Who Gets to Police The Defence and Security Community?

Driveby accusations of compromised integrity tend to create smoke that obscures.  It is easy, but it does not do much to advance the cause of transparency.  Pugliese is right that the government is not transparent enough in defence matters.  But spewing random accusations to taint those in the field does not provide greater transparency, but rather helps to foster more confusion.  It reminds me of what defence contractors do if they lose a bid--they raise questions about the process.  So, we never can tell if the process is decent since the losers always shit on it.  It may be populist to question the motives of all elites, but if one listens to these academics and the reporters they talk to at all, you will find that most just want Canada to do better.  We may disagree on what better means, but those in journalism and in academia are not motivated by profit.  

There is some irony in David Pugliese regularly calling out his media colleagues for not being sufficiently dogged or pure of heart or whatever.  What is it?  Well, he has set himself up with his Counterspin column in Esprit de Corps as THE defence media critic while being a defence journalist.  That seems to be a conflict of interest, which is his go-to criticism of many other people in this space.

Pugliese regularly criticizes his colleagues for not mentioning that some of their interview subjects may receive some funding from the Department of National Defence.  Of course, it is unrealistic that in any quick media hit that the journalist will mention all of the funding their subject receives.  But there is more to this, of course.

It is the questioning of everyone's integrity.  That is what is galling to those who find themselves the subject of these quick driveby's in Counterspin.  Yes, folks get $ from DND.  To be clear, each university has a research accounting office that ensures that the money is spent on legitimate expenses, and for DND or SSHRC money, that money is never income for the researcher.* This money never goes into the pocket of academics--it pays for the salaries of research assistants, it pays for travel for conferences and workshops, it pays for hosting events, and the like.  I am not paying for my kitchen renovation from the money I have received from DND.  So, are folks like me going to sell out our views for some research assistant salary?  If one suspects that they answer is yes, then read our stuff.  Critically evaluate our stances.  Just to mention the money is the laziest way to engage in criticism. 

Pugs criticizes anyone who is too close to the military.  I get that, but he is very close to the military too.  Not the institution but to those in it.  Where else does he get his leaks?  So, he is very dependent on those folks.  Does that make his reporting problematic?  It kind of depends on the story and the motives of the leakers, doesn't it?  Are they all pure of heart?  Damned if I know.  I wouldn't say that they are all tainted by being military personnel or being upset military personnel.  Likewise, I wouldn't say that anyone who meets with those who aren't leaking are either pure of heart or full of ill intent.  Again, to evaluate, read the stuff. I read Pugliese's stuff, and much of it is excellent, important, and necessary reporting.  Some of it is clearly folks using him to grind their various axes on minor issues that still seem to get on the front page. 

I am guessing Pugs would say that we say nice things about the powers that be so that we can get access.  Access for what?  Not to line our pockets because that is not how academia works.  Maybe we want access so that we can learn more, to understand things better, to share those improved understandings with our students, with those that read academic work, and with the public when the media reaches out to us.  Again, are we selling bits of our souls so that we can get this access?  The way, of course, to answer this is: read our stuff.  

One of the reasons this is all so very upsetting is that we live in a time of diminished trust in institutions and expertise.  There have been good reasons to distrust government, given how they have handled various crises and have made it hard to access information.  However, there are very few non-government voices in the defence and security community.  We do not have much of a tradition of relatively non-partisan think tanks.  We have various associations that get significant funding from defence contractors.  And we have very few journalists who have expertise on defence (Mercedes Stephenson has an MA from a Strategic Studies program!).  

This means that academics here get more attention than they do elsewhere.  It imposes upon us significant responsibility, so we do disclose on our websites where we get funding.  But we do not spend every media hit reporting who funds us.  We do not have the time, and, yes, we don't think our views are bought by whoever funds our research and dissemination efforts.  Indeed, academics would probably be voted most likely to bite the hand that feeds them.  For example, the same year I spent significant effort to get defence $ to fund the Canadian Defence and Security Network, I also spent calling for the Minister of National Defence to be fired.

