What Does Populism Mean?

There’s this word, populism, that keeps showing up. Here’s a basic definition from an online dictionary:

Populism: A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.

The word doesn’t show up in my 1980s dictionary, although Populist shows up as the name of a US political party from 1891-1904. It’s also not in the 1820s dictionary. I did some minimal research online, and definitions and examples are all over the place.

Super lawyer Robert Barnes uses the term freely to describe Donald Trump, along with others in such a category (including VP candidate J. D. Vance). I’ve noticed some anti-establishment leaders around the world, although I hadn’t attached the word to them. These would be Bolsonaro in Brazil, the entire Brexit movement (I thought Boris Johnson might be one, but he caved during COVID), a couple of Latin American leaders—Bukele in El Salvador and Milei in Argentina. There’s Meloni in Italy, and possibly Orban in Hungary. These do not necessarily represent “populist” parties in various countries, although they can. But populism seems to be more about the individual leaders than any party.

Examples are of bold, charismatic leaders, who are by definition popular. That is, the people like them, prefer them, vote for them. They are, then, democratic, in that the will of the people expresses its favor toward them. They are not installed or foisted upon the people by some behind-the-scenes cabal, or even by rising in any existing party or faction. In fact, these populist leaders seem to rise up in opposition to the powers that be. But they are not simply popular people; they are popular for what they are trying to do.

Oddly, some of the online definitions refer to them as typically authoritarian. Here’s this from a Britannica article:

In its contemporary understanding, however, populism is most often associated with an authoritarian form of politics. Populist politics, following this definition, revolve around charismatic leaders who appeal to and claim to embody the will of the people in order to consolidate their own power.

The article later lists some examples: Juan Perón (Argentina), Getúlio Vargas (Brazil), and Hugo Chavez (Venezuela). In that same paragraph it adds Donald Trump:

In the United States, according to some historians and political scholars, the administration of Republican Pres. Donald Trump (2017–21) also displayed some aspects of authoritarian populism. Among them were conspiracy mongering, racism toward African Americans and nonwhite immigrants, distrust of democratic institutions among Trump’s core supporters, and the subservient position of the national Republican Party. Perhaps the most powerful indicator of the existence of authoritarian populism under Trump was his incitement of a mob of his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election (see United States Capitol attack of 2021).

Except, at last count, every conspiracy theory attached to us Trump supporters (and anyone else who didn’t support the administrative state’s controlled narrative) has turned out to be conspiracy fact. Every example of racism was invented without actual examples—because such examples don’t exist. I’ll grant you distrust of various democratic institutions—which have given us plenty of reason to distrust them. Finally, we know that Trump did not incite a mob; the vast majority of people at the capitol on January 6, 2021, were asking for a fair look at the widespread evidence of fraud in the 2020 election, but the rioters stopped them from getting what they were asking for; and we now know the mob was infiltrated with literally hundreds of government assets. Hmm. Trump had offered National Guard and greater security simply based on the large numbers expected; Pelosi and DC Mayor Muriel Bowser refused the offer.

In short, their attempts to attach the authoritarian label to Trump—after a 4-year term in which he was for less government regulation, greater economic freedom, less foreign entanglement, etc.—is another example of their doing what they accuse their opposition of doing.

A recent example offered by the Webster’s online dictionary shows this quote from an article in Source Journal last week:

The populist positioning pitted Harris against monopolistic conglomerates, firmly entrenching her on the side of average businesses and consumers. “I believe competition is the life blood of our economy, more competition means lower prices for you and your families,” she said.

It appears the Harris campaign is “positioning” her as a “populist” to make her seem like a champion of the little people. Except, while she is authoritarian (see example here), she is—or was, until her campaign invented a suddenly “popular” version of her—vastly unpopular. It was as if she were chosen as VP as insurance that Biden would be left in to avoid having her take over. And, no, she is not in any way on the side of consumers. I think she would be hard-pressed to summon up even the most basic vocabulary for sane economic policy. She thinks taxing us on our “unrealized gains” is a good idea.

