Hillbilly Elegy

“C’mon, don’t you think blacks have it harder [than whites]?” my friend implored me as we approached the tee box on the 8^th hole on a spectacular Sunday afternoon on a golf course on the North Shore, one of Chicago’s wealthier suburbs.  My answer is always the same, “Some.”

A few months earlier, another friend, who is black, sent me an article written by a woman, decrying the existence of “white privilege,” which reads in part,

"We constantly see it play out in our criminal justice system, where white men receive significantly less prison time when compared with their African-American or Latino counterparts for the same offense.  We've seen it in the workplace where white men who have less qualifications than women or minority candidates get the job, the promotion, or the raise because of relationships and the "old boys network."  We've seen it in exclusive neighborhoods and high-end department stores where African-Americans are profiled, followed, and presumed to be criminals despite any kind of evidence or wrongdoing."

. 

Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis by J.D. Vance is an excellent and appropriate answer to the notion of white privilege, although it is not written as one.  Vance writes an authentic and heartfelt memoir of his youth in Appalachia (then transplanted to Ohio).  His account is neither self-indulgent, nor overtly political.  It is highly personal and intimate, yet not bitter, angry or blaming.  Through his own family experience, he describes a segment of society that has chronically been left behind.

One can’t help but draw parallels between Vance’s experience growing up and that of so many blacks in the inner cities in America.  He was largely abandoned by his biological father.  His mother battled drug addiction her entire life.  He lived in a home in which there was a revolving door of men in and out of the home, so there was no constant father figure for him to rely on.  Verbal and physical violence permeated his childhood.  He was reared largely by his grandmother, who instilled values of education in him.  His family situation was chaotic, “One of the questions I loathed, and that adults always asked, was whether I had any brothers or sisters.  When you’re a kid, you can’t wave your hand, say, “It’s complicated, and move on.”  As he recounts the anecdotes of his childhood experiences, we are horrified by them, amazed that Vance was able to make it out (as with many lower class kids, using the military as a first rung).    In his story, poverty is embedded in his upbringing.  “Violence and chaos were an ever present part of the world that I grew up in,” says Vance.

And, like many blacks in urban America, the society which Vance was reared has been ravaged by the decline in manufacturing employment that sustained these communities. As manufacturing employment in Ohio succumbed to foreign competition and greater efficiencies, those jobs evaporated, leaving despair and hopelessness behind in their wake.   Now, drug overdoses in his former community is the leading cause of death.  Run-ins with the law are not uncommon.  (One of the best tweets circulated recently read, “You know you come from White Trash when you count more ankle monitors than Fitbits at your family picnic.”)

Hillbilly Elegy resonated with me on a personal level.  When my African-American friend raised the issue of “white privilege” with me, I bristled.   As someone that grew up in one of the blue collar, ethnic enclaves in Chicago, I felt I had more in common with black kids that went to public schools on the South Side than with white kids that grew up in Kenilworth and went to New Trier.   My 2^nd grade class picture shows a classroom of 52 kids (some with special needs) and one grumpy old nun wielding a ruler to keep order.   Every street corner in my neighborhood had a tavern and alcoholism and family discord abounded.   Poverty, while hidden, was not uncommon, along with domestic abuse.   To get ahead in life in my neighborhood, it was helpful to curry favor with either the local ward committeeman or parish priest.   One got you a good job if you got out the vote.  The other saved your soul.

Hillbilly Elegy widens the lens on relative social and economic disadvantage beyond race.  The relative proportions may be different, but there are plenty of whites that are similarly disadvantaged.   Regardless of race, growing up in a single parent , unstable, unsafe family is a tremendous obstacle to overcome.  After reading Vance’s book and read the anecdotes of his upbringing, you will come away with more empathy for those that come from lower class America and their struggles-- regardless of race. 

While some blacks have struggled to seek solutions through groups like BLM, others, like Charles Barkley and former Dallas police chief David Brown have advocated taking greater personal responsibility and ownership.   Barkley recently said, “Unfortunately, as I tell my white friends, we as black people, we’re never going to be successful, not because of you white people, but because of other black people.   When you’re black, you have to deal  with so much crap in your life from other black people.  “It’s a dirty, dark secret; I’m glad it’s coming out.  One of the reasons we’re not going to be successful as a whole because of other black people.  And for some reason we are brainwashed to thing, if you’re not a thug or an idiot, you’re not black enough.  If you go to school, and make good grades, speak intelligent and don’t break the law, you’re not a good black person.  And it’s a dirty, dark secret.”