The CDSN does not receive defence contractor funding.  We have had discussions about the perils of funding sources, how to remain independent, and we plan to have future events address the challenges of ethical engagement, building on the work done in the US funded by, gasp, a foundation--Carnegie Corporation of New York.  These are important conversations, and we should be having them.  But starting from the standpoint that only one man in Canadian defence journalism has integrity is not helpful or informative.  But maybe it makes sense if he wants to taint rival sources of information.  Of course, that would be speculating about his integrity, and that would be wrong.   

*  For those who are unfamiliar with academia, when it comes to grants, the way it works is:

1. Apply to multiple grants
2. Wait.  Tom Petty was right, the waiting is the hardest part.
   
3. Grant application is approved by funder.  Does not always happen as I keep saying: rejection is inherent in the enterprise
   
4. Get research ethics clearance from university committee.  The aim here is largely not to harm our research subjects--the people we interview.  These processes were developed after psychologists did bad things to the people they studied (Stanford Prison Experiment, the Milgram experiment)
   
5. The university receives money
6. Fund research assistants, organize events, arrange travel, etc.  
7. Be reimbursed (one can sometimes get advances) for money spent on planes, trains, automobiles, hotels, per diems (usually something like $70/day for meals) with the aforementioned research accounting offices tracking what we spend and rejecting inappropriate expenditures..
   
8. Report on activities and spending.
   
9. Publish and engage the public/media.  Sharing our knowledge is one of the essential components of the job. 
   

Professing about Punditry: Calculating Value Over Replacement Pundit, Canada Edition

I look puzzled or annoyed as the anchor
got my title wrong, suggesting I run NPSIA

I have been thinking a lot lately about profs and punditry.  To start, I am just going to accept that profs who appear on TV are "pundits" as the definition of a pundit is: "an expert in a particular subject or field who is frequently called on to give opinions about it to the public."  Yep, that's us, among other folks.  Plenty of profs who aren't pundits, plenty of pundits who are not profs, but those who profess in the media are, indeed, pundits.  

 

This came up last week at the International Studies Association as there was a panel on "How Not To Bridge The Gap" which is about as deceptive as one can get in a panel title since it was really about how to bridge the gap--how to have the academics talk to the policy people and vice versa.  After a couple of decades of Bridging the Gap [BTG], a group dedicated to fostering the exchange, and a few years of a bit of that in a Canadian accent--the CDSN which has as BTG as a founding partner--folks are now asking about whether this is a good thing, whether it is dangerous, how to do responsible engagement, and such.

While all of this can be and should be quite complicated, I have a basic take on whether or not to do media stuff (and since I do a fair amount, you can guess where this is headed):

1. We get public money to do our research, so we should give back.  Indeed, many grant applications require a dissemination plan.
   
2. A fundamental part of professing is to disseminate knowledge.
3. And if not us, then who?

This last thing is my focus today and was when I piped up from the audience last week.  That if we don't speak, the media will find someone else to fill that time slot, that page, that podcast, whatever.  So, one must ask themselves if one can bring more to something than whoever else they might get or whether one might not be as fit for that topic or issue than whoever else they might get.

This is where I borrow a concept from the analytics revolution in sports.  There have been all kinds of ways to measure the value of baseball players compared to each other, basketball players (one measure is called RAPTOR!), and so on.  My personal favorite happens to be from baseball.  I like it so much both because it has a good conception and has a fun acronym is VORP: Value Over Replacement Player.  This enables one not only to assess how a generic player in their position in the same season or time frame, but to compare players at different positions or in different time frames.  While technology, strategy, and medical care and the rest have changed over time, we can use this measure to figure out the relative value of players from different generations.  Babe Ruth is still #1 followed by Walter Johnson, Cy Young, and then Barry Bonds and then Bonds's godfather Willie Mays (this settles the Mantle/Mays thing).  I am happy to see Tom Seaver above Greg Maddox, that Seaver was much better than the replacement level starting pitcher of his era compared to Greg Maddox to the replacement level starting pitcher of his era.  In basketball, this puts Lebron over Jordan, which folks might disagree with just a bit. 

