ELECTRIC LIBERTY
  • Home
  • About
  • Contributors
  • Articles
  • Fake News
  • Roadmap
  • Contact

2020 Presidential Analysis

9/10/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
If you thought the 2016 was an embarrassing show of American political theater, 2020 will lower the bar for you more than you thought possible. The person who wins the election in November will be the oldest person ever elected to the Presidency. Both major party nominees have shown signs of cognitive decline and have a track record of crude, insensitive, and bizarre comments and behavior. But the vast majority of our utterly polarized voting populace will happily vote for their preferred candidate and declare that they've made a huge moral victory over the opposing team. Regardless of how we feel about the two nominees, it's important and informative to analyze probable outcomes of the election. Politics and policies aside, barring catastrophe, either Donald Trump or Joe Biden will be sworn in on January 20, 2021. And we can very reasonably predict which states will lend their electoral votes to which candidate, for the most part. Joe Biden is sure to win the coastal states of California (55 electoral votes), Oregon (7 electoral votes), Washington (12), New York (29), Connecticut (7), Rhode Island (4), New Jersey (14), Delaware (3), Massachusetts (11), and Maryland (10). So that gives Joe Biden an assured 152 votes and ten states on the East and West Coasts. However, he will win a few non-coastal states, and of course, the 3 electoral votes from Washington, DC. The Biden/Harris is also very likely to win in Illinois (20), Hawaii (4), Vermont (3), and Colorado (9). This will yield a total of 191 electoral votes for the Democratic ticket.
Let's take a look at what the Trump/Pence ticket is guaranteed. There is a swath of Southern, Midwest, and Western states that are very safe bets for the Repuublican ticket. Alaska (3 electoral votes), Alabama (9), Arkansas (6), Georgia (16), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Iowa (6), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Missouri (10), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Carolina (15), North Dakota (3), Ohio (18), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (38), Utah (6), West Virginia (5), and Wyoming (3) are quite likely to lend their electoral votes to Trump. That gives Republicans a total of 25 states and 219 electoral votes.
Now, we've accounted for 38 states and 410 electoral votes. Twelve states are still in play.

Arizona: In 2016, Clinton won Arizona by 3%, so Biden has a pretty good chance of repeating her win, especially as he is sharing the ballot with a very strong US Senate candidate in 2020.

Florida: The perennial swing state, Florida was clinched by Trump in 2016 with only 1% of the vote separating him from Hillary Clinton. He will have to work hard to maintain that lead this year.

Maine: Because Maine has two separate districts that award electoral votes separately, Trump was able to obtain one electoral vote from Maine in 2016. His lead in that district was so great in 2016 (more than 10%) that he is likely to repeat that winning performance in 2020.

Michigan: This was a “make or break” state for Trump's 2016 campaign. He was able to win in 2016 by less than .25%. Trump was the first Republican in 28 years to win in Michigan, and it will be a major focus in his 2020 campaign.

Minnesota: Hillary Clinton won Minnesota in 2016 (not surprisingly, as it is a traditionally blue state) but by less than 2%. Trump will do what he can to make inroads in Minnesota to widen his margin of success in 2020.

Nevada: Nevada is another state that Clinton won in 2016, but by less than 2%. Another target state for Trump's campaign that will not be an easy win for him or Biden.

New Hampshire: New Hampshire is perhaps second only to Maine in its likelihood to lend an electoral vote to Trump. Clinton won New Hampshire by only .37% of the vote. New Hampshire is the only true batteground state in New England in 2020.

New Mexico: The only reasons this state made the list are that Clinton didn't hit 50% of the vote in 2016 and that it was an anomaly in that election because their ex-Governor Gary Johnson earned over 9% of the vote as the Libertarian nominee. It is quite likely that Biden will win in 2020, but it will be interesting to observe how many of his voters will vote Libertarian this year and how many will revert back to the D/R binary.

Pennsylvania: This was another historic win for Trump's 2016 run and also an incredibly thin margin of victory (less than 1%). Pennsylvania is a major 2020 battleground and could go either way as it borders Trump's home state of New York and Biden's home state of Delaware. Like Michigan, Pennsylvania has spent decades as a comfortably blue state, so it may be an easier win for Biden.

Virginia: Another reliably blue state in recent decades, Virginia is another that is almost safely in the bag for Biden. However, even though Hillary Clinton chose Virginia Senator Kaine as her running mate in 2016, they only had a 5% margin of victory over Trump and they failed to garner 50% of the vote in Virginia, so it's still in play for this November.

Wisconsin: Wisconsin was a key victory for Trump in 2016 and it's another that his re-election could depend on. However, he only won by less than 1% in 2016, so it's certainly not guaranteed.

In general, I think the electoral map in 2020 will look a lot like 2016. I think it is a distinct possibility that Trump could win at least a couple states that he lost in 2016, such as New Hampshire or Minnesota or even Nevada. On the other hand, Biden could win a few that Clinton couldn't pull of in 2016, like Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin. There are a lot of factors playing into people's choice this year. The economic roller coaster of the past few years, Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic, the political theater of the Russian collusion Congressional investigation and subequent impeachment proceedings. President Trump certainly has the upper hand in having the incumbency, a strong economy minus the pandemic, and many campaign promises kept (although many that he didn't deliver on). Biden has the advantage of not being Trump and not much else beyond incredible funding and a media that wants nothing more than a win for Team Blue. His strategic VP pick will potentially give him inroads with people who may not have been so quick to give him their vote otherwise. But Trump can afford to lose one or two states in the Rust Belt. If he keeps his 2016 trifecta of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, he can even afford to lose Florida to Biden. It's impossible to predict exactly how Election Day 2020 will play out, but realistically, I'd say the only states likely to change from 2016 to 2020 are New Hampshire, Michigan, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. If Biden wins a majority of these, he will win the election. There is a slim possibility of a 269-269 split in the Electoral College, but that is a very slim possibility. The most likely outcome is that Trump wins with a smaller electoral college victory than he did in 2016. I would say there is perhaps a 20% chance that Joe Biden will pull off a small win in the electoral college. Depending how the economy, pandemic, and Biden's cognizance are doing in November, we are more than likely looking at another Trump win.
0 Comments