Vance asks very similar questions about his own poor white culture in Hillbilly Elegy, “Are we tough enough to look ourselves in the mirror and admit that our conduct harm our children?  Public policy can help but there is no government that can fix these problems for us.”

Vance is blunt, open, and honest about his life and the echoes  of his youth that undoubtedly plague him still, “Upward mobility is never clean-cut, and the world I left always finds a way to reel me back in.”

Hillbilly Elegy puts flesh and life on the bones of Charles Murray's important book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 and raises questions about upward mobility and the American dream in a segment of society that has been stuck for generations, and shows us that these issues are not completely race based.  And he does so in a sincere voice and without an agenda.

Vance's book validates my answer as correct.   Do blacks have it harder?  Some.  Are whites privileged?  Some.  Many clearly are not.

It will likely be my choice for nonfiction book of the year.  

Choices

I come from a football family.   Most of three generations of us have played at least at the high school level, and many of us played at the college level.  Although none of us were gifted enough to play professional ball, the N.F.L. has been omnipresent in our homes for nearly half a century.  Many of the memories of my youth are tied up with the N.F.L. ---  the first Super Bowl, the Ice Bowl, the Jets upset of the Colts, and, of course, the '85 Bears.   There were the pantheon of greats that we all emulated--- from Gale Sayers, Dick Butkus, and Ray Nitschke to Walter Payton, Mike Singletary and Brian Urlacher.   There was Monday Night Football with Dandy Don Meredith, Howard Cosell Frank Gifford.  What would Thanksgiving Day be like without some team beating up on the historically hapless Lions before Thanksgiving dinner?

But all good things do come to an end and my love affair with the N.F.L. is officially over, or at least we're going to have a trial separation.  The N.F.L. has made a choice and so must I.  In addition to coming from a football family, I come from a community of many law enforcement officers.  My father was a Chicago police officer and many of my high school classmates were as well, and served this city honorably.

The dust-up started last year when the N.F.L. failed to discipline the St. Louis Rams for perpetuating the Michael Brown mythology with their "hands up, don't shoot," gesture.  And it's getting worse.  Colin Kaepernick of the 49ers has been all over the news with his decision to sit during the national anthem and where socks disparaging police that depict them as pigs.  Yes, we have a guy whose IQ is probably a just a hair above room temperature, makes an average salary of $19 million and claims to be "oppressed" (as an aside, he should try earning that kind of scratch playing soccer in Iran or baseball in Cuba).  Kaepernick, with the acquiescence of the N.F.L., has launched a two pronged publicity attack on civilized society--- demonstrating a disrespect for both the country and the law enforcement officers that provide the bulk of day to day protection of it.  The Santa Clara police reacted by threatening to boycott Monday night's game (although they appear to have backed off). Now, the Seattle Seahawks are threatening to join in on the protest on Sunday, which coincidentally falls September 11.

I have often thought of football as a place, where, for the most part, your background, circumstances, race and religion don't matter.  The only thing that matters is whether you can catch, throw, block, and tackle.  And the N.F.L. had heretofore had a great record in that regard.  Unlike baseball, there were no Negro leagues,  and coaches like Vince Lombardi stuck up for his black players when hotel owners wanted to discriminate and he pushed back against the N.F,L. when it raised issues about one of his players marrying a white girl.  Bill Walsh pioneered the minority coaches' fellowship program in an effort to get more black coaches better training and opportunities.

N.F.L. football is a place to escape from some of the realities of economic and political strife.  In 2008, when the world seemed like it was falling apart, football offered an escape hatch.  For a few hours, all that mattered was the outcome of the struggle on the gridiron-- a healthy diversion while your portfolio and home equity were in meltdown and a 2nd Great Depression seemed all but inevitable.  But now it seems that the N.F.L. has gotten into the grievance business, or at least is enabling it.

By simultaneously permitting Kaepernick to sit through the national anthem and denying the Dallas Cowboys the opportunity to voice their solidarity with the Dallas police department whose members were gunned down in cold blood, the N.F.L. is choosing sides.  