The point is not to stir up a debate about sports, but the idea of measuring someone compared the person a team could get that is easily available--off the street, from the waiver wire, from the minor leagues, whatever.  When it comes to media stuff, the producers of the various radio, television, podcast, and other programs need to fill content, so they will grab someone, anyone, to fill in a spot.  So, the point I raised at the conference and part of the reason why I do media stuff is: would we rather have a knowledgeable expert or some schlub off the street?  

Of course, they don't get just any schlub, they go to the experts who are already on their rolodex (to date myself even further).  We tend to see mostly the same folks again and again depending on the issue, so the question is, for every expert, are they more expert or less (dare I say it) hacky than the person who might be called instead?  

The VORP in sports is easy to calculate even if what goes in the calculations can be and is debated--how much does excellence at anyone time count compared to lifetime achievement, etc.  In punditry, how do we calculate VORP?  It will be less about what is quantified and more about what can be compared and ranked.  So, what may be in the minds of the producers and should be in our minds as we come up with a Value Over Replacement Pundit:

1. How well they know the topic at hand?  Some folks are super sharp at one thing, others know a bit about a lot.  This measure here is about how much they know about the specific topic?
2. What is their range?  How broadly can they speak?  Because you know the anchor is going to go off script and ask questions that are not necessarily in the strikezone.
3. How articulate are they?  Can they speak/write clearly and dynamically?  I will mention my Lebron/Babe Ruth in Canadian circles on this measure below.
4. How measured or responsible are they?  Folks saying that war between US and China is inevitable, for instance, have a lower VORP because they may very well be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.  My speculating about terrorism in 1996 Lubbock should have set my VORP at a negative number.  On the other hand, I was far more responsible last March about calls for a No Fly Zone than a bunch of retired military officers in the US and Canada. 
   
5. Availability: in sports, health is a gift/attribute in its own right, which means that some players rank higher because they can play most days.  Kevin Durant's VORP has been hurt by his various injuries.  In the pundit game, the question is whether one is willing to do it a bit, some, or a lot.  This can obviously tradeoff with expertise/responsibility pieces. 
   

There are probably other ingredients/variables, but let's stick with those for now, and folks can suggest additional ones.

The first item--how well they know the topic--allows us to bring in the positions from sports.  That one can have a high VORP if one is playing a position they are good at and a low one if they play one that is not their strength.  Babe Ruth has an incredible VORP because he was both a terrific hitter and an amazing pitcher.  So, some folks will have high Value Above Replacement Pundit because they know a lot about a lot, and they have the other key ingredients. In thinking about this and my experiences both in the media and watching other folks, I thought I should use a few key issues to highlight who has a high VORP.  And, yes, this was partially inspired by watching two NPSIA colleagues and one PhD student absolutely rock the Canadian intelligence beat.  

So, enough with the explanations and definitions, who has a high VORP in Canada?  Note, this is illustrative, not exhaustive.

I think number one on Canadian foreign policy, broadly defined, is Roland Paris.  He brings his years of academic experience on peacekeeping and international relations to bear along with his various times in government at different levels.  He is simply terrific at articulating complex stuff--his quotes today about Biden's visit to Ottawa were both accurate and delightful.  He is also very responsible--he's not going to say something that is wildly speculative.  If I were a producer, I would always go to him first on damn near anything.  When I appeared on TV with him once, I just basically said: "I agree with Roland." It did not make for good tv.  Bessma Momani has wide-ranging expertise, is compelling and clear, so she's a great go-to for Canadian relations with a variety of places.

On intelligence matters, Canada has quite a few folks who are super sharp on this: Stephanie Carvin, Leah West, Jess Davis, Artur Wilcyznkski, and Craig Forcese clearly have very high VORPs (I think Amar Amarasingam does too, but I haven't seen as much of his stuff).  Stephanie, Leah, Jess, and Craig have done extensive research, Artur has far more experience than the others in government in so many spots (he is a great podcast co-host for a couple of the podcasts on the CDSN Podcast Network).  Each are quite responsible, sticking within their lanes of expertise, not speculating wildly, and not having any ideological axes to grind (that's a hint for many of the folks who have low VORPs--who tend to dominate the editorial pages).

