November 2016 – Midwest Moderate

OPEC Cuts – What’s Happening…Background

Many observers were surprised today, when OPEC announced that it had reached a deal to cut production. The actual cuts will not start until January, but the immediate result was a significant rise in the price of oil. US crude settled at $49.44 today, up 9.3%.

The price increase reflects a rush to hedge oil prices at what may be seen as future prices, which some are predicting to rise to the $55 to $60 level.

OPEC Oil Ministers Meeting Image: Via latimes.com

The reason for the pre-agreement scepticism lie in the complex interrelationships among the key players. OPEC leader is clearly Saudi Arabia, which took the deal on the chin,so to speak. They will be absorbing the biggest single cuts in the amount of half a million barrels a day. The perceived winner is Iran which will not be required to take any cuts at all.

The big non OPEC lynchpin to this deal was the willingness of non-OPEC member Russia to agree to its own production cut of about 300,000 barrels a day. Something that previously was thought to be out of the question and which has been opposed by its major oil producing company.

Russia however, will want to see that OPEC doesn’t cheat, and OPEC will be watching to see that Russia doesn’t cheat either. The trust levels are not high.

As such the deal may still fall out of bed. Not clearly stated so far on the part of Russian is 300,000 off of what level. They have been aggressively ramping up their production of late. The answers will likely be spelled out at another set of meetings in Moscow on Dec 9.

In addition to Russia cutting its 300,000 barrels the cartel is looking for another 300,000 cut for other non-OPEC sources, just who they will be is not clear.

The complicated politics behind the deal were clearly difficult. Afterall Russia and Iran are currently engaged in not one, but two proxy wars against the Saudis, in Syria and Yemen, with Bahrain also under fire.

Iran insisted in an increase in its allotment as it is still in recovery post the ending of sanctions.

Iraq also was demanding increased allotments rather than a cut as they are engaged in a fight against ISIS. Their willingness to take a cut was perhaps the biggest surprise. They will be producing .2 million barrels less.

One factor that may explain the willingness to allow an increase to Iran, may be that some doubt it really as the current capacity to pump that much oil. It’s infrastructure is said to be outdated and desperate for upgrades. Upgrades that seem to be hampered by internal politics that make it next to impossible for international oil companies to enter the country to provide the capital and technology needed.

One source suggests that Iran is actually shipping oil that has been in storage, accumulated during the sanctions when they were unable to ship. So while they will be allowed to ship more, some of that will have the benefit of bleeding down surplus storage that could depress the market in the future.

Perhaps the greatest reason, the Saudi’s were willing to take the biggest hit is that they are planning on capitalizing 10% of the oil they have in the ground in the near future. They plan on setting up an offering for a minority stake in ARAMCO, their state owned oil company for Trillions of dollars. The amount of which will certainly depend upon the perceived value of a barrel of oil naw and into the future.

What’s ironic about this is that part of the plan for the $trillions is to develop Saudi Arabia’s Solar industry.

It will also provide the government with ample capital to bolster its domestic needs as well as its military ability to cope with the challenges presented by a hostile Iran.

Today’s cartoon from TheWeek.com

Trump Castro Cuba

The long awaited death of Fidel Castro, has cast the initiative by Obama to work toward a normalized relationship with the one time US territory of Cuba back into the limelight.

cuba-map

I noticed a meme on Facebook that suggested that the “Left” in the US was mourning Castro.

That is of course a flat out “Fake News-ish” characterization and typical calumny the right has been fostering for some time.

The truth of the matter, it tends to be the Left that opposes human rights violations in the world, and is willing to do something about them. The Right tends to prefer the status quo and doing business with despotic rulers. This seems to be the direction, Trump is heading, if the tea leaves toward support for Putin and Syrian President Bashar Hafez al-Assad are any clue.

Now it is also true, some on the Left have pointed out that despite the horrible human rights record, authoritarian and despotic rule, the Cuban people have at least gotten a good medical and education system. Those accomplishments should not be allowed to overshadow the dark side of the Castro legacy, but only fools are unwilling to acknowledge pluses and minuses in any honest calculation.