So this football season, I will choose sides as well.  I will not attend a single N.F.L. game this year, nor will I watch one on T.V.  There are plenty of college and high school games that I can watch.  I will also obtain a list of endorsements of Kaepernick's and I will not patronize these businesses.

If Kaepernick and the N.F.L. can make a statement, so can I.

What the West Needs

The world seems upside down, or at least the West is.   Europe is awash in a flood of Islamic refugees from the Middle East—a foreign culture which it cannot absorb without changing its own.  Great  Britain, partially as a result of the immigration policies of the EU, has decided to revoke membership in that club.  In America, the country’s first black president has presided over a decline in race relations to a level not seen since the 1960’s, a tepid economy,  and a Middle East policy that has abandoned the region to Russian influence and inverted  35 years of  policy toward Iran (including not paying ransom for hostages).    And instead of promoting democratic capitalism as his predecessors have done for decades, President Obama announced in South America that rather than adhere to a particular  ideological system, countries should go with “whatever works” (for whom? is always a key question).

And as Barack Obama’s presidency nears its expiration date, we are faced with two unpopular candidates to follow.  Hillary  Clinton is up to her eyeballs in scandals, with an apparent allergy to the truth.  On the Republican side, we have a real estate mogul and T.V. personality that has no experience in government, full of bombast, and given to hyperbole which he then backs away from.  He has taken a sledgehammer to two pillars of Republican orthodoxy—free trade and N.A.T.O.  Between the two, Trump appears to be more genuinely patriotic but the reality is that Clinton is most interested in raw power and self-enrichment, Trump in self-aggrandizement. 

This is a world in which our economy has not reached its long term trend line growth in 8 years, and we are being pressed by several adversaries simultaneously—Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, ISIS.  Our longtime allies are in the midst of their own stagnant growth and immigration crisis.

Not since 1930’s has been a crying need for steady, principled leadership. 

It is against this backdrop that I read Havel: A Life by Michael Zantofsky.

Vaclav Havel was the first president of Czechoslovakia in the post-Soviet era.  He was a most unlikely leader—a playwright, author, intellectual, and patriot, Havel was intimately acquainted with Czech culture…and the human condition.  He was imprisoned for his dissident activities on several occasions and participated in the Prague Spring, rebelling against Communism in 1968, and guided his nation out of the Eastern Bloc orbit during the Velvet Revolution of 1989. Under his aegis, the country was able to restructure its political and military apparatus, as well as the economy---all without major social unrest.  

What strikes me most about the remarkable accomplishments of Havel was his devotion to principles and to his nation, utterly without regard to his own ego and stature.  He was able to do so, I believe, because, like America’s Founders, he had a superb grounding in human nature and the nature of power.  His calling as a writer grounded him in these ideas.  Much of human history involves the story of individuals that overreach and grab for authoritarian power.  But sometimes history puts the perfect person in the perfect place at the perfect time, and Havel was that guiding person.  As Zantofsky explained:

In Havel, however, there was an added complexity, in that, unlike many of the greats and giants of history, he was totally free of any egomaniacal or narcissistic preoccupation with himself and his own needs.  He was the most considerate person one could find, always worrying about the welfare of others, always wary of trying to elevate himself or of exaggerating his own importance, or, especially, hurting others’ feelings.”

His character stands in stark contrast with our current president and the two contenders that would succeed him. 

Havel was a strong advocate for individuals to decide their own fate and take responsibility for their own destiny.  Having seen the failings of state control:

How many times have they pinned their hopes on some external power, which  they expected to solve all their problems for them, how many times have they been bitterly disappointed and forced to admit that no one would help them unless they helped themselves.

With state control, he also understood the lure of power and, like America’s Founders, mankind’s propensity to abuse power.  One quote in his presidency is poignant and incisive:

“Being in power makes me permanently suspicious of myself.”

One cannot even imagine Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump uttering such words.

Czechoslovakia experienced repercussions of both Nazism and Communism, and its citizens felt the iron boot of both.  He saw what happened to his country when the European powers crafted a deal to give up the Sudetenland to Hitler and allowed his country to fall within the Soviet orbit. 

“Personally, I am usually inclined to believe that evil should be opposed in its embryonic form before it has a chance to grow, and that human life, human freedom and human dignity are higher values than state sovereignty.  Perhaps this inclination gives me the right to open this undoubtedly serious and complicated question. Our own historical experience has taught us that evil must be confronted rather than appeased.