On defence stuff, Thomas Juneau has among the highest VORPs because he has academic and policy expertise, a willingness to do the media stuff, is excellent in both official languages. Stéfanie von Hlatky would have the highest defence VORP except she does not do that much media.  I wish she did more as she is super responsible, knows the Canadian defence scene, knows the US and NATO well, again strong in both languages.  I had fun watching her at a couple of NATO summits where the Canadian media grabbed us to "scrum" with them.  

Of the columnists, I think Shannon Proudfoot easily has the highest VORP.  Her columns always are well reported, provide valuable perspective, making one see things from a different angle.

Where do I fit in?  I think I have a decent, positive VORP score, but not as strong as those mentioned above.  I am not as articulate or as responsible.  I have a wider range than most, except perhaps Thomas and Roland (reminds me of the polls that show that men are far more confident about landing planes or battling bears), but with that greater willingness to talk about stuff at the edges of my expertise, I say stuff like Ukraine is going to lose the war.  I was wrong (many were wrong about that).  I should have been a bit more circumspect about potential predictions even while being clear as I could why a No Fly Zone was super dangerous. I did have fun saying "your guess is as good as mine" when an anchor went against the instructions asking about the pipeline sabotage.

One of the things I have been emphasizing in recent years is saying no to the media where my VORP trends negative or where I know folks who have much more value.  During the Vance/McDonald/Sajjan stuff of two years ago, I kept directing the media to people who studied gender and the military.  I was far more willing to talk when the story focused on civilian control of the military, something I study.  I have declined to speak much about balloons or about election interference as I really don't have that much to say.  I really don't know much about China, for instance. 

I will speak beyond my areas of expertise on the Battle Rhythm podcast because it is a smaller audience, I can edit myself afterwards, and my co-host and guests can and will correct me.  For a five minute hit on radio or TV, the anchor person is not going to push back if I say something wrong.  They may want me to do so since it might make for better tv.  

Who has negative VORPs, where a replacement pundit available off the street or waiver wire would be a significant improvement?  I could name a few obvious retired senior military officers, but that would be unnecessary.  I could also name some columnists for national papers in Canada including one who used to own a bunch of them before/after? he was convicted.

So some caveats here--I don't watch as much tv and I certainly don't listen to too much radio, so I am mostly influenced by the times I have appeared with other folks.  And, yes, most of the people listed above are very good friends.  I don't think I have to agree with someone to give them a high score.... but it probably doesn't hurt. Does that make me biased or do I simply hang with people with high VORPs?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There is a tradeoff I forgot to mention in the first posting of this: if you say no a lot, they won't come back.  Which can be cool if one does not want to be bothered.  But saying yes a fair amount means that when I do say no, I can refer them to sharp, younger people who they don't know about, and this allows me to connect the media to diverse voices.  And they often listen.  The media wants good people, but they also have lots of time pressure, so they often go to the easiest get.  But if you give them help, they will add to their rolodex.

Feel free to nominate in the comments folks in the Canadian IR media space who are at either end of the VORP spectrum or in between.

 

Lamenting the End of OpenCanada

is not dead, but it is no longer alive either.  Hiatus means coma or something like it.  It has served since 2011 as THE place for smart analyses and commentary on international relations and Canada's role in the world.  Sure, I am biased as I used to be a columnist there, and I would still occasionally write stuff for them from time to time since then.  But it was one of a kind--a real portal to the world for Canadians, one that was not stuck in any particular perspective or focused on a specific sector.  It was great for non-Canadians to read as well--it was not limited to just pondering Canadian things.

And now it is "on hiatus."  Why?  I don't know all of the history, but financial troubles have been a challenge for a while.  OpenCanada, if I am right, started out as an outgrowth of the Canadian International Council (which is like the World Affairs Councils in the US), which is an association aimed at providing interested Canadians with fora to meet and discuss the world and to hear speakers.  Anyhow, CIC and OpenCanada went their separate ways due to, I think, previous financial problems* with CIGI, a think tank based in Waterloo, funding OpenCanada.  While I have occasionally suggested that CIGI is the Borg of Canada, assimilating that which it can, this particular effort was quite a productive move.