The Kowtowing to the Old Cuban Refugee leadership with their bankrupt strategy that has failed to work for over 50 years by the Republican right is understandable – but only in terms of its rank subservience to political expediency and tradition. There can be no doubt that this Cuban electoral block has been a key bastion of votes for Republicans in the critically competitive state of Florida.

It is unfortunate that this strategy is also counter-productive to overall US national interests and the Trump administration’s goals of creating new jobs in the US.

Every other nation in the world trades with Cuba. The Embargo failed. Obama’s opening to Cuba is a far better approach. One that will build more contact, and more pressure internally for reforms.

Now as is characteristic of Trump, it seems his pronouncements to date are of the huff and puff variety. NEW YORK — While conducting another round of job interviews — including a highly public battle for secretary of State — President-elect Donald Trump again threatened Monday to terminate emerging diplomatic relations with Cuba if it does not somehow reform.

“If Cuba is unwilling to make a better deal for the Cuban people, the Cuban/American people and the U.S. as a whole, I will terminate deal,” Trump tweeted two days after the death of former Cuba leader Fidel Castro.

NEW YORK — While conducting another round of job interviews — including a highly public battle for secretary of State — President-elect Donald Trump again threatened Monday to terminate emerging diplomatic relations with Cuba if it does not somehow reform.

“If Cuba is unwilling to make a better deal for the Cuban people, the Cuban/American people and the U.S. as a whole, I will terminate deal,” Trump tweeted two days after the death of former Cuba leader Fidel Castro. read more at usatoday.com

The one thing Trump has going for him is the complete lack of certainty as to what he really believes and intends to do.

Just because he said something, doesn’t mean that he means it. That much has been amply proven during the campaign and its immediate aftermath.

My bet is that he finds a symbolic way to refute Obama by canceling one or another small part of the existing US-Cuban framework, and then proceeds with a slow but ongoing gradual improvement in the basic US-Cuban relationship.

He likes winning both sides of the issue, and in this case, I hope he is successful. If and only if, I am right on this point.

2016-11-28_1123

cartoon credit:

Thanksgiving Lemonade

Thanksgiving at my Michelle Bachman supporting sister’s house was nice and completely devoid of political friction. My children, some of whom dreaded the occasion and the potential for recriminations almost didn’t come. But they did, and we were able to have a wonderful time by completely ignoring, on all sides, the events of the month.

The pain is still raw, and the dashed hopes replaced with fear and more than a little apprehension.

As an oldster, I have lived through this before. An frankly that is one of the main reasons I see myself as a midwest moderate. Yes, the Bernie people had passion, but as much as they may think otherwise, their ship was doomed to hit the rocks as well.

We need centrist candidates to win. And even when we do, the outcome is not at all certain. But that is not the topic of the day.

Instead we are looking to find ways to make lemonade. We know the supreme court was the real loss of this election.

And it is a forgone conclusion that Roe vs Wade is in deep trouble. That will mean both the need, and opportunity to take the fight back to individual states. And maybe there is some weak lemonade there. Those for whom this issue is the major rallying cry, will need to regroup at the state level across the nation. I am sure they are to some extent already, but the battle front will now be back to the state houses.

It is no secret that Republicans hold sway in most. And the hope is that the renewed battle at the local level will refocus activity there and begin the process of winning back some seats in legislatures.

The stronger lemonade may be in another supreme court decision. And to the extent moderates can have any sway on the new Trump regime and on Trump himself, this should be our target. Citizens United and the peoplehood of corporations from a political contribution point of view may be a point we can win Trump over on. citizens-united

His professed dismay over the “corruption” of money in politics, “I know, I was one of them.” give me hope that a concerted effort to focus his attention on that issue may bring some discernment to the particular selection he makes to the court.

The issue will certainly come up in the confirmation process. The key is to raise the issue in advance as effectively as possible so that it influences the President Elect’s actual selection process.

I am looking for ideas on how to take the need for action in this regard and move it forward. How can we present the issue in a form and manner that will catch his eye and win his attention?

Now is certainly the time to act. And so this Thanksgiving I am grateful for the ability to act in our democratic society, even when on the losing side, again.