Havel’s posture is quite distinct from that of the current leader of the West, who has been embracing the Castros and turning himself into a pretzel for the mullahs in Iran and in both cases, he has gotten nothing but threats, contempt and disdain in return.  Havel, in contrast, had the courage to stand up for liberty and individual rights, and demonstrated that he was willing to risk his own liberty to advance those causes.

Havel understanding of culture and commitment to the voice of the people led him not to resist Slovakia’s split with the Czech Republic, he opposed their independence and resigned over it, but did not stand in the way of an independent Slovakia, taking the view that:

Rather than live for years in a non-functioning federation or in some kind of a pseudo-federation, which is only a burden and a source of complications, it is better to live in two independent countries.”

His statement gives us food for thought for our own dysfunctional republic.  It is pretty clear that we have two very different versions of how the country should be administered and what role government should play in our lives. And these competing views may ultimately not be reconcilable.  On one hand, there are those that “bitterly cling to their guns and religion,” and presumably would like government to more or less leave them alone.  On the other hand, there are those that would like government to take care of them and the management of resources---the strength of the Sanders candidacy suggests that this is not an insignificant group.  One sometimes wonders if a split is inevitable and sometimes it is only the fact that these groups are not geographic contiguous that holds the country together.

As with some other great lovers of freedom—Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher, for instance,  Havel’s popularity waned over the years.  It is as though Providence puts leaders like this on the planet for a particular time and for a particular reason, and then the sun sets on them.  Havel had his own vices—he smoked, drank and was not always faithful to his wife.  But his principles and his own brand of leadership guided the Czech Republic through unsettling transitions.  He weathered these challenges and guided his nation through them because of his patriotism, his fidelity to principles of individual freedom and faith in his people to control their own destiny.

He also adhered to a personal philosophy very much like Martha Nussbaum’s neo-Stoicism:

“And I understood, with a new sense of urgency, that the only real source of a will to live is hope, hope as an inner certainty that even things that can appear to us as purely nonsensical can have their own deep meaning and that it is our task to look for it.  And I understood, maybe somewhat better than before, why human life ceases to be a life worth living without the love of those close to you.”

And this inner core sustained him through the turbulent and difficult transitions of the Czech Republic from an authoritarian centrally planned economy to a free capitalist one—without bloodshed.

A generation ago, the West was blessed with a number of principled, steady leaders that had the courage to push back against a tyrannical, expansive system.  Lech Walesa ignited the flames in the shipyards of Gdansk.  But he also had a moral, rhetorical, economic , and military support in a number of defenders of Western values---  Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Helmut Kohl, for instance, that stood up to the darkness of Communism.   Vaclav Havel rightfully deserves a place among those souls that rang the bell of freedom and never wavered.

Zantofsky summed up the life of Havel:

If most Europe today is safer than at any time in its history, it is not least  to the vision of statesmen like Bill Clinton, Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel.

The West is once again threatened—this time on multiple fronts, from multiple directions.  An assertive and adventuresome Russia has risen from the ashes.  Radical Islam cloaked in a refugee crisis threatens Europe and America.  China is asserting dominance l over the South China Sea.  Iran spreads is spreading its deadly tentacles across the Middle East.  A vastly underestimated ISIS directly and indirectly threatens the West with repeated terror attacks. 

And, as I assess Western leadership at the moment, we have none with a backbone, core principles, and intellectual grounding quite like Havel’s.

That Sinking Feeling

CNBC just released its list of top 20 U.S. cities in the U.S. in which to start a business.  I search high and low, looked under the table and behind the cabinets.  I looked far and wide and checked the list numerous times and Chicago was not on it.  Of the 20 cities, 6 were in Texas.   Des Moines, Iowa made the list.  The Second City, City of the Big Shoulders, Hog Butcher for the World, home of the 3^rd busiest airport in America, two major world class universities, centrally located, with a magnificent lakefront was nowhere to be found.

Chicago and Illinois are dying and unless something dramatic happens soon, Chicago will become the next Detroit and the rest of Illinois will come tumbling down with it.  At every level….city, county, and state, the can kicked down the road is out of road.