CIGI is famous for having been funded by Jim Basillie, founder of RIM (Research in Motion), the company that produced the Blackberry.  CIGI has been known as the richest think tank in Canada (not saying much since there are few think tanks in Canada and fewer still have much of an endowment).  OpenCanada was such a great opportunity for CIGI--to have an asset that would facilitate the transmission of research to the wider public.  Alas, in cutting back, CIGI didn't think so.  I am pretty bummed and pretty critical because I thought CIGI was getting more bang for its buck supporting OpenCanada than anything else it has done. 

Of course, I am also sad because OpenCanada was (is?) a partner of the Canadian Defence and Security Network.  It was a natural partner for helping provide an outlet for the research we at the CDSN will be producing.  They needed content, we have content, and need outlets.  Alas, it looks like we will have to find other ways to get our stuff out to wider audiences. 

Colleagues have suggested that we take it over, but we don't have the funds to keep the OpenCanada staff employed, and that is the key.  The people behind the site did great work, were smart, super creative, and diligent.  I'd like somebody in Canada to fund it, but there simply is not the same kind of incentive structure here as in the US (no taxes on inheritance, for example, here in Canada so less creation of foundations by rich people). 

Hope, as they say, is not a plan, so my hope that someone or some entity can come along and bring OpenCanada back to life is just that--hope.  Maybe another rich person will want to make a difference and find it to be an established way to inform Canadians and others about the world.  I hope so.  Thanks to Eva and Cat and Taylor and the rest of the gang for doing such great work.  Good luck finding the next thing for yourselves.  Based on what you accomplished, I am sure you will land on your feet.

*  I stopped being a columnist because, well, OpenCanada's challenges meant that they could no longer pay me on a regular basis.  I found writing weekly posts to be a challenge--that spewing is far easier than writing a post that is new/original and speaks to larger audiences about Canadian foreign/defence policy or about international relations in ways that interest Canadians.  It was not impossible--it was just work.  Which meant, well, I wanted to get paid for it.  Since I quit columnist-ing, I would write for OpenCanada when I had an idea that I wanted to share with a Canadian audience.  As I got busier with creating the CDSN, I wrote less and less, which is kind of ironic since a core part of the CDSN is to share research with wider audiences

Too Close? Maintaining Perspective While Engaging

One of the questions we get from time to time and one of the insults I get from a certain reporter on occasion refers to whether one can be critical of the armed forces if one hangs out with them.  Of course, I think so.

Why did I go on Exercise Collaborative Spirit (see this video of the exercise for an idea of what we did)?

1. I am a deeply curious person (more on that below) so I wanted to learn more about the Canadian Armed Forces.  I write about them often enough, and I figure that by engaging with them, I can learn more.  Plus even if I didn't study the CAF, I would still want to know more because ... I am deeply curious.
2. It was fun.  Yeah, shooting guns and watching 155mm artillery pieces fire and invading a beach and playing soldier is fun.  
3. It was good networking.  I have spent the past six years building the Canadian Defence and Security Network.  Most of my military contacts have been senior officers thanks to researching how the civilians controlled the various militaries in Afghanistan.  I want to diversity my contacts--I wanted to meet junior officers and non-commissioned officers so that I can see the CAF from multiple perspectives.  Plus I wanted to meet the folks that the CAF invited--these stakeholders.  Some are junior DND policy officers, some work in other parts fo the defence sector, and some were random civilians.  

I was aware when I got the invitation that this exercise is an information operation.  The CAF and DND were not just doing it to be friendly and generous, but to help create a positive attitude towards the armed forces.  And, yes, carrying around heavy equipment and hanging with these soldiers has that impact.  Does being aware that this is the intent immunize me from the powerful socializing impact that the CAF has?  I'd like to think so.  I did go to Afghanistan in 2007 when DND and CAF felt it was important to have professors observe stuff up close.  Using profs as a tool in an information operation is risky because we tend to be critical, but I think they gambled on informed criticism being better than uninformed criticism.

Which gets to the fundamental thing: we professors have three key related attributes: we are curious, we are critical, and we are used to criticism.  We get into this business because we want to learn and want to know more. Most of the profs I know are deeply inquisitive people who keep asking questions not only about their own research, but about other people's research and about stuff beyond their areas of expertise.  We just like to ask and answer questions.  The whole idea of a PhD is to train someone to ask novel questions and then to answer them.