2016-11-26_1346

http://theweek.com/cartoons

The Middle East Geo & Oil Politics of Trumps Potential Revocation of the Iran Nuclear Deal

If Trump Pulls Out of the Iranian Nuclear Deal, the Middle East Could Well Implode.

Now it was clear that not everyone was happy with the Iranian Nuclear deal when it was proposed. Mostly due to fears that the Iranians would not hold up their end of the deal.

As appears to be the rule on the right, no good can ever be expected of an enemy. They get cast as evil incarnate, unless they are seen to ride horses bare shirted – in which case they become beloved cowboys.

Confounding the nay sayers expectations, it appears that the Iranians are in fact living up to their part of the agreement. We should see this as an indication, that they can be seen as potential partners for future negotiations on any number of issues that continue to exist. We should not reject negotiations because we do not like them or their actions.

On the campaign trail, the Trump campaign often pledged that they would throw out the Iranian nuclear accord. Hopefully, this was mostly for vote getting show.

There were clearly aspects of the agreement which were not fully understood or appreciated by the general public. And as has been typical, the right has done everything they could to denigrate the deal, despite its historic accomplishment, and its strong support from the world community, with a few notable exceptions.

With any luck, Trump will back track on the stated aim of negating the treaty, and find some other way of claiming victory on the score without doing more damage. If not the consequences could be severe.

The biggest damage to my point of view is the abrogation iranian-nuclear-deal-many-partners of one administrations actions by the next and what that does to world confidence in the word of American diplomacy.

But the on the ground ramifications could dwarf that philosophical complaint.

If Tehran were to begin another arms race, it would have at its side the emerging strength of an emboldened Russia, and a new trading partner capable of providing arms and technology.

With Putin’s already muscular presence in Syria serving as a beachhead, the emergence of a bear and lion axis can only further complicate the situation on the ground.

Syria is already on fire as is Yemen to the South and a difficult situation in the Shiite majority Bahrain, ruled with Saudi support by a Sunni monarch.

The Saudi’s are already concerned that Trumps talk about restricting international oil imports will further distort the ambiguities of the oil markets.

This turmoil could weaken their ability to stand up to a resurgent Iran and set the stage for a proxy war between the US and Russia of a far greater scale than we are now experiencing in Syria.

All of this with an Iraq that stands to win against ISIS only to see the victors then split into a new religious war within its borders.

Throw in the Kurds and the soup gets thicker as in bloodier, and the kurdish-map complications more trying as they aspire a state of their own, a direct challenge to Turkey as well as whatever form a new Syria and Iraq take.

As the Kurds are also in northwestern Iran, such a move would seem to invite US support for Kurdistan against Russian, Turkish and Iranian interests. Possibly to the point of pushing Turkey into Russian and Iranian arms.

The Middle East has never been easy. Pulling the rug out from under, the one multi national agreement that actually reduced the threat of nuclear war in the area seems to be more than foolish.

Certainly not a move that can or should be entered into hastily.

Infrastructure Could Build Trumps Support on the Left

Reports suggest that President Elect Donald Trump is considering an olive branch to Republicans in the form of nominating Mitt Romney as Secretary of State.

I suspect this overture is just a bit of showmanship, to appear as if he is willing to mollify elements of his own party. But it may be a real gesture. And if so, and if Romney was willing do the job, it could lessen the level of foreign policy apprehension.

On the domestic front, a similar effort may also be just window dressing, but would be welcome if true.

Trump was big on rebuilding the infrastructure during the campaign, even implying a $500 Billion effort may not be adequate to the job.

He points out that historic low interest rates make such an investment timely. Of course, that is what Obama and others have been saying to the deaf ears of a Congress that is more focused on the size of the national debt.

Still there is hope. Such an investment could win votes from the Democratic side of the aisle. And as such offer a chance for the Trump administrations to start their efforts with a bi-partisan win. Assuming, the Republican hardliners would avoid fouling their own nest from the get go.

In the big picture of things, I have little real hope that will happen.

Trump is also calling for increases in military spending and the end of sequestration, which was the barrier to prior infrastructure spending.