A couple of years ago, I attended a general business roundtable of about 20 professionals in Chicago and the topic was the business climate in Chicago and Illinois.  When it came for my turn to speak, I simply asked the question, “If your child had job skill that would enable them to work anywhere they wanted, and you wanted them to have a happy and prosperous future, would you advise him or her to stay in Illinois?”  The question just elicited guffaws.  I followed up and asked, “Where would you advise them to go?”  The answer was unanimous---Texas.  It is not surprising that the CNBC list bears out what we have known for a long time.

Just the other night, another professional confided in me, “I really do not want to leave Chicago.  But I feel I am being forced out.”

At every turn and at every level, politicians are grabbing for dollars.  Toni Preckwinkle, President of the Cook County Board (after vowing not to) raised the state sales tax.  Cook county not only raised property tax rates but increased assessments.  Rahm Emmanuel is trying to get through a utility tax increase.  Mike Madigan is in a death match with Bruce Rauner in his attempt to raise taxes once again while Rauner is demanding systemic reforms.  Meanwhile, the state is buried under a mountain of unpaid bills and social services are being strangled.  The city, state and public school system bond rating are rated junk.  The state became a national joke when lottery winners were forced to sue to collect.  Let that sink in for a minute.

Why would you start a business here?

Or relocate here?                 

          

Or raise your children here?

GE took one look at Chicago as a potential home for its headquarters and quickly said, “Thank you, very much.  We’ll pass.”

Over the past few months, the news has gotten even more disturbing.  The Chicago Tribune published an article a few months ago that showed that working class, professional class, and entrepreneurial class African Americans are fleeing Illinois for the South.  The Illinois Policy Institute (illinoispolicy.org) recently posted statistics that showed that millennials are also fleeing the state.  If black and young people are fleeing, who will be left?  These are groups that are needed here to be the backbone of the city and state over the next decade. 

Yet, the politicians, Mike Madigan in particular, refuse to budge.  And the Democratic appointed judges resist ANY attempts to solve the problem.

The great economist Herbert Stein came up with something called Stein’s Law, which states: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”

If there is any chance of halting the bleed out from Illinois, the elephant in the room needs to be confronted.   There is no solving the problem without dealing with the pension issue.  The pension issue is also driving the debt rating issue and it is getting bigger by the day. 

Most troubling was the issue raised by last week’s Crain’s Chicago Business. The financial crisis is so bad that it is pinching higher education.   Universities are struggling to attract and retain quality faculty and other universities are poaching our schools.    Faculty are leaving this great city because they are not sure they can get paid.

Education is about the future.  Pension payments are about the past.  Illinois is robbing from the future because they overcompensated workers in the past.   Young people know it and that is why, despite a tremendous geographic advantage, you would have to have a mental disorder to start a business in Chicago now. 

And when you add the violence on top of the dire fiscal situation, you can see why I believe the slide will accelerate as long as Mike Madigan remains in office.  And he is just hanging on until Dick Durbin and eventually, his daughter Lisa can get elected. 

I have spent a good portion of my professional career dealing with distressed entities.  In 100% of the cases, unless the entity makes fundamental, structural changes, it is doomed.  Mike Madigan and John Cullerton continue to pretend that we can fix these things with more tax increases.  It’s just not there.  People and businesses are voting with their feet.  Illinois and Chicago need to make dramatic changes now if there is any hope of reversing the slide and avoiding Detroit’s fate.  Once people leave and build a life elsewhere, they will not be coming back. 

This was a once great city and a great state.  It has been my home for my entire life and my family dates back to the Chicago Fire in this town.  But the fiscal catastrophe and the violence are making it harder and harder to stay and I can no longer tell young people that this is a great place to build a future.

Illinois is on a top 20 list, but it is is a list of deadbeat governmental units.

The Transcendentalists

While the nation has gone bonkers over the musical Hamilton, with tickets going for upwards of $1,000 on the secondary market, I saw a small production entitled Nature that featured a piece of Americana outdoors at the Morton Arboretum, a nature preserve just west of Chicago.  Nature was a celebration of the lives and works of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau.  Set in the outdoors, the play advertises itself as a “walking play” as patrons trudge off from station to station between acts with their folding chairs.  The walks are an integral part of the play and make the play an experience. 

Nature explored the ideas of both men and the Transcendental movement, a vital part of American intellectual and literary thought.  The play delved into the friendship and sometimes rivalry between the two men.  It roughly followed their lives chronologically, and even touched on the women transcendentalists—Mary Moody and Margaret Fuller.  The play was  at its best when it captured the tension between the themes of  nature and progress, an area in which Thoreau and Emerson disagreed and the play reached its climax with Thoreau’s famous importuning, “Simplify, simplify, simplify.”