Statement on the Death of George Floyd

6/5/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
Here at Electric Liberty, we've written on police brutality and racial injustice in the past, and maybe not very delicately so. In 2020, there is still much to say. If you love freedom, you have to love the words of Thomas Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Throughout the past ten years, we've seen so many cases of black Americans losing their lives at the hands of law enforcement. Yes, there are many cases where these killings were justifiable. However, there are also many cases where the killings are absolutely not justifiable. And sadly, in 2020, we are seeing many inexcusable cases of violence against black Americans. Unfortunately, partisan and ideological polarization in the country cause many of us to take a side immediately when we hear about police brutality and interracial violence against black Americans. In general, I see conservatives automatically jumping to the defense of law enforcement, saying that the violence was justified and that the black victim deserved it. Conversely, liberals tend to automatically side with the victim, saying that there is no justification for lethal police force used on black people. As I find myself increasingly moving to the libertarian ideology, I try to look at the facts of each case before reaching a conclusion. In the case of George Floyd, there was no justification for his killing—the police officer clearly murdered a non-violent, compliant man. This case should outrage all of us. And the fact that the authorities did not immediately charge the officer (Derek Chauvin) with killing him reflects a huge lack of accountability in our policing system. It reminds me of some of the first cases where I found common ground with the Black Lives Matter movement.
The shooting of Tamir Rice was an occasion where a black child lost his life (for the high crime of playing with a toy gun) with no charges pressed against the officer who killed him. Then, Eric Garner was killed by a policeman for “resisting arrest” after allegedly selling loose cigarettes. He had underlying health issues, and many times told the team of policemen who were trying to subdue him that he could not breathe. Not one of the officers involved faced charges for Garner's death. For the past few years, we haven't seen so many of these high-profile cases. But, during the past few months of the COVID-19 pandemic, three glaring cases shocked the nation. First was the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery. In this case, a retired law enforcement officer and his son exploited a “stand-your-ground” law, pursuing a black jogger and provoking him into an altercation where they claimed self-defense, despite being the aggressors. It was over two months between Arbery's murder and charges being pressed against the father-son duo who killed him. Not even a month after that incident, plainclothes detectives performed a no-knock raid on an apartment, killing Breonna Taylor while her boyfriend tried to defend her with his legally owned and registered firearm. Not only did none of the officers involved face any charges, but Taylor's boyfriend was charged with shooting one of the police officers. Those charges have since been dropped, but its incredible that he was charged for shooting at officers who entered the apartment without uniforms or announcing themselves as police. He was simply exercising his right to defend himself.
From these cases, we can see that a lot of black Americans are being deprived of their right to life at the hands of law enforcement. Are they the only ones? No. Police officers kill unarmed people from every racial group every year. Yes, race plays a part in some police killings, but it's an issue of racism coupled with the unwillingness of police officers to hold each other accountable for these senseless acts of violence. It's a sad time for justice in America where we have to obtain video of a white retired law enforcement officer shooting an unarmed black man (Ahmaud Arbery) and have it circulated in front of millions of viewers on social media before the shooter faces charges. It seems like the only way to ensure that justice is served is to have a public outcry. That shouldn't be the case. Whenever there is an officer-involved shooting, it should be investigated immediately—no paid administrative leave. If an independent investigation shows that the shooting was justified, sure—pay the officer retroactively. But taxpayers shouldn't give police officers a paid vacation for shooting a civilian. This kind of “blue privilege” is why we are seeing demonstrations around the country—to send a message to law enforcement that the days of killing Americans—black Americans, in particular. Many of these demonstrators are simply exercising their First Amendment rights to assemble, speak, and petition the government. Some, however, are turning violent:burning neighborhoods, looting businesses, even destroying a police precinct in Minneapolis. Martin Luther King, III recently reminded us the words of his father: A riot is the voice of the unheard. The Black Lives Matter movement has been voicing its concern for police brutality towards black Americans for the better part of the decade, and have largely been unheard. Colin Kaepernick was dismissed by many (myself included) for his silent kneeling protests during the national anthem at football games. After years of mostly peaceful activism went unheeded, very few police procedures changed, and we are still witnessing unarmed black Americans being slain by police officers on a monthly basis. While I can't condone violent rioting of the scale of destruction we've seen in the past week, Dr King's words provide a very clear explanation as to why it's happening. Not an excuse—but an explanation.
George Floyd was killed after being apprehended for using a fake $20 bill. The message that his killer sent to the world is that Floyd's life was worth less than $20. This is why so many protesters have resorted to property destruction, unleashing damages already estimated in the tens of millions of dollars. If authorities will extinguish a man's life for $20, destructive rioting is a way that protesters can show that his life was worth unfathomably more than that. Again, this is not excuse, but an explanation. And in many cities, the violence has turned into violent assaults—civilian on civilian, civilian on police, and police on civilian. An unfortunate consequence of these protests will be an increased militarization of the police, and a more natural and mutual distrust between police officers and citizens.
Going forward, we need our police forces to be accountable both to us and to each other. Body cams need to be used by police officers to be able to review cases where excessive force is used. Guns really need to be last resort for officers, rather than being the first thing that they reach for. There are many aspects of our policing and justice systems that need to be reformed to prevent deaths of innocent American citizens in the future. Conservatives, liberals, and everyone in between need to work together to make these changes, at the municipal and state levels, because one thing we can all agree on is that police officers should not be killing peaceful citizens. We all need to be aware of the facts that racism is a factor, that unchecked police privilege is a factor, and that acknowledging one without the other is dangerous. Now is a time for our nation to come together, rebuild, and heal. We need to be willing to listen to perspectives that we might not agree with or relate to. Only through this mutual respect and dialogue can we move past our history of racial injustice and unchecked police brutality. Know that at Electric Liberty, we will always be open to your thoughts, criticism, suggestions, and ideas as we endeavor to form a more perfect Union.
0 Comments

2020 Gubernatorial Race Coverage

3/13/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
After writing about the 2020 Senate races this past week, we're looking at the governors' races this week. There is significantly less action to follow in the gubernatorial races this year. Just eleven seats are up for election. Of these, There are seven held by Republican governors and four held by Democrats. Many of these races are fairly safe and are likely not to change parties. Delaware Governor John Carney and Washington Governor Jay Inslee are two of the safest incumbents for reelection. On the GOP side, Utah is the safest seat, followed closely by North Dakota. Indiana and Missouri are comfortably positioned to stay red. There are primarily just five governors' races to watch this year:
​Montana: Incumbent Governor Steve Bullock has had some tight races in his two successful runs for governor. In 2012, he won by a plurality of only 49%. In 2016, he fared a little bit better, with just over 50% majority. And, this year, Bullock's lieutenant governor is poised to vie for the governorship. There is a strong chance that this reliably red state will switch to a GOP governor.
​New Hampshire: This state is one of the rare cases in which the governor has just a two-year term. Incumbent Chris Sununu won by only 2% in 2016, but despite the “Blue Wave” of 2018, he comfortably won re-election by a 7% margin. If he retains his support, Sununu should be in good shape for a third term.
​North Carolina: North Carolina is one of the reddest states on the East Coast However, in 2016, Democrat Roy Cooper managed to edge out Republican incumbent by 0.2%. This should be the easiest seat for the GOP to flip in 2020.
​Vermont: This is the only state other than New Hampshire where governors serve only two-year terms. Incumbent Republican Phil Scott has been elected twice in this super-blue state. First, in 2016, Scott won by 8% and then in 2018, he won by almost 15%. He remains one of the most popular governors in the country, so unless Democrats put forth a strong candidate, Scott is likely to win a third term.
​West Virginia: Probably the oddest history in this set of elections is that of the incumbent Governor Jim Justice of West Virginia. A lifelong Republican, he ran as a Democrat and won with just 49% of the vote in an election where 9% of voters voted third party. Within a year, he switched parties to Republican. Despite being a very red state, West Virginia has a streak of electing Democrats in state-wide elections, so Jim Justice is probably the most vulnerable Republican incumbent governor in 2020.

