisions-doomed-the-paris-climate-accord-to-failure-in-the-us-experts-say/

[rmnka447]

Trump doesn't understand why US is necessary in international relations, he thinks this is about America or about him. I'd really like to see less pieces about why Trump sucks and more about how the balance of power shifts on the international plan.

 

When he failed to say with his own mouth that US commits to protect any NATO ally if they are attacked, he gave free hand to expansionist countries to become more aggressive. And since Trump has no f clue what happens elsewhere he won;'t care that Putin builds up his rockets, or that North Korea tests missiles until a bomb drops on the white house.

OTOH, President Obama voiced that US commitment, but his actions belied that he'd ever act if circumstances demanded it. As a result, he unwittingly became the best agent Putin and some of the other bad actors in this world could have asked for. His reluctance to take any strong action in support of the Ukraine allowed Russian to seize the Crimea. His lip service to going after ISIS resulted in their global expansion.

 

President Trump, so far, has shown the ability to respond to difficult situations. By launching missiles against Syria after they used chemical weapons and letting his military use the MOAB in Afghanistan, he sent a message that he was unafraid to act. That message wasn't just to the targets of those attacks, it was to all the potential bad actors. It told them they couldn't count on US passivity anymore. It certainly seemed to get China's attention, so that they couldn't disregard Trump saying "If you don't help us with North Korea, we'll take care of them ourselves."

[cherdano]

What does Ukraine have to do with NATO?

[Winstonm]

There's no doubt President Trump has done enough to warrant plenty of negative coverage, but when the reporting reaches the point where it's virtually all negative you have to seriously question its objectivity.

 

On the lighter side, I liked the quip by Gov. Mike Huckabee during the campaign. He said, "If Donald Trump was out in a boat, got out, and walked on water, the New York Times would report 'Donald Trump can't swim'." Cute remark, but illustrative that one's prejudices can color one's perspective.

 

It's no secret that most of the "mainstream" media espouse a liberal/progressive view of the world. But if they are to be a credible watchdog for our republic, they have to try to be as impartial as possible in reporting the news. Unfortunately, in large part, the media has not chosen to take the high road and do that. So, it's no surprise that they are viewed as biased.

 

It's only true of mainstream media from a right-wing pov. A less simplistic answer is that newsprint slant left or right, but in cable news reporting there are so many hours in a day to fill that most of the content is opinion - and that does display bias.

 

It's disturbingly funny to me to watch these programs try to offer balance by inviting guests from both points of view instead of determining and presenting facts.

[Winstonm]

OTOH, President Obama voiced that US commitment, but his actions belied that he'd ever act if circumstances demanded it. As a result, he unwittingly became the best agent Putin and some of the other bad actors in this world could have asked for. His reluctance to take any strong action in support of the Ukraine allowed Russian to seize the Crimea. His lip service to going after ISIS resulted in their global expansion.

 

President Trump, so far, has shown the ability to respond to difficult situations. By launching missiles against Syria after they used chemical weapons and letting his military use the MOAB in Afghanistan, he sent a message that he was unafraid to act. That message wasn't just to the targets of those attacks, it was to all the potential bad actors. It told them they couldn't count on US passivity anymore. It certainly seemed to get China's attention, so that they couldn't disregard Trump saying "If you don't help us with North Korea, we'll take care of them ourselves."

 

There has never been a perfect American president and Obama was no exception; however, to classify as a reluctance strong military action just because he adopted a model of fighting terrorism closer to the Rand suggestions is silly right-wing bias-speak.

 

The roots of Isis and al-queda came years before Obama was out of graduate school. Blaming a single person for events out of his control smacks of something smelly. It sounds as if your argument is just: at least he is not Obama.

[RedSpawn]

Okay, let's look at things Trump has actually done. I believe the following show a lack of basic ethics and/or governing competency, regardless of your opinion of his positions:

 

Appointed a national security advisor who was working as an agent of a foreign government, who then had to resign. Claimed he didn't even know about it (so much for "extreme vetting.")

Discussed a response to a North Korean missile test over dinner in his resort (so much for security).

Received a number of (weirdly expedited) trademarks from the Chinese government and suddenly changed his opinion on One China policy.

Spent taxpayers' money for vacations at a record-setting pace... and unlike Obama a lot of the taxpayer money for his security goes right into his pocket.