Dems wanted new revenues in the form of higher taxes to help pay for both military and domestic needs. The Republicans, lower taxes to spur growth and to use reduced rather than more spending to deal with the deficit.

Trump has proposed all of the above, except for significant lower spending. His campaign promises seem to assert continued support for Social Security and Medicare. And while he wants to cut Obama Care, the facts will likely prove that doing so, will hurt the trust fund that supports medicare more than it could save in dollars to the treasury to remove it. Especially as he maintains a desire to retain children to age 26 on their parents and the most difficult of all, the pre-existing condition conundrum.

Of my, it turns out actual policy making will prove more complicated in reality than on twitter post.

Which is all the more reason, Trump needs to support a serious move to update America’s infrastructure. If there is anywhere we need to make America great again, it is in our own roads, bridges, airports and power grid.

Now there may well be ways of thinking outside the box on some of this.

Can there be ways to use other than national debt to finance some of this?Perhaps. It may be hoping for lemonade, but a series commitment to the infrastructure would be most welcome.

http://theweek.com/cartoons/662898/political-cartoon-thanksgiving-holiday-trump-empty-promises

Solar’s Place in the US Energy Balance is Uncertain

I subscribe to a variety of publications, some quite pricey including an investment newsletter that monitors the global energy sector, called Oil & Energy Investor by former CIA analyst Dr. Kent Moors.

While I will not be passing on stock tips, I find his insights into the global energy picture to be illuminating. And a good way to monitor the practical implications of policy decisions.

He is an advocate for a balance of energy sources, and more recently has stressed the need for what he calls, “interchangeable energy resources.” We will explore that topic more in the future.

But today, I wish to focus on his current observations about solar.

He points out that nobody associated with the incoming administration has said anything negative about solar.

He points out that solar has made significant gains in the past number of years and has reached what he calls, “Grid Parity.” Meaning that the solar is now on an even footing with most other energy sources when it comes to production and distribution costs. He notes that most of that progress has occurred in the private sector without governmental subsidies.

That said, where subsidies do exist has been on the local level, by state and federal tax credits designed to stimulate installation of solar on homes and businesses. The end users.

These subsidies have been largely motivated by the desire to lessen the adverse effects of climate change. And that is clearly an item taht appears to be on the Trump admins chopping block.

When compounded by congressional budget cutters eager to eliminate subsidies to ordinary people, a new set of challenges occur.

While it seems as though the new admin is more than willing to cut taxes and loosen regulations on the fossil fuel industry, they are less willing to share the wealth with individual homeowners and businesses seeking to do the right thing by the climate.

The strange thing about all this, as Dr Moors points out, is that the largest oil producers, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have developed some of the world’s largest solar generating complexes. They are diversifying their energy resources, recognizing their long term sustainability.

While renewable may have an immediate challenge in the next few years, their ultimate role seems to be inevitable.

As such we can and should be doing everything we can to assert the role of solar as part of an interconnected multi faceted energy strategy.

A strategy that also offers the promise of genuine NEW job creation in both the manufacturing and construction sectors throughout the entire United States and not just energy rich communities.

And such a strategy would certainly be a viable asset to a long term policy of true energy self sufficiency for the nation.

president_ttrrump

Cartoon via: http://theweek.com/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=cartoon&utm_medium=11_17_16-tw_banner

What Will Trump Mean to Climate Change Agreement – John Kerry Speaks

John Kerry warns of climate threat at talks overshadowed by Trump – video | US news | The Guardian

theguardian.com

US secretary of state John Kerry urges countries to treat the earth’s changing climate as an urgent threat as he addresses the uncertainty created by the election of Donald Trump. ‘Obviously an election took place in my country, and I know it’s left some here and elsewhere feeling uncertain about the future,’ he told the audience, before reiterating that a majority of citizens in the US believe climate change is a real threat

The White House is still in Obama’s hands released a report yesterday in compliance with the Climate Control Agreement.

and as such released a detailed 111 page report suggesting a strategy for the US to follow in the coming Mid-Century years.