​2020 shouldn't be a very eventful year for gubernatorial races. In 2017, there were 33 GOP governors and only 16 Democratic ones. In the past three years, the Democrats have gained eight governorships, for almost an even split (26 Republicans and 24 Democrats). In 2020, we predict that Sununu stands firm in New Hampshire, Phil Scott remains Governor of Vermont, and Jim Justice holds his position in West Virginia. However, we believe that the governorships in Montana and North Carolina will be flipped to the GOP, so in January, there will be 28 Republican governors and 22 Democratic ones. Thank you for keeping up with our analysis and we encourage you to follow us for more 2020 election coverage.
0 Comments

2020 Senate Analysis

3/7/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
As the 2020 Presidential Election is simply beginning to look like a repeat of 2016, we thought we'd focus on something a bit more interesting this week. We just saw the dwindling field of 2020 Democratic hopefuls fracture, with pretty much everyone bowing out and throwing their support behind Joe Biden, crippling Sanders and leaving him with a sizable gap in delegates between the two contenders.
But, 2020 isn't just about the Presidential race. There are also an entire slate of House races, numerous Governor races, and my personal favorite, 35 US Senate races. Trump and Republicans are hoping to consolidate their majority in the Senate, while Democrats are hoping to turn the tide and continue their “blue wave” momentum from 2018. The Senate map is MUCH different this year than it was in 2018. There more than 20 incumbent GOP Senators defending their seats—many of which they took from Democrats in 2014. Democrats have only to defend a dozen of their own seats, so in terms of party composition, this Senate map is almost the exact opposite of 2018.
Incumbents have a massive advantage, and with four Senators in this batch retiring at the end of this term, all the others will have the advantage of at least ten months of incumbency, with the latest Senator having just been appointed in January. Of the twelve Democratic seats up for reelection, I would say that only half of the are really safe. Leaving six potential flips to the GOP. However, with 23 GOP seats, several of them are vulnerable, as well. Of the 23, 20 are pretty secure, leaving three vulnerable GOP Senators. Thus, we have nine Senate seats to watch in this race.

1. Alabama. In 2017, there was a special election to fill the seat formerly held by Jeff Sessions. Democrats poured resources into the race to elect Doug Jones, who was the first Democrat to win election to represent Alabama in the US Senate in 25 years. He won by a razor-thin margin because Republicans nominated Roy Moore, who faced several allegations of sexual abuse (including underage victims). If Republicans nominate a candidate without that sort of baggage in 2020, they are almost assured to win back this seat in ruby-red Alabama.
2. Arizona. This election is to determine who will sit in the seat formerly held by the iconic John McCain. After his death, John Kyl and then Martha McSally were appointed to hold the seat. McSally is running for the seat this November, but it's not going to be an easy win. Arizona is increasingly a purple state, and McSally's likely opponent in the general election is retired astronaut Mark Kelley, whose wife is Gabby Giffords, who survived a mass shooting in 2011. He appears to have a strong coalition to flip the seat.
3. Colorado. Incumbent Cory Gardner flipped his Senate seat red in 2014, winning with less than 49% of the vote (third party candidates had actually taken over 5% of the vote). Democrats will invest a lot in getting this seat back, as Colorado's other Senator is also a Democrat, who won his most recent race by over 5%.
4. Michigan. This has the potential to be one of the LEAST interesting races of 2020...or the most interesting. Incumbent Senator Gary Peters won by over 13% in 2014. However, he is likely to face John James, retired Army officer and businessman who lost to Peters' Senate colleague Stabenow by less than 7% in 2018, the closest margin to represent Michigan in the US Senate by a Republican in 18 years. Although this race is on the safe side for Democrats, we can expect both parties to pour funds into making it a battleground.
5. Minnesota. Another state that is likely to remain blue, Senator Tina Smith is running for her first full term in the seat she won in a special election after initially being appointed to it when it was vacated by the disgraced former Senator Al Franken. She did win by over 10% in 2018, but if Republicans put forward a strong candidate, it could certainly prove to be a competitive race.
6. New Hampshire. New England is a particularly hostile place for GOP contenders, but New Hampshire has been increasingly purple as of late. Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton hit 50% of the vote in 2016. The incumbent, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, won by about 3% against ex-Senator Scott Brown in 2014. With a strong GOP candidate, New Hampshire will be a Senate battleground state.
7. New Mexico. Despite New Mexico having one of the bluest Congressional delegations out there, there is a glimmer of hope for Republicans in the announcement of Tom Udall's retirement. He did win by 11% in 2014, but the fact that Democrats will have a non-incumbent vying for the seat is the best news that a Republican contender could hope for. Expect both parties to pour money into the race.
8. North Carolina. This state is on the reddish side of purple, but incumbent Senator Thom Tillis won by less than 2% in 2014, with third party candidates taking nearly 4% of the vote. While he has a good chance of keeping his seat, he is probably the second most vulnerable Republican in this set of races.
9. Virginia. While this is certainly a more bluish-purple state, the newly Democratic-dominated state legislature has been taking a lot of liberties with their legislative agenda, alienating and mobilizing Virginian Republicans. Incumbent Senator Mark Warner won by less than 1% in 2014, so he is certainly among the more vulnerable Democratic candidates for Senate in November.


If all of these seats flip, the GOP would gain three seat in the Senate. The absolute best case for Democrats is if they successfully defend their weak candidates AND pick up the three weak GOP seats, giving the house an even 50-50 split. Best case scenario for Republicans is defending their weak seats and picking up six new ones. This would give them an nine seat majority in the Senate.
The most likely outcome I see for these races is as follows:
Democrats retain Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Virginia.
Republicans retain North Carolina.
Democrats flip Arizona and Colorado.
Republicans flip Alabama and New Hampshire.

The end result being that the partisan composure of the Senate will likely not change, and in 2021, its likely to still be a 53-47 split. Granted, there are many variables that may change things between now and November, but it is hard to see a path for Democrats to take a majority in the Senate. But at the same time, it's difficult to see Republicans build on their majority. Quite possibly, this will be the most expensive set of Senate races in history, with many competitive races and tensions high as candidates align for or against President Trump. Hopefully we will provide coverage and analysis of the House, gubernatorial, and presidential races as we draw closer to November.
0 Comments

Polarized Views of Trump Cloud Interpretation of "sh*thole" Comments

1/15/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
The media is in a frenzy about President Trump’s recent derogatory comments on immigrants coming from “shithole” countries. Left- and right-wing publications were quick to pick polarized sides on the issue. Left-wing news sources (and some Democratic politicians) immediately said that Trump’s comments were racist, repulsive, and inexcusable. Right-wing sources tried to explain away Trump’s remarks by saying that “shithole” is just a colorful way of saying what we all know to be true—that Haiti, El Salvador and many African countries are in extreme poverty and may not be places that we should tap into for new immigrants. And here we are, in the middle, trying to make sense of this from a non-partisan perspective. And as usual, we conclude that both sides are wrong. First we saw some controversy over whether Trump indeed used the word “shithole.” Illinois Senator Durbin (D) told the media that Trump asked “why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Many legislators refused to confirm or deny that Trump said this, but Senator Tim Scott (R, SC) said that Durbin’s quote was “basically accurate,” according to Newsweek. Personally, I trust Senator Scott’s testimony here. I’m going to use some majorly stereotypical SJW language here, so please bear with me while I “unpack” why Trump’s words are “problematic.”