Rolled out his "Muslim ban" in a way that was so confusing that border agents did not know whether it applied to citizens, green-card holders, etc.

Still has a huge number of unfilled posts in his government, apparently because he can't find anyone loyal enough to him to fill the positions.

Appointed his son-in-law to a high position in government, has his daughter sit in on meetings with foreign leaders.

He's already being sued for using the presidency to financially benefit himself.

 

In terms of his campaign promises, he seems to be well on his way to fulfilling the worst of them:

 

His racist, anti-Latino approach to immigration is well underway, with parents being separated from children, pillars of their community being removed from the country, and DREAMers being rounded up.

His racist, anti-Muslim approach to entering the country has been ordered twice already.

Appointed a white-nationalist to the national security council.

His promise to create jobs has (so far) lead to a series of orders permitting oil, gas, and coal companies to pollute our environment.. as well as one month's job totals which were lauded by Republicans despite being exactly the same as Obama's job totals for the same month each of the last two years.

 

While the ones that potentially make some sense are pretty much nowhere:

 

His promise to "drain the swamp" has pretty much gone by the wayside, as he appointed a cabinet full of billionaires and Goldman-Sachs execs.

His promised infrastructure bill is nowhere to be seen.

His promise to replace Obamacare with "something great" where "everyone is covered" has become an endorsement of the House Republican plan which throws millions off their insurance in order to provide tax cuts to the 1%.

 

I think you have valid criticisms. Trump is obviously inexperienced as a politician. He has/is making a number of rookie mistakes.

 

That said, he is also addressing what I think are sorely needed changes:

 

• Limiting access to the US by potential terrorists
  
• Improving/enforcing immigration laws
  
• Renegotiating adverse trade agreements
  
• Appointing cabinet members whose job it is to reduce/improve agencies
  
• Initiate programs to reduce/eliminate regulations
  
• Modernize the military
  
• Replace a failing health care system
  
• Initiate new approaches to the educational systems
  
• etc.
  

 

As long as he continues to make these kinds of changes, I will continue to support him.

 

I would also be happy to support any other candidate who has a better persona and better political experience who will also address these issues in a strong manner. Do you have a prospect?

 

I had to put this back into the discussion. All of this is good stuff; however, we have to be realistic about what Trump can/can't accomplish in just 52 calendar days from his inauguration. He doesn't have a fire-engine red "S" emblazoned on his chest with matching cape and boots.

 

This is a government bureaucracy so the notion of a complete overhaul can't take place in that short period of time.

 

However, your discussion about the "billionaires" and "Goldman Sachs" is spot-on and ties into my post about the Financial CHOICE Act which the Senate will vote on this upcoming week===>same week as the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing with Comey. http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/332768/financial-choice-dodd-frank-repeal-gop-house/. It is mainly designed to benefit Wall Street and was crafted by the investment bank management-types who are primarily responsible for the 2008 housing bubble collapse. I still cringe on how the GOP has marketed this Act because it clearly caters to Wall Street interests to the detriment of Main Street consumers.

 

https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/financial_choice_act-_executive_summary.pdf

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/FinancialChoiceActSummary06-15-2016.pdf

[RedSpawn]

I always thought Republicans are elitist, uncaring warmongers in the pockets of big business and Democrats are wet, pandering fools promoting a nanny state in the pockets of the unions. Then there are the tea party who are bat-sh!t crazy religious fanatics who want to shut down government except for an enormous military. We could play this same game for the parties of practically any Western democracy, of course. ;)

 

Please review the Tea Party platform at the following link and please tell me which part of their platform is bat-sh!t crazy. Thanks.

http://www.teaparty-platform.com

 

Note: There may be shady characters at the Tea Party rallies but the platform seems quite reasonable and sound.

[RedSpawn]

The meaning of our rights and civil liberties has been a moving target since 1787. When I was a child in San Francisco(the most liberal city in America) Chinese weren't to live north of Boardway or west of Powell. Today illegal immigrants seem to have the same rights as American citizens. Don't forget in 1787 our founding fathers only gave those rights to wealthy white males.

I wonder if the oligarch subscribes to the ideas contained in this opinion piece by Roger Scruton, The Wall Street Journal, 06/03-06/04/2017? If so, it would explain the ambiguous immigration enforcement in the U.S. and the lack of urgency in shoring up the financial solvency of the nation-state. These concerns would be secondary to embracing the demands of a global economy.