… a detailed 111-page document outlining a “mid century strategy” to massively slash U.S. carbon emissions by the year 2050, reducing them 80 percent “or more” below their 2005 levels. Just to give some sense of scale, the long-term impact of the plan would be larger than the effect of instantly taking all cars off U.S. roads.

…

Even as the report was released, Secretary of State John Kerry, freshly back from a trip to Antarctica to survey the ravages of climate change firsthand, spoke at the Marrakesh meeting. There, he told nervous negotiators that “no one should doubt the overwhelming majority of the citizens of the United States who know climate change is happening, and who are determined to keep our commitments that were made in Paris.”Via washingtonpost.com

That said, can the world trust that Donald Trump will do anything other than scuttle the now ratified treaty involving so many different nations in the world?

“Ironically, Trump’s threats to withdraw from the Paris agreement has created new resolve among nations here to make the Paris process succeed, with or without U.S. help,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House climate official who was attending the talks, by email.

Several climate policy experts in Marrakech nonetheless argued Wednesday that an ambitious goal for 2050, like the one unveiled by the administration, is not necessarily lost simply because of Trump’s election and professed policies.

Still, in his speech Wednesday, Secretary of State Kerry did acknowledge the “uncertainty” the U.S. election had created for the delegates and the international community that had assembled.

“While I can’t stand here and speculate about what policies our president-elect will pursue, I will tell you this: In the time that I have spent in public life, one of the things I have learned is that some issues look a little bit different when you’re actually in office compared to when you’re on the campaign trail,” said Kerry. read more at washingtonpost.com

washingtonpost.com U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has called global warming a “hoax” and pledged during the campaign to “cancel” the Paris deal aimed at fighting climate change.

Kerry, however, says he doesn’t think U.S. emissions reduction pledges “can or will be reversed” because of the market mechanisms in play.

A European Union official says he believes the U.S. will continue to engage in international climate talks, even under President-elect Donald Trump.

Asked about Trump’s campaign pledge to “cancel” U.S. involvement in the Paris Agreement on fighting climate change, Solymos was philosophical. He says “should something like that happen, then we shall address this issue, but we won’t be alone in it. I’m sure we will be able to deal with it.”

He said EU nations “are determined to implement the Paris Agreement fully.”

Over 300 U.S. businesses have signed a statement calling on President-elect Donald Trump to support the Paris Agreement on climate change — including General Mills, eBay, Intel, Unilever, and dozens of other Fortune 500 companies. See more…

Kerry seems to believe that there is already enough forward momentum and market action to continue progress toward US compliance with the Paris accord, even in the face of Trump’s apparent opposition. There is also hope, that once in office, he may take his job seriously enough to not just pander for votes, but listen to voices of reason, such as the corporate multi nationals cited above.

We can certainly hope that to be the case. But it is obviously essential that we the people remain vigilant on the matter.

At the Midwest Moderate, this will be one of our ongoing topics of concern.

Will the End of the War on Coal be Paid for At the Gas Pump?

It is probably premature to discuss any Trump policies at this point in the game. Much of what was said one day was during the campaign was changed the next to the point it is any body’s guess as what final policies will be pursued.

Instead we need to pay attention to the tea leaves, and in particular watch who gets appointed to what and then, see what they have to say.

What we do know is that he played up the idea of being opposed to the so called “War on Coal.”

The cynic in me senses this was merely a phony campaign gambit to win votes.

Barges loaded with coal outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania -Bloomberg

It is clear the majority of lost coal jobs are due to automation according to Bloomberg news. in an article: The EPA Doesn’t Kill Coal Jobs. Better Mining Does

The near term great promise of American energy lies not with coal but with fracking and shale innovations. And it is here that the most likely progress toward energy independence exists. In the long run, I still believe in solar, wind and other alternatives.

The bad news for coal lies in the historically low costs of oil and natural gas.

The abundance of such new energy has destroyed the cartel price of oil, and in the process resulted in prices that undercut coal’s chief advantage, price. Any increase in domestic production only serves to further undercut coal’s competitiveness.

If Trump was able to increase oil and gas exploration, which is in my mind doubtful. It would only serve to further increase the glut that is now causing many existing producers into bankruptcy.