​The problem I noticed with right-wing coverage of the incident is that it focused on the word “shithole.” This reminds me a lot about how the right wing interpreted the leaked tapes where Trump referred to “grabbing” women “by the pussy.” People on the right claimed that liberals were simply offended by Trump using the word “pussy,” when liberals were really upset that Trump was bragging about grabbing women sexually who had not given explicit consent. We can look at it more broadly by interpreting Trump’s clarification that “when you’re a star, they let you” as consent. But, it’s important to acknowledge that in our culture rife with sexual harassment and more severe sexual misconduct happening regularly, it’s vital to get explicit consent before engaging in sexual grabbing. Thus, it is completely understandable that people on both sides of the aisle were perturbed by Trumps’ “grab em by the pussy” comments, and I can empathize with the people who rescinded their endorsements of him after hearing the recording. Once again, Trump’s supporters are misinterpreting liberal outrage on Trump’s “shithole" comment by saying that liberals are “triggered” by hearing “shithole.” This is not the case. Profanity in politics has been a near constant since the days of LBJ, if not longer. One needs only turn on the TV to hear some liberal late-night political commentators to hear language so vulgar. But the outrage wasn’t simply a result of him calling African nations (also Haiti and El Salvador) "shitholes". It was because he posed the question of why we want people to come here from said countries. The answer is obvious; the United States is the land of opportunity. We are so prosperous that we have always made it possible for immigrants to come here to better their lives. Even if they come from the worst places on earth, they should be given a chance to assimilate and contribute to our society. Many so-called conservatives are saying that these "shitholers" are coming here and bringing all the terrible aspects of their country with them to drag down our country. This couldn't be further from the truth. Immigrants come here more than willing to shed the negative aspects of their culture in order to pursue the American Dream. They are trying to come here because we are the greatest country in the world and they want to be a part of it. They want to come here because they DON'T want to live in a "shithole," and coming to America may be their only shot at ever escaping that environment.


Liberals also jump to faulty conclusions about the "shithole" comments. It was immediately presumed that Trump was saying that he didn't want black people coming here from Africa or Haiti. He said he'd prefer to see new immigrants from Norway. Leftist commentators could not have more quickly held this up as an example of Trump only wanting white European immigrants and not black or brown people from Haiti or El Salvador. And it was wrong of them to immediately boil "shithole" down to a racially-charged term. What do many African countries, Haiti, and El Salvador have in common? Extreme poverty, violence, poor valuation of human rights, etc. Norway is a highly developed country with a strong economy, low crime, and one of the best human rights track records in the world. Clearly, one could look at the conditions of these countries referred to as "shitholes," and conclude that they are objectively worse places than Norway without looking at or considering the pigment of their occupants.

So, in conclusion, I hope we've learned three lessons: Conservatives--Don's assume that liberals are triggered over dirty words. Liberal comedians say the most vile things and most liberals don't bat an eye. Always assume that liberals are offended by the CONTEXT of the mean words. That is usually the case. Liberals-- Don't assume that Trump or Republicans are racist as a default position. We should be able to acknowledge that people of color are living in poor conditions without you assuming that we are blaming them or hating them for critiquing their society. You often critique and stereotype poor white culture from an academic standpoint and presumably don't do so in a prejudiced way. Finally and most importantly, President Trump--Please consider the impact of your words. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be honest or "call it as you see it." I'm not saying to censor yourself in the name of political correctness. I'm saying that as leader of the free world, you need to understand that the United States is a shining city on a hill. As President Reagan paraphrased the Book of Matthew, our beacon "guides freedom-loving people everywhere." Freedom-loving people have sacrificed everything to have the opportunity to become Americans. Throughout American history, people have come here from the "shitholes" of the world and America has welcomed them with open arms. Please have the empathy to realize that Americans have enough wealth and prosperity to share with immigrants seeking a better future. This is not to argue for unbridled immigration or open borders or anything like that. But understand that the vast majority of Americans are people whose ancestors came from "shitholes." Rather than reject people who wish to pledge allegiance to our flag because of their country of origin, please continue to allow diverse people to come here and become part of the Melting Pot. Make an effort to show respect to minorities, regardless of their country of origin. And please, recognize that people from every corner of the globe have made great contributions to our country and regardless of what "shitholes" we came from, we all want to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
0 Comments

#FightFor15 Fallacies

8/22/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
One of the reasons that Bernie Sanders was so popular in 2016 and continues to be popular today is that he incessantly promised voters a host of handouts in the event that he was elected. Two of these absurd promises were offering free college tuition for most students and the other was a pledge to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. Today, we’d like to address the second of these outrageous campaign promises. First, let’s consider that the current minimum wage is $7.25 per hour—mandated by the federal government. So, Senator Sanders and his followers are seeking to increase the federal minimum wage by over 100%. This big of an incremental increase has never happened. Typically, the federal minimum wage increases every few years by 10-20%. It takes around 15 years to double. In 1961, it was $1 per hour. Thirteen years later, it reached $2 an hour. Seventeen years later, in 1991, it finally surpassed $4. Keeping with the trend, it should have hit $8 an hour around the time Obama was inaugurated in 2009. In 2009, Obama signed into law an increase to $7.25 an hour which has remained stagnant for the past eight years. Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush each raised the minimum wage twice during their tenure. Each Bush Administration saw a net increase of 27% to the minimum wage. President Clinton raised it by 21% in his eight years. President Obama, who campaigned as a champion of the working class, raised the federal minimum wage by only 11%. This is the man who infamously said “I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody”. However, had he simply continued the almost linear pattern set by the previous three presidents, he could have very easily raised minimum wage to over $8. Since the last two GOP presidents raised the minimum wage over 25% each, President Trump would be projected to raise it to over $10 by the end of his administration. We would be looking at a $15 minimum wage around 2026. Despite President Obama leaving the minimum wage static for over seven years (a span only surpassed by President Reagan), 2026 seems like a relatively reasonable timeline to hike the federal minimum to that level.