Nature wonderfully used the outdoors as a perfect setting for the performance and even the sounds cooperated.  At one point, the dialogue referred to the “rustling of the leaves by the wind,” and as if on cue, the wind blew and rustled the tree leaves.  The sound and the music also carried very differently in an outdoor venue and added to the authenticity and feel of the play.  All of the music was period pieces and the costuming was magnificent—every element of the play was calibrated to capture the period.  Many of the actors stayed on afterwards for a Q&A session and we learned that the actor that played Emerson is actually the great great  great  great grandson of Ralph Waldo Emerson.

It also occurred to me that two of the greatest essayists and thinkers that had much to say about man and his relationship to society—George Orwell and Henry David Thoreau—both contracted tuberculosis and died in their mid 40’s, thus depriving mankind of decades of potential thought and writings.

The play was riveting and engrossing.   Thoreau and Emerson will always have a special place in my life.  During the summer before my senior year in college, I took an American Literature course from one of the country’s finest professors at The University of Chicago- Robert Streeter.   During July of that year, I went to Maine and wrote my paper on Thoreau and Emerson while sitting on a rock overlooking a calm pond in Maine.  It was one of life’s magic moments.  Nature brought these two enmeshed lives together for me again in a unique and inventive way.   And it reminded me that an actual visit to Walden Pond is definitely on my bucket list.

And as I write these words extolling the virtues of America’s greatest free thinkers, Yale is busy forming a committee to rid itself of “offensive” names.  Let that sink in.

I Told You So

Way back on January 16, I spun out the reasons why I thought Donald Trump could win all the marbles.  It looks like I was at least close to being right and we will see if he in fact does.  I correctly assessed voter displeasure with the Republican Establishment and the Washington Elite.  Despite a field of 17 candidates and the headwinds of a MSM that painted him as an uncouth bigot, Trump secured the Republican nomination without the floor fight or other melee that had been predicted.  Sure, the Establishment took a stab at changing the rules and there was the Ted Cruz nonendorsement, but the convention was, I thought, reasonably successful, especially given dire predictions.

Trump made his case, and re-introduced himself to the American people in his acceptance speech which the Democrats criticized as "dark" and "pessimistic" and designed to scare the American people.  Well, we do have plenty to be anxious about--- a struggling economy, $18 trillion in debt, foreign foes throwing their weight around- ISIS, Iran, China, North Korea and Russia.  On top of it, we have had several instances of police officers gunned down in targeted assassinations.  Most Americans believe we are headed in the wrong direction.  If he is playing to fear, Trump is capturing the mood of the country at the moment.  But allow me to briefly comment on the convention.

What I liked about the convention:

• Trump correctly stated the primary purpose of government --to keep its citizens safe from foreign and domestic enemies that would harm us.  And he correctly stated that if government does not accomplish this aim, nothing else much matters.   On the home front, people need to be able to go about their business without fear.  The attacks by radical Islam on our soil have either been denied (workplace violence) or downplayed by the Obama administration.  Trump understands that our social fabric will break down if police remain under attack and are demonized by the federal government. For America to flourish, domestic and international order needs to be maintained and right now, it is breaking down in both arenas.
  
• Trump's line, "I am your voice" resonated.  American citizens have had too many edicts imposed on them without any voice at all.  Gay marriage was not decided by a vote.  Transgenders bathroom rights were also imposed by the federal government.  The Iranian deal (a treaty, in my view) was not signed off on by the peoples' representatives--in fact, material provisions were hidden from us.  The provisions of TPP have also been nontransparent.   President Obama has tried to avoid Congress in implementing his vision of an immigration policy.  The policy of "pen and phone" and legislating through regulatory bodies has taken "We the People" out of the equation in many significant areas. Obama has treated Congress as if they sprouted up spontaneously and was not duly elected. Whether Trump follows through or not remains to be seen, but the American people have been voiceless.

• Putting America first.  That is the president's job.  He is our advocate on the world stage and shouldn't be acting as Secretary General of the U.N. By definition, he is an American partisan. We have had nearly eight years of someone whose first instincts are to apologize for America and to reduce America's influence.
  