This fact is why I think the talk of new oil and gas production is pure fiction. Should increased oil and gas supplies be developed in the US, it could only decrease coal’s role.

There is one option Trump could pursue. That would be to restrict imports of oil from outside the US via tariffs or other restraints.

That would exclude the world supply of energy from US markets, raising prices for energy here at home, and incidentally at the corner gas station.

It would make it possible for oil companies now going bankrupt to get more per barrel for their production, and possibly revive and justify expansion of new exploration and exploitation of reserves on public land previously unavailable under Obama.

But there are many drawbacks to that scenario. Too many to pursue at the moment. But let’s touch on one.

There actually has been a growth of manufacturing during Obama’s admin. Some of that was due to unanticipated costs manufactures encountered managing their offshore efforts, international currency issues and notably the availability of low cost energy in the US>

The lower energy costs during that decade, especially in energy-dependent industries such as iron and steel and chemicals, made reshoring a money-saving option for some manufacturers. Large-scale production of shale gas in North America helped cut natural gas prices by 25% to 35% over those 10 years. But overall energy costs in many countries outside of North America are anywhere from 50% to 200% higher than they were in 2004. For the U.S., less expensive natural gas translates into more affordable electricity and lower prices on the raw materials used to make ammonia, hydrogen, methanol, and other materials used in the petrochemical sector. This is a significant cost factor because petrochemicals serve as the base for thousands of industrial and consumer products, including plastics, rubber, paints, fertilizers, detergents, textiles, dyes, and solvents.

See: 4 Reasons Companies are Bringing Manufacturing Back to the U.S.

Will Trump’s pronouncements in favor of growing our domestic energy resource end up costing us the manufacturing growth he would like?

Time will tell, but I suspect he may become dismayed at the complexity of energy economics.

Right now the oil lobby and coal lobby have his ear. Perhaps he will prove immune to their persuasion and run a course independent of lobbyists influence. Perhaps not.

Should he pursue a balkanized energy policy that builds a tariff wall around the US, the result may well be a boost in domestic oil prices. The cost may be some of the recent manufacturing growth spurred by lower domestic energy costs. But even more potent may be the anger that will ensue at the gas pumps across America.

That gas price increase would become in essence a tax on ordinary Americans to pay for the tariff wall.

trump_bring_back_cfactory_joss

The Curse of Moderation – Sitting on the Fence?

On the day before my 25th birthday, I managed to get myself elected to the Minneapolis City Council. Our campaign had rented a room at the Leamington Hotel for our victory party.

One of the attendees, was clearly more radical than I, and while he had no problem drinking our beer, he accused me it the hallway of being a “fence sitter.” A term hens_fence_sitting that was not meant as a compliment.

At the time I was upset at him and his comment. I had no idea where and why he arrived at that opinion and it does not matter, today.

But I reject the idea of being moderate as a “chicken” play. In fact my actual experience as an elected official demonstrated to me that being in the middle was by far the more dangerous ground.

The people who really cared about any issue tended to be adamant in their positions. More than once I discovered that my effort to find common ground between opposing forces only lead to both sides condemning the effort. The term appeasement is often used, with all its negative ramifications.

This blog is not about reliving the various issues I faced as a young office holder. But rather the lessons I have learned as a result, combined with the decades of practical experience in electoral politics since.

I have coffee weekly with Hal, who rightly argues that from a political perspective you need to push the limits in an effort to negotiate a middle that is more acceptable. That may be true in say, a labor negotiation. Ask for the moon and settle for 2% and an extra coffee break.

It fails in the real estate metaphor, when you ask a lot for a house and then not only do not get it, but much less when it become shopworn due to being overpriced. Realtors will understand the difference.

My approach is a bit different. And I suspect it arises from my youthful experience as an elected official. While I did get grief for compromises from both sides, I also discovered that compromise lead to getting things done.

I also learned from the time spent genuinely trying to understand the multiple points of view on most topics that there was usually merit to multiple points of view.

mw-moderate The challenge was to get past the passion. A passion that was often two sided. Passion in favor of a point of view and passion made up of fear of the motivations and after effects of the other side.