Enter Bernie and the #Fightfor15 crowd. Their message is easier to empathize with: every member of our society who works full time deserves to have a livable wage and good standard of living. However, who determines what is a livable wage and how can it be established? As it stands, it is exceptionally rare for low-wage workers to work full time to begin with. Thanks to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s so-called “Fair Labor Standards Act”, tens of millions of hourly workers are prohibited from being scheduled even close to 40 hours a week, as every minute they work past 40 hours in a week, their employers are legally obligated to pay them 150% of their normal hourly rate. Personally, I think most low wage workers would rather have the opportunity to work 45 to 50 hours at their normal hourly rate than have to work 35 hours a week or less at near-minimum wage. Many progressives argue that class mobility has stagnated over the past few decades. The argument is that it is becoming impossible to “pull ourselves up by our bootstraps” because higher education has become so expensive and yet so crucial to attaining higher-paying jobs. Simultaneously, those low-wage earners are being prohibited, through the collusion of unions and the government, from working extra hours to dig themselves out of poverty. I know I'd rather work 45-hour weeks at $10 an hour than be stuck only working 32-hour weeks at $10 an hour because my employer is afraid an extra shift might put me too close to that 40-hour barrier. I've heard a leftist argue that working beyond 40 hours in a week can take a toll on the body and actually be dangerous, but most researchers draw the threshold at 50 hours a week before demonstrable damage is done. One of my best friends is an immigrant who came to America ready to work hard to achieve some very impressive and lofty goals. I have known him for three years and he has always worked more than 70 hours a week since I met him. He travelled halfway around the world in pursuit of the American Dream and is one of the most inspirational people I know. His dedication calls to mind the words of Mohammed Ali: “suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.”
​

I won't get into the economics of the minimum wage. I've seen numerous businesses fail because of the rising cost of labor, and we can look at the numbers of major corporations to demonstrate that doubling the minimum wage would cripple a number of industries. Progressives' response will undoubtedly be that if these corporations can't afford to pay their workers a “living wage,” they can't afford to be in business. But I imagine most workers would prefer to have a job making $9 an hour than have no job at all. A $15-per-hour minimum wage would put our lowest earners (the ones who aren't laid off) above the median income of workers in over 150 countries. Indeed, currently, the median income in the United States is only about $15 per hour. It is profoundly misguided and arrogant to campaign for a $15 minimum wage. I can sympathize with the small fraction of our society making $8 an hour or less. My first job that I had nine years ago paid only $8 an hour. I would recommend that people earning so little do one of three things. First: be exceptional. If you do a great job making $8 an hour, you are likely to get a raise or promotion, or even be offered a better paying job elsewhere. Second: get a second job. Two years ago, I was fed up making so little that I obtained a second job, and then a third. If one job can only schedule you 30 hours or less, why not have two jobs that each give you 25 hours a week? Then rather than making a paltry $240 a week, you'll be up to $400 a week. Third: if you're compelled, lobby your state legislature to raise the minimum wage to something reasonable. Many state legislatures have raised the minimum wage to over $10 an hour. If your state hasn't followed suit, try to change things. If #fightfor15 became #fightfor10, I guarantee you that in the next two years, the federal minimum wage would be $10 an hour. But progressives are some greedy folks, and they want a massive wealth redistribution yesterday. Lastly, consider the fact that roughly 30% of our paycheck isn't even ours—as it goes directly back to state, local, and federal government through our taxes. If you really want more money, why don't you campaign for lower government spending and lower taxation, so you can keep more of the money that you're already making?
0 Comments

Senators Grapple with Religious Discrimination

7/26/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture

​Looking ahead to the 2018 United States Senate elections, there’s not much good news for the Democratic Party. Twenty-three Democrat-held seats are up for grabs along with both Senate Independents who caucus with the Democratic Party. Contrast this with only eight Republican Senate seats up for re-election, so 2018 will be an uphill battle for Democrats, giving Republicans the luxury of focusing their energies on about a dozen very vulnerable Democratic incumbents. While 11 of the 23 Democratic/Independent seats are in virtually no danger of being lost to the GOP, there are six Republican Senators who are not remotely in danger of losing their seats. These 17 seats are essentially not even in play. The remaining sixteen have the potential to be very contentious races. Thirteen Democrats (Plus Maine Independent Angus King) might turn out to face competitive challengers, while two Republicans might have tough campaigns ahead.

One Republican whose seat is at risk is Jeff Flake, who will be just finishing his first full term in the Senate. In 2012, Flake was elected U.S. Senator from Arizona after having received less than 50% of the vote. His Democratic opponent had gotten 46% and a Libertarian Party candidate made off with nearly 5%. The partisan results of the 2016 Presidential election were almost identical to the 2012 Senate race, which is good news for Flake. However, Flake and his Arizona cohort John McCain are seen as very centrist Republicans, (even branded as “RINOs”, or Republicans in name only, by the Tea Party movement) both having been critical of President Donald Trump. In the 2016 Senate race, John McCain, who was a 30-year incumbent, faced an intense GOP primary challenger in state senator Kelli Ward. Ward got nearly 40% of the vote in the 2016 GOP primary for McCain’s Senate seat. She also acquired an impressive list of endorsements, including former Presidential candidate Ron Paul, and radio hosts Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham. Ward has already announced that she plans to primary Flake, and given that he is significantly less popular than John McCain, she has a decent chance of winning the GOP nomination.

Senator Flake’s upcoming race made the news this week after he defended one of his Democratic rivals from a slew of Islamophobic harassment she was facing on social media. Vying for the Democratic nomination for next year's Senate race is Deedra Abboud, a Muslim attorney and community activist. Her posts on social media had attracted the typical Islamophobic response: the assertion that Islam is a "death cult" and even implying that Abboud is a terrorist. Upon learning of this, Flake apologized via Twitter for the harassment that she received and wished her well for her campaign ahead. Regrettably, there are factions within the conservative movement who really believe that all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. While I may disagree with some of Senator Flake's policy positions, I think it was noble and courageous to defend her knowing that it could lose him some votes in the election. Even more worrisome, his defense of Abboud will no doubt be used against him when he faces Kelli Ward in the GOP primary. As the saying goes, "no good deed goes unpunished", and it's sad to think that his act of kindness to a marginalized candidate may go so far as to cost him his Senate seat. As inappropriate and unacceptable as the online harassment was, it's a sort of thing that's becoming more common in elections at every level. Nearly every candidate for every important office will face hate mail, online harassment, trolling of social media profiles, etc. This is not to say that any of that is right, but Flake did the right thing in addressing it swiftly. He showed that religion is not and should not be a barrier to holding an office or representing a constituency in Washington, D.C. However, this situation brings to mind another irksome incident of religious discrimination that happened right in the United States Senate just last month.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont badgered Trump nominee Russell Vought on whether or not Vought believes in a key tenet of Christianity. Vought held to a foundational principle of the Christian faith--that those who do not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ are condemned. Sanders prodded him, saying that it is bigoted to say a group of people will be condemned for their religion. Never mind the fact that the most major religions teach the exclusivity of their faith--the idea that all other faiths are errant. Sanders concluded that Vought was an anti-American religious bigot and chose that as a basis to vote against his confirmation. Right-wing publications immediately denounced Sanders for what they saw as his very clearly violating Article Six of the United States Constitution. Left-wing publications swiftly praised Sanders for "shutting down a religious bigot". So we see a sad irony. Senator Flake defends an opponent who is being harassed, and likely he will pay the price in terms of a tougher battle to retain his party's nomination and ultimately the general election. Flake's conservative base may erode around him in favor of Kelli Ward, but it was a risk he willing to take. Meanwhile, Senator Sanders does what is seen by many as committing a Constitutional violation and his base rallies around him, likely strengthening his prospects for re-election next year.