• Trump's kids.  His children stole the show.  Poised, articulate, genuine sounding, they were his best advertisement.  He has done something right to rear these children.  Ivanka's comments about working in his office were particularly poignant and said something about the values he tried to instill in them.  Many entrepreneurs still adhere to an informal policy of primogeniture but her comments dispelled that notion.

What I didn't like about his speech:

• Protectionism. There is no evidence to suggest that trade barriers are good for our overall economy and Smoot-Hawley should give anyone pause.  I understand the need to get a better bargain, but curtailing trade would be terrible for the world economy.  Trump's position on this goes against every bone in my body and I can only hope that he reverses position if he gets elected.
  
• NATO commitments.  His statements regarding the conditionality of defending NATO members is reckless and harmful.  Yes, other NATO members need to be browbeaten from time to time to increase their financial commitment.  It is true that over much of the postwar period, many European countries safely built their generous welfare states under the United States umbrella.  But with Putin lusting after the Baltics, ISIS launching attacks frequently, and now Turkey rapidly turning into a tyrannical Islamic state, NATO needs to be strengthened and LED, not dismantled.
  
• What he didn't say.  Trump didn't talk about the overreach of the regulatory state or tax reform, the deficit, shrinking government or federalism--all major issues that are vital to the vibrancy of our country. 

Trump (or his daughter) for the first time in memory addressed issues of LGBT rights, women's issues, and minority issues.  Republicans heretofore didn't even talk about them.

It is a long time until November. International events will certainly play a role and positions may change, but Trump is out of the gate and has gotten much farther than any of the "experts" predicted while the Republican Establishment is still staring at its shoetops.

It Matters

The dust up over Melania's Trump's plagiarized paragraph in her opening night speech has been dismissed by Republicans and the Trump campaign on a variety of fronts.  Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort denied the charge and then went on the offensive, claiming that, "This is once again an example of when a woman threatens Hillary Clinton she seeks out to demean her and take her down."  This clumsy denial and attack is exactly the kind of response that the Trump campaign is running AGAINST.  Manafort's response was, well, quite Clintonian.  Deny. Deny. Deny.  Even when the evidence is incontrovertible.  No literate person with even a third grade reading comprehension level can read those two paragraphs and come to the conclusion that they are not identical.  Melania made things even worse by claiming that she wrote the speech.  No one believes that either.  Other Republican commentators dismissed the unforced error by pointing to the incidents where Obama borrowed words and contrasted her mistake with Hillary's blatant falsehoods.  These are weak defenses and this incident is more important that Republicans want to admit.

First, Mrs. Trump's speech completely blew an opportunity to control the narrative and differentiate the Trump campaign from the Obamas.  Trump has run on a them of putting America first and the criticism from the right of Barack and Michelle is that the Obamas do not have the love of country that other first couples have had.   The president has consistently criticized America abroad and Michelle's infamous quote, "the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country," raised the ire of many Americans.  As an immigrant that is proud of the opportunity that America afforded her, Melania was in a position to make the case that America is ready for a first couple that understands the American narrative and is ready to move away from a couple that many believe carry an underlying resentment for this country.  The gaffe dilutes this message.

Second, this is a major gaffe and an indication of a system failure.  Somewhere in the system, quality control failed. Every person's message must be consistent with the themes of the campaign--especially one as close to Donald as his spouse.  A large proportion of the electorate still has misgivings about Trump.  He does not have a strong ground organization.  He has spent little money on advertising.  And he still has filled in few details about what his policy proposals will actually look like.  While it is true that this particular blunder will likely be forgotten as the campaign heats up, I believe that it is a sign of real weakness in his organization.  One of Trump's claims is that his is a businessman and knows how to run things.  But the ugly truth is that Trump's campaign organization failed his own wife and left her exposed to mocking and ridicule on her big opening night.

Republicans are like a football team playing on the road.  When a football team plays on the road, the crowd is against them, they are in an unfamiliar place, the refs are often against them--they are simply not going to get close calls.  Most of the time, they have to execute at a much higher level than they do at home and cannot afford major gaffes, especially early in the game.  The media will magnify them and, like home town refs, will make the call against the visiting team.

Many on the Republican side are dismissing this screw up as a one-off.   But the response of the campaign team and the fact that it left Melania exposed are indications that this was a bigger blunder out of the gate than Republicans assume.

Team Trump fumbled the opening kickoff.