 

We live in an interconnected world. Globalization and the internet have created new networks of belonging and new forms of social trust, by which borders are erased and old attachments are vaporized. Yes, we have seen the growth of nationalism in Europe, the Brexit vote in the UK and the election of the populist Donald Trump, but these are signs of reactionary sentiments that we should have all outgrown. The nation-state was useful while it lasted and gave us a handle on our social and political obligations. But it was dangerous too, when inflamed against real or imaginary enemies.

 

In any case, the nation-state belongs in the past, to a family, job, religion and way of life stay put in a single place and are insulated against global developments. Our world is no longer like that, and we must change in step with it if we wish to belong.

[awm]

Please review the Tea Party platform at the following link and please tell me which part of their platform is bat-sh!t crazy. Thanks.

http://www.teaparty-platform.com

 

Note: There may be shady characters at the Tea Party rallies but the platform seems quite reasonable and sound.

 

1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes.

 

This seems reasonable at first look. But keep in mind that the United States has among the lowest taxes of modern democracies! Further, when ALL taxes are considered (including sales tax, state and local tax, social security tax, etc) the middle class is often paying a higher rate than the very wealthy. Yet the Tea Party in practice has focused on lowering the already-low top individual and corporate rates, which is crazy when you consider the membership. Why do they care to reduce the taxes of the super-wealthy (who are not most of the movement, who don't need the extra cash, and whose control of politics they complain about in a later goal) when this group is hardly taxed excessively by the standards of other countries, or the standards of US history, or even the standards of other economic classes in our country today?

 

2. Eliminate the National Debt.

 

This is pretty crazy unless considered as a very long-term goal. It is also quite sensible for governments to have a long-term debt provided they are investing in the future. Companies do this all the time too, and a country can operate over a very long time horizon.

 

3. Eliminate Deficit Spending.

 

This is completely crazy and will lead to another great depression. The government needs to spend more in times of crisis (whether wars or economic recessions) and spend less in times of plenty. Eliminating deficit spending in times of prosperity is not crazy. Simply disallowing deficit spending is.

 

4. Protect Free Markets

 

Again, this depends on how you parse it. But the idea that markets should be "unfettered by government interference" and that "this is what propelled this country to greatness" is crazy. Our "fettering" of the market has lead to ending child labor, limiting work hours, a minimum wage, safe food and water, clean air, etc. All of these things helped to propel our country to greatness, and these regulations did not prevent the period of greatest economic growth in recent history (1945-1980 in the US). We have had a mixed economy for a long time and it has lead to much more prosperity (and much more widely shared prosperity) than the era in the late 1800s to early 1900s that the idea presented here harkens back to. Despite the occasional recession, the economy has also been more stable since we started "fettering" it.

 

5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States

6. Promote Civic Responsibility

 

Neither of these is crazy, but the interpretation can be. For example the way Tea Party folks parse the first amendment is pretty crazy (freedom of religion means freedom to discriminate against others based on race and creed; freedom of the press means freedom to lie and deceive and complain when the media calls you on it).

 

7. Reduce the Overall Size of Government

 

Not crazy, but overly simplistic. Everyone agrees that government should be big enough to fulfill its legitimate purposes and not bigger. But there is a lot of disagreement about what those purposes should be, and the general views on this matter promulgated by the tea party ("unfettered markets" and "no deficit spending, ever") are crazy.

 

8. Believe in the People.

 

Now that "the people" have elected Trump I have my doubts as to whether this is a good idea. But it's not crazy.

 

9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics

 

Not crazy, but given that the Tea Party is funded by a small number of far-right billionaires whose goals are to reduce taxes on billionaires and eliminate regulations that prevent them from poisoning our air and water (i.e. Koch brothers) and have basically become a lobby for their sole benefit, I would judge that they have failed on this mark.

 

10. Maintain Local Independence

 

This is a statement that sounds good in principle, but local government is often the source of more "burdensome regulations" than national government. The problem is that for a high profile race like president or senator, the people usually have some idea who they are voting for and the press will hold this person somewhat to account. A race for county executive or sheriff or local school board can be more opaque as to who these people are. The local politicians have less experience and less of a staff, and often end up presenting laws which special interests wrote for them, and don't get called out on this because the local news doesn't have the resources of (say) the New York Times. I would classify this one as naive, but not crazy.