​It's a mixed up political situation we're in, but it's only going to get more bizarre as time goes on. Let us know your thoughts and 2018 predictions.

0 Comments

Whose Lives Matter? A Discussion on BLM and Blue Lives Matter

7/17/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
​I'd like to preface this article by pointing out that police brutality is a very real issue, and that this reality is much clearer for members of ethnic minority communities. Black Americans are more often targets of law enforcement (particularly for traffic and drug violations), and are disproportionately imprisoned compared to their neighbors of other ethnic groups.

That being said, I'd like to address some of the fallacies and fabrications of the Black Lives Matter movement. It's been four years since the BLM movement began as a response to George Zimmerman's acquittal in the death of Trayvon Martin. There is some irony in the fact that a movement often considered “anti-police” was founded because of an act committed by a civilian. Many of the ideals of BLM are easy to agree and empathize with. Police officers are often too quick to use lethal force, and the result is a disproportionate number of unarmed black people being killed. I'd agree in many recent cases (Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, John Crawford, III), the police were absolutely wrong to use lethal force. If BLM only carried the mantle for nonviolent black victims of fatal police brutality, I'd agree wholeheartedly and perhaps even attend their marches. But no, BLM holds up as a martyr Michael Brown, a robber who tried to grab an officer's gun to shoot him with it. The entire “hands up, don't shoot” narrative was proven to be false, yet it was parroted by news anchors and celebrities who tried to make Brown out to be an innocent victim. Meanwhile, many black witnesses to the shooting concurred that the officer “did what needed to be done”. Beyond Michael Brown, BLM rioted in Madison, Wisconsin, after the shooting of Tony Robinson. Robinson had been shot dead after assaulting an officer while under the influence of three illegal/controlled substances. To up the ante, BLM began sharing misleading images on social media, saying that people like Sandra Bland and Walter Scott lost their lives because they had a brake light out or failed to use a turn signal. In Scott's case, he fled the scene of the traffic stop and fought with an officer (while under the influence of cocaine and alcohol). Sandra Bland committed suicide while being detained in jail after not complying and scuffling with an officer. A major issue with BLM is that the movement presumes that black people are NEVER at fault when an encounter with law enforcement ends in their death—indeed, even when that death is a suicide. A liberal friend told me that even when a black man is aiming a loaded gun at a police officer, she could not justify the police officer preemptively shooting the black man. This irrational idea that it's never justifiable to shoot a person with dark skin is one of the most glaring fallacies of the BLM movement. Yes, we are innocent until proven guilty. And yes, as a libertarian publication, we believe that police officers' job is to protect and serve, not to shoot citizens without provocation. However, being a police officer is dangerous, and citizens should comply with all REASONABLE orders given by officers. Escalating the situation by threatening officers with violence is unarguably asking to be shot. It is regrettable that BLM waters down and delegitimizes its message by mentioning innocent victims like Tamir Rice in the same sentence with violent criminals like Michael Brown. And the political and social pressure of BLM allows the families of hoodlums like Brown and Robinson to get multimillion-dollar settlements even after a court has decided that their deaths were justified.

Another huge problem with BLM is that it is, at its core, a movement based on fearmongering. For years, I've understood that my dark-skinned friends were at a higher risk of getting pulled over or profiled by police. The BLM movement has stoked the fear of the police to the point that many black people live in constant fear that leaving the house puts them in imminent danger of being shot by an officer. In stoking these anti-police fears, BLM has escalated tensions between minorities and law enforcement to levels not reached since the 1960s. This division led to the execution-style murders of two NYPD officers in 2014 by a black radical. His actions were considered revenge killings for the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown. This gave rise to the Blue Lives Matter movement, a pro-police group that channeled outrage from the killing of officers. Black Lives Matter reacted negatively to Blue Lives Matter; the claim was that Blue Lives Matter was irrelevant because violence against police was on the decline while police violence against unarmed black people was on the rise. Flash forward to 2016, and a Black Lives Matter protest culminated with another black radical shooting 14 police officers, killing five of them. So the Black Lives Matter movement (which claims to support equality and fair policing) has inspired the murders of at least seven law enforcement officers. While some BLM leaders have denounced this violence against police officers, there still exists a great deal of anti-police rhetoric and calls for violence from those in the movement.

The BLM movement also features a profound lack of statistical understanding. While millions of black families now fear for their lives due to BLM propaganda, the fact is that it is astronomically unlikely to be killed by police regardless of who you are. On average, police kill a little under a thousand people each year in the United States (1 in 322,000). The Washington Post has compiled a database that shows all killings by police in 2015, 2016 and thus far in 2017. The data show that roughly twice as many whites are killed compared to blacks. However, the white population is about six times the size of the black community, so black Americans are killed at triple the rate of white Americans by police officers. This statistic is cause for alarm, but it is important to know that the vast majority of black people who are killed by police are armed and in the process of committing a crime or posing a direct danger to those around them. The Washington Post database shows that in 2016, less than ten percent of black Americans killed by police were unarmed. Seventeen unarmed black people were killed by police in 2016, and of those, the vast majority of the unarmed victims were trying to fight with the officers or lunge at them. A handful were simply trying to flee the police, but were shot dead. Only a couple people who were compliant were killed. And yes, we should be outraged by these rare incidents. But it is crucial to acknowledge that these are very rare occurrences. A black citizen who complies with lawful police orders is ten times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed by police. In the course of a year, a black person has less than 1 in 5,000,000 of being killed by an officer of the law if they follow lawful orders, do not attack officers, and don't try to flee. BLM has perpetuated the myth that law enforcement officers indiscriminately shoot dark-skinned people. There are over a million police officers in the United States and only about a half dozen unjustifiable police shootings of black citizens annually. So, BLM vilifies the police, institutional racism, and profiling for an imaginary epidemic of shooting unarmed blacks, while fewer than one in 200 police officers will ever kill a black citizen in the course of their entire career. Further, less than one in 3,000 officers will unjustifiably shoot a black citizen during the course of their career.