The training itself and then the lived experience focuses on criticism.  We are trained to pick holes in arguments, we do not believe what we are told--even if the person telling us stuff is friendly and let us fire their gun.  We are constantly given opportunities to criticize--we criticize the work of our students so that their work gets better, we criticize the work of other academics via peer review processes, we criticize the institutions that employ us, and on and on.

Speaking of peer review, we are used to criticism.  Indeed, we seek it out.  Either because we sincerely want our work to get better or simply that we need to survive review to get published.  We are constantly being criticized by our students (teaching evals) and by publishing outlets--especially by reviewer #2.  So, we tend to develop thick skin.

The one exception, at least in my case, is I tend to get pissed off if someone questions my integrity.  David Pugliese, a Canadian defence reporter, has pulled that particular chain a few times by implying that I am too close to the Canadian Armed Forces.*  He apparently does not read my stuff, where I have criticized the CAF plenty of times.  I also criticize the US military aplenty despite spending an amazing year on the Joint Staff in 2001-2002.  How can I do that, despite their powerful socialization efforts?  Because I am critical of everything.  I am critical of some of Pugliese's stories even as I find much of his work to be amazing stuff that helps us to understand DND/CAF.  Indeed, in my current project on legislatures and oversight over armed forces, I have come to the conclusion that civilian control of the armed forces includes not just the executive in that category of "civilian" and not just the legislature, but also the media, think tanks, academics, and others who have expertise and ask questions and engage in research.

Anyhow, in designing the CDSN, we have been careful to bring in a number of perspectives, including organizations that tend to be very critical of the CAF.  We also include elements of the CAF as we fundamentally believe that engaging provides more opportunities to learn than taking potshots from a distance.  Some academics feel differently about that (and we were lucky to avoid those in the review process).  I always think knowing more is better than knowing less, and interacting with the CAF allows me to know more.

I keep on learning, and one of things I will try to learn is not to respond to thin skinned reporters who question my integrity.  But apparently not this day.


* Pugliese also took shots at my junior colleagues, which is how this stuff came up again.  They are both sufficiently critical and thick skinned to be willing to wade in and criticize journalists.  If only this particular journalist would take the criticism to heart rather than firing back.  

Maybe I Am Not Critical Enough?

One of the challenges of building the Canadian Defence and Security Network has been that scholars want to produce policy relevant info and have a sense of what the government is thinking and doing without having their independence compromised.  Becoming partners with government agencies, units of the CAF, non-governmental organizations in Ottawa and far away might cause some to wonder if we are just the mouthpiece for the CAF and DND.

Today, I was painted with that brush as I had criticized an article written by one of the three or four folks in Canada who cover defence stuff on a regular basis--David Pugliese:

Maybe Stephen Saideman and retired Lt.-Gen. Day would just prefer I ask the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and their cronies in the Canadian military/DND for approval for future articles I write…

— David Pugliese (@davidpugliese) July 2, 2019

Ah, I am a crony.  Pugliese seems to ignore that the CGAI folks (who are a partner to the CDSN and host our #BattleRhythm podcast) often publish stuff that is critical of the armed forces.  He apparently has forgotten or missed all of the times I used his pieces to launch my own criticisms of the CAF and DND.  For instance, see this piece I wrote based on Pugliese's reporting.

There is always a concern that folks who need access will be quiet about their criticisms for fear of losing access.  I am sometimes worried that the broader network I am helping to lead might suffer from the times I take shots at folks in the military or in DND.  But those who follow me on twitter or have read enough spews here, I don't think restrained or compromised would be a word they would use.

I try to be self-aware enough as I do this stuff to make sure that I don't end up getting played by the government.  When DND took a bunch of academics to Afghanistan as part of their information operations campaign (propaganda) aimed at the Canadian public, I wondered about the wisdom of this--that we tend to be quite pesky.  The military makes it harder than most because they do a really good job of working the refs.  But I wonder, if journalists rely entirely on leaks that come to them, aren't they at risk of getting played?  Just a thought.