[I’m not fully going down that rabbit hole today, but here’s a good metaphor to explain her proposal, from Tom Woods’ daily email August 28:

Here's what it means (mathematical example shared with me by a friend):

(1)   January 2020, you buy 100 shares of Zoom stock at $75 per share.

(2)   That stock ends the year at $350, which means you made a gain of $27,500. But it's an unrealized gain, because you didn't sell the stock. You still have it.

(3)   Kamala would tax you 75% on that $27,500 that you don't actually have.

(4)   Since you don't have the cash to pay it (you never sold the stock, remember, so you never actually experienced this "gain"), you withdraw from your savings.

(5)   You hold the stock until August 2024, when it's only $60 a share.

(6)   You decide to sell because this is the most you think you'll ever get for the stock. You sell at a loss (remember, you bought it at $75) at $60.

(7)   Oh, and those taxes on your "unrealized capital gain"? Well, you ended up with a loss, not a gain, but Kamala keeps your money anyway.]

In short, if you want to understand actual populism today, you can’t go to the standard sources; you’ve got to ferret out the meaning yourself.

So, am I a supporter of populism—as Robert Barnes says he is? I am not. I am a skeptic. Maybe that’s a leftover suspicion of popularity from long-ago high school. Popular often meant inauthentic, unkind, and prejudicially disdainful. But, granted, popular can also mean something good, something or someone that a majority of people have discovered and express their approval of. You can’t dismiss the choices of the masses out of hand. But you also don’t have to accept them.

found on Facebook stories

One of the things about the populous is that it is susceptible to manipulation by the media. That’s what makes pure democracy so dangerous.

In our time, the current populists, particularly Trump, seem aligned with my values: I’m a constitutional conservative. That is, I want the US Constitution conserved, and its laws and principles applied as intended—as far as we can ascertain what was intended; there’s a lot of historical writings to inform us on that (The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, writings by the founders, notes from the Constitutional Convention, etc.)

That’s the standard I use for any candidate. I’ve pretty much discarded all Democrat candidates, because they do not believe in limited government, and their interference makes things worse. [While I would not have wanted RFK Jr as my president, I do see him as anti-establishment old-time Democrat, and he has, I think, integrity. We can work with such a person.] Beyond that, the current Democrat Party is unlike the sane but wrongheaded party of some decades ago, which claimed to be for working people, etc. Now they are something of a death cult, with control over the media to lie to the public to cover their real motives, which you can discern by listening carefully to what they say and what they try to do.

I haven’t written off the Republican Party as a whole. At the top, I don’t have much use for them. But at the state and local level, here in Texas, it looks to me like a majority of those active in the party support constitutional conservative principles—and we’re all about spreading that wherever we can.

So, if a populist candidate comes around—if they’re Democrat, assume they are authoritarians, since that is the standard in that party. But if they are Republican, you may have to test them somewhat deeper.

image posted by Tom Glass on Facebook

Back in 2015-16, Trump was saying things I agreed with. But I didn’t believe him. It took a couple of years of him actually abiding by the Constitution—better than I’d seen done since Reagan—and doing it under great pressure, that I finally realized he wasn’t what he’d been portrayed to be. He still may be a very rough stone, but I believe he is someone God can use for the good of our nation, and the world.

There are test questions, if you can get a chance to ask them of candidates, which I’ve shared before (2013 and 2021). But, here we are in another election season, so they might be worth repeating. These come from the Spherical Model idea that you can differentiate between freedom and tyranny in the political sphere, between prosperity and poverty in the economic sphere, and between civilization and savagery in the social sphere. I recognize some limitations to this list: you’ll hardly ever get to ask them of a national candidate, where the US Constitution is the law they need to be limited by. Maybe you’ll get lucky and ask them of a congressional candidate. But the questions will still help you get to know the mind of a more local candidate. And maybe, by listening closely to debates, press conference, and stump speeches, you might get some of these answered even by a presidential candidate. I haven’t provided the “right” answers here. Some may not have a right answer. Some definitely have a range of better answers than others. If you’re actually a constitutional conservative, you can probably imagine what those might be, so I’ll leave you to it. Or, you might want to check