Today, there is a lot of fear in our political discourse. Fear of the outsider was actively and it turns out effectively used as an electoral tool. I will use Hillary’s word and call that fact deplorable.

And it is also true that Hillary was perhaps a bit weak on generating the passion on the positive end. Beyond a general passion for liberal principles and the breaking of the glass ceiling, the positive passion was overcome by the force of the dark side.

But even that is putting too much of a negative spin. For while crudely presented, the Trump campaign did offer a positive passion of its own. Portraying a swamp and then calling for its draining worked as an election ploy. Only time will tell if it was any more than that.

A Call to Arms!

Welcome to the first post on the Midwest Moderate.

This is a call to arms, and a response to the tragedy of our most recent national election.

The milk is spilled, wipe away the tears, prepare to respond.

But let’s respond wisely.

Yes, it appears that bad conduct was rewarded this year. But no, that doesn’t mean we need to respond in kind.

It appears that foul language, prurient actions and demagoguery have been rewarded with the presidency.

It appears that while abject opposition by Republicans in Congress to Obama demeaned the institution, they ended up winning this most recent battle.

We cannot just imitate their style and actions.

We must use our personal abilities. (yes, yours as well as mine) to begin the new battle. We must become the Somewhat Disloyal Opposition.

First, we must stand up to the abjectly evil aspects of the presumptive policies of the new regime. Religious intolerance cannot be tolerated, for example.

That said, we must work to ameliorate the policies of the new administration, wherever possible.

To do so, we must each step forward to take action. Small but meaningful action.

But we must be wise about this.

There are so many things we disagree with Trump on, we must avoid being too diffuse, lest our impact be diluted.

Instead, I call upon you to find a single cause that motivates you and become a local expert on that topic.

In my case, I plan on using this vehicle to primarily deal with climate change. You may want to focus on health care, or immigration rights, or the economy, or education, or, and, and, and… Your choice.

The key is to develop expertise in at least one area, while not necessarily abandoning all others.

You can become your neighborhood’s expert in Mideast policy, or what ever you choose. An expert is merely someone who knows more than 95% of the people in their sphere. Within your social group(s), you can do that.

And now the important part, in my opinion.

We need to think like Republicans, and/or one or more of the “groups” that voted Trump.

We need to find the common area of agreement they may have to our arguments and then we need to make that case.

For example.

My sense of righteousness about climate change is not going to change a deniers opinion. But within the Republican (and others) sense of proper investment policy is the need for diversification in the stock market.

So, my approach to coal, is not just to bemoan it, but to advocate for a diversified energy policy that still invests in wind and solar.

I do not expect to convince Trump to abandon his pledge to Coal, as wrong headed as I think it was. Instead, I will promote something he could conceivably buy into.

Another example.

Gun policy is not likely to change the way Hillary would have proposed. The issue remains, and I do not think Trump’s tenure will be without the tragedy’s we have seen in recent years.

This is a rural urban divide issue – although there are also many urban gun enthusiasts as well.

An approach to rural voters that will ring true is the need for some sort of urban gun restrictions that exempts them. I confess that I am not sure what form that might take. But an effort to find something that makes sense along the urban rural divide would permit communication on the issue that would be less threatening to the rural element. Could we prohibit guns in the metro area. Maybe not, but such a proposal would make more sense outstate and could be used as a bridge to a more meaningful discussion.

Bottom Line

The time is now to evolve our angst to action.

Individually we can and should take action.

We cannot do it all, or deal with all the myriad issues.

So we need to focus on one (or a few at most) and become expert.

We need to find leverage, we are on the outside looking in. Thus our arguments need to be those of constructive engagement on terms that resonate with those who opposed us.

Final thought

In my past, I monitored SIC Codes and employment numbers during a recession. I noticed that when the economy sank, the number of employees in the construction industries dropped. There was no work.

At the same time the number of individual businesses in the construction SIC codes grew. Laid off workers, started their own businesses.

We are all effectively laid off workers, active or not in the Democratic party, and it is time for us to start our own little policy construction companies.

I look forward to hearing about yours.