Grumpy Dual Citizen and Canadian Hot Takes

The past couple of days have hit a button for me--that Canadians have expressed views on the US that seem both smug and wrong.  Sure, I am vulnerable right now because the US is doing incredibly harmful stuff to everyone at home and abroad.  But getting things wrong probably doesn't help.

So, yesterday, Stephen Gordon, a Canadian economist I respect a great deal said:

Fun fact: The GOP is the Natural Governing Party of the United States.

Because they run the country the way Americans want it to be run.

— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) November 30, 2017

This is wrong in so many ways, so let's count them:

1. The Republicans have lost the popular vote in every Presidential election except for 2004 since 1992.  
2. The Democrats have been in majority in Congress far more often than the Republicans since the Great Depression.  Recency bias is a problem, I guess.
   
   
3. The Republican victories have been unnatural: Trump via Comey, Russia and all that, House via Russians (yeah, that is one reason they are not investigating) and a combo of gerrymandering plus voter suppression (#voterfraudfaud) and Dems tending to waste votes by living together. 
4. In the last several elections, the Dems have done far better among younger folks--which is bad for today since they don't vote as much but is great for tomorrow since the GOP's future may be bleak.
5. The United States is diverse, the GOP is not.  So, the GOP is only the natural governing party of whites.
6. If you look at the polls on most of the issues, including highly "divisive" ones, the Democratic position is more popular.  Gun control?  Yeah, the iron fist of the NRA is a problem, but more Americans favor background checks and the like.  Abortion? More Americans favor women having access.  LGBT?  The Democrats have won, even as the GOP fights some battles that are alienating the younger folks.

The economists may think that preferences equal outcomes (sorry, can't help myself), but institutions matter and so does other stuff.  So, no, the GOP is not the natural governing party.  Especially since ... they suck at governing.   Burning things down? Great.  Governing? No. And then folks will choose Democrats as they did last month all across Virginia and even in some mighty red parts of places like Oklahoma.

I get it--folks want to say the American chose this and they need to suck on it a while. Well, yes and no.  As an American, I am deeply embarrassed by what Trump is doing and how he is undermining the US at home and abroad.  I recognize that there are three hunks of Trump voters: those who voted for him because they love his white supremacy and his misogyny and all that; those who voted for him because party id is a hell of a drug (factor in Hillary hysteria); and those who don't call themselves Trump voters anymore.  But they were less than one third of the population, so they aren't America.

Indeed, this is a big hobby horse for me--Palin referred only rural places as Real America as if places with big spaces and few people count for more than smaller places with many people. Yes, the lines favor the former, but Real America is the diverse America of the cities and increasingly of the suburbs. 

The hot take today that pushed my button:

Mueller is flicking his lighter, about to set off what may be the biggest political explosion in American history. https://t.co/f92FxHdRXi

— Scott Gilmore (@Scott_Gilmore) December 1, 2017

Sorry, but let's have some perspective.  Biggest political explosion in US history???  Let's count again:

1. Pick your Revolutionary moment: Lexington and Concord, the real Tea Party, the Declaration of Independence.
2. Firing on Fort Sumter or the election of Abraham Lincoln.  
3. The election of 1932 since that changed the landscape of American politics
4. Pearl Harbor since World War II re-made the US in a big way.
5. The assassination of Martin Luther King as it led to cities burning.
6. 9/11, which ushered in a few forever wars, increased executive authority and more than a little repression.  

I could go on.  The other problem with Gilmore's piece is that he thinks that Flynn's flipping will lead to the end of Trump. I actually think that if the GOP passes the tax cut, that will a bigger deal for everything--because the GOP will have thoroughly alienated much of the country to help their donors and it might make them feel as if Trump fulfilled his role.

Again, impeachment is not happening anytime soon--will Flynn flipping cause the GOP voters to stop supporting Trump?  Since we live in two media worlds (a real one and a fake one led by Fox and Brietbart), I am not sure they will.

I will write tomorrow about what I think Flynn's flipping will do--it is a huge deal and I am most happy.  But the biggest political explosion in US history?  Only for those who have a very short memory.