To be clear, BLM raises some very important points. Racial profiling likely leads to the disparity between police killings of black vs. white Americans. The police are significantly more likely to use lethal force during encounters with black citizens than with white ones. Secondarily, police officers are often inadequately trained in dealing with mentally ill individuals (while this affects a number of black citizens, more than four times as many mentally ill white citizens are killed by police than black citizens). I can find common ground with BLM in their fight to end racial profiling, in their defense of the senseless killing of innocent black Americans, and their stance against police brutality. However, I vehemently disagree with their conspiracy theory that America is still under a white supremacist system, where the police only serve as an arm to subjugate people of color. I have personally had more than my share of run-ins with law enforcement, and I can attest that the deck is stacked against poor people, not black people. To equate those two groups is inherently racist. While BLM demonizes the police and attempts to discredit the Blue Lives Matter movement, a police officer is killed almost every week in America. Consider, in the United States there are about 33 black Americans for every one police officer, but every year, three police officers are murdered for every unarmed black person killed by police. What's more alarming is that for every one unarmed black person killed by police, over a hundred black citizens are murdered by other black citizens. BLM's campaign of fear has caused people of color to live anxiously every time they come in contact with law enforcement, but if BLM leaders were statistically conscious, they would recognize that violence within their own community is a far greater threat to black lives than law enforcement. Unjustifiable police shootings are a problem, yes, but manufactured outrage over them seems hollow when little to no outrage is shown at the daily shootings in urban black communities. BLM grossly exaggerates the threat of police brutality and minimizes the very real problem of black-on-black murder. Their assertion is that our white supremacist system thrives on mass incarceration of black males. This shifts the blame squarely onto white shoulders, perpetuating the idea that blacks can do no wrong and that they are only in prison to increase profit in white pockets. Most of us at Electric Liberty will agree, mass incarceration of black men is a huge problem. If we could reverse archaic and prohibitive drug laws and release the hundreds of thousands of men and women of every shade who are in prison for simple drug possession, we would. But the fact is, the vast majority of black men killed by police were not killed because of racism, but because they were pointing a gun or a knife at a police officer and threatening that officer's life. Black Lives Matter raises some important issues about police procedures that can be improved on. Police should wear body cams and reach for their Taser rather than their gun whenever feasible. But BLM has inspired a number of horrific terrorist acts on police officers. The Blue Lives Matter movement does not take away from the Black Lives Matter movement. Trevor Noah very articulately expressed on his show that all reasonable Americans should be pro-black and pro-police. The two movements are not mutually exclusive. At Electric Liberty, our goal is to objectively look at the merits of these movements (which is best done statistically and by comparing rhetoric from each). There is much more to be said about the causes of ethnic disparity in police killings. This is a multi-dimensional problem that BLM unfortunately feels the need to boil down to racism. If you'd like to discuss the factors that lead to the problem or some of the facets that we didn't address, feel free to comment. We'd love to build a dialogue.
​

0 Comments

Term Limits, Career Politicians, and the Octogenarian Caucus

7/6/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
Yesterday was a special day. U.S. Representative Nita Lowey of New York turned 80, and we would like to extend her our best wishes. As she ascends to the fabled Octogenarian Caucus, I thought it appropriate to take a look at the eldest members of Congress. Representative Lowey joins as the eleventh octogenarian currently serving in the lower chamber. These eleven octogenarians have been in the House for over 330 years collectively. Yes, on average they have been in Congress for over 30 years each. On one hand, I expected there to be even more elderly congressmen. As an undergraduate, I wrote my senior seminar paper on the demographics of the United States Senate, and learned that the average U.S. Senator at the time was 65 years old. I concluded that we’ve become a gerontocracy; even today, seven of the hundred Senators are over 80. But there’s nothing inherently wrong with an aged legislature. Age often brings wisdom. Also, there are over nine million Americans over the age of 80--nearly 3% of the population--and they deserve representation. A bigger concern is that seven U.S. Senators have been in office longer than I’ve been alive (25 years)—and that set of seven is not identical to the Senate octogenarian caucus.

There are 29 members of the United States House of Representatives who have been serving continuous since before I was born.
Now, initially, I didn’t have strong feelings about term limits. If people democratically choose to send the same person to Washington to represent them for three decades straight, what’s the problem? The problem is that incumbents are almost universally re-elected about 90% of the time when they choose to run for their office again. This incumbency advantage can virtually nullify objective scrutiny of politicians’ behavior (or voting record) as a legislator. Often, incumbents are re-elected even after committing ethics violations and in rare cases, after their death. Long-term incumbency leads to legislators being beholden to the special interest groups that fund their campaigns rather than the communities that actually vote for them.

George Washington. First in the hearts of his countrymen. He set a lot of precedents for presidential behavior and tradition.
He felt that serving more than two four-year terms would liken him to a monarch. Having established a new republic, Washington detested any resemblance between his government and the one he fought so hard to break away from. He was not royalty or nobility, he was a servant of the people—a fact that he was more acutely aware of than most Americans at the time. After Washington refused to seek a third term, every president after him followed that tradition for nearly 150 years. After Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected a fourth time, Congress scrambled to amend the Constitution to preclude future presidents from serving more than two and a half terms. Granted, individual U.S. Senators and Representatives don’t wield as much power as a President does, but the fact remains that our founding fathers did not intend for legislators to be “career politicians”. Many state legislatures agree with this sentiment. So far, 15 state legislatures have chosen to give themselves term limits, so about 25% of state legislators are subject to term limits. In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for states to limit the number of terms that their delegation in Washington, D.C. can serve. Thus, to create terms limits for federal office (beyond the Presidency), a Constitutional Amendment is required.

​Opinion polls show a strong support for Congressional term limits, but a Constitutional Amendment needs support from ¾ of the states to get ratified. So, while more than a quarter of the United States have already imposed term limits on their state legislatures, many more states will likely pass legislation at the state level before we see Congress move toward an Amendment. Those of us at Electric Liberty have generally a positive view towards Congressional term limits in both chambers, but
we’d love to hear your perspective and arguments for or against term limits. Feel free to contact us here or on Twitter.

0 Comments

Equal Threats? A Brief Review of Ideological Terror

6/15/2017

0 Comments

 
One of the most notable turning points in the 2016 presidential election was when Hillary Clinton said that half of Donald Trump’s supporters could be considered a “basket of deplorables”. In so doing, she asserted that over 30 million Americans are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic -- you name it”. This is a very harsh assertion, it’s almost as though Clinton considers those thirty million people to be right-wing extremists. The unsuccessful political contender, along with many of her liberal allies in the media, worked very hard to create the narrative that these conservatives are not only detrimental to the progress of our nation, but actually dangerous to those around them. Seemingly every week, a new article crops up with the intent of framing the political right as not just “extreme”, but terroristic in nature. White supremacists and mass murderers such as Wade Michael Page and Dylann Roof are, it seems, seen as typical right-wingers by those in the media. When these people committed the atrocities of murdering Sikh and Christian worshipers in their respective houses of worship, the media refused to see them as lone wolves. Even though both people were substance-dependent and mentally ill, their acts were seen as a broader trend of white supremacist violence that they could easily try to link to rising Republican Donald Trump. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is one of the key organizations that lumps white supremacist violence into what it calls right-wing terrorism. The ADL argues that James Harris Jackson, who murdered an African-American man in New York City with the intent of killing even more people based on their skin color, is part of a growing pattern of right-wing terrorism. They claim that on average, there have been six incidents of right-wing terrorism per year for the last 25 years. Notably, these incidents don’t even all translate to attacks, many of them are simply plots that were discovered or conspiracies that were thwarted. The ADL claims that there are “hundreds of thousands of adherents of right-wing extremist movements in the United States”. At least this is a more generous estimate than Mrs. Clinton’s assertion of tens of millions of deplorables.

One way that the media has shaped the narrative to exaggerate the threat of right-wing terrorism is to only count data post-2001. Their claim is that more people have died from far right terrorists since the 9/11 attacks than have died from Islamic extremist terrorists. Interestingly, the liberal narrative generally includes the deadly Oklahoma City bombing as an example of right-wing terror, but it’s crucial that they exclude the 9/11 terrorist attacks because it’s such an outlier that skews the data so far from their narrative. While we can question what constitutes a right-wing attack versus an Islamic extremist attack, the numbers are around the same. PBS did a relatively balanced piece on the issue of right-wing terror versus Islamic extremist terror. PBS claims that the two terrorist ideologies are both significant threats to national security and neither should be ignored. The news organization compiled a count of the people killed by terrorists motivated by either ideology over the past 27 years. Curiously, the article included a graph showing that from 1990 to 2014 right-wing extremists killed exactly twice as many Americans than Islamic extremists, excluding data from both the Oklahoma City Bombing and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 272 to 136
. Interestingly, the article cited that the data from 2015 to 2017 is still being analyzed, but there has been a significant uptick in Islamic extremist terrorism in that time. Over this time period, Islamic extremists killed nearly three times as many Americans than right-wing extremists had. Much of this was due to the Pulse nightclub shooting in 2016. In addition to the attacks that took place, PBS points out that of the planned attacks that failed or were foiled, there were about 35% more that were planned by Islamic extremists over this time period than by right-wing extremists. So, from this data, we’re led to believe than Islamic extremism is on the rise in the United States. Recently, Newsweek published an article based in part from the data from the ADL demonstrating that Islamic and right-wing extremism are “equally serious threats”. Shortly, thereafter, the ever-analytical Huffington Post published an article highlighting things that they believe the media overlooks when dealing with “white supremacist hate”. Sadly, while the article claims to be about combatting a double standard in media coverage of Islamic extremist versus right-wing terrorism, it really only serves to minimize the threat of the former while stoking fear of the latter. The top two things that the author claims that the media need to know is that right-wing extremist terror isn’t rare and it isn’t fringe. But to say this when it’s happening at roughly the same frequency as Islamic extremist terror is more than slightly biased. Would the author also assert that Islamic extremist terror isn’t rare and isn’t fringe? The Huffington Post writer goes on to say that white supremacist terror needs to have more coverage and not less. Why is this? Her assertion is that when a Muslim kills even a single person, he or she might be labelled a terrorist based on his or her religion/skin color. Meanwhile when avowed white supremacists kill a person (take the aforementioned example from New York City), news outlets are reluctant to label them as terrorists. This seems a poorly thought-out conclusion. Perhaps instead we should tell media outlets to change the way they cover Islamic extremist attacks. A single murder influenced by racial or cultural bias should not be labelled as terrorism, it’s simply a hate crime. One of the reasons that Islamic extremist attacks get more attention from the media is that even though they are slightly more rare than “right-wing” attacks, they generally have more casualties, and thus are more horrific or sensational, which helps media outlets draw in more readers/viewers.

It’s highly fallacious to say that right-wing terrorism isn’t rare or fringe. A lot of loud voices on the left have said that everyone who voted for Donald Trump is a fascist or neo-nazi. The bloc of voters who elected Trump is over 63 million voters. Even Hillary Clinton was kind enough to say that only half of them were deplorable. As mentioned before, the ADL only identifies hundreds of thousands as affiliated with right-wing extremist groups. So out of 63 million people right-wing people and even maybe close to a million “right-wing extremists” there have been fewer than 250 right-wing plots in the past 25 years. Meanwhile, the Muslim population in the United States is just about three million, and that population has yielded more than 250 terror plots from its extremists, however few in number they may be. It's very clear that right-wing terror is a very small fringe result of a mainstream ideology. Meanwhile, it's a little bit alarming that Muslim population which roughly 5% as large as the political right-wing is churning out roughly the same number of extremists.

​
To be clear, this article is not intended to vilify the Muslim community or to exaggerate the threat of Islamic extremism. There are millions of Muslims in America who are wonderful people and make great contributions to our society on a daily basis. I did not write this to link the Muslim American community to extremism. The purpose of this is to indict the mainstream media in its fearmongering and bias against the “right-wing” community. I concur that terrorism is terrorism regardless of the skin color or religion of its perpetrator. The political right doesn't breed terror at a more alarming rate than the Muslim community. Each group has its extremists who are not at all representative of those groups. Not every self-identifying Muslim who commits a crime is a terrorist. Not every right-winger who commits a hate crime is a terrorist. Villifying either community based on its radicals is dishunest and harmful to that community. With all of the hatred towards Donald Trump in the media, it's not at all surprising that those in the media want to label his supporters as dangerous extremists. But to push aside the very real threat of radical Islamic terror for the sake of scoring political points against a right-wing president is very troublesome. Further, over-exaggerating the incidence and scope of right-wing terror attacks is part of a false media narrative that only gives President Trump more credence when he refers to the mainstream media as “fake news”.

​
1. “Read Hillary Clinton's 'Basket of Deplorables' Remarks About Donald Trump Supporters”, Time Magazine, Sept, 2016 http://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript/

​2. “A Dark and Constant Rage: 25 Years of Right-Wing Terrorism in the United States”, Anti-Defamation League, 2017 https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/dark-constant-rage-25-years-of-right-wing-terrorism-in-united-states

3. “Analysis: Deadly threat from far-right extremists is overshadowed by fear of Islamic terrorism”, PBS NewsHour, February, 2017 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/analysis-deadly-threat-far-right-extremists-overshadowed-fear-islamic-terrorism/


​4. “Right-Wing and ‘Radical Islamic’ Terror in the U.S. Are Equally Serious Threats: ADL Report (Exclusive)” Newsweek, May, 2017 http://www.newsweek.com/right-wing-terrorism-us-has-been-constant-threat-adl-report-exclusive-612492

5. “5 Things The Media Gets Wrong About White Supremacist Hate” Huffington Post, June, 2017 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/media-white-supremacist-hate_us_593850d5e4b0b13f2c66667a
0 Comments

    Author

    George Barr

    Archives

    June 2020
    March 2020
    January 2018
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • Home
  • About
  • Contributors
  • Articles
  • Fake News
  • Roadmap
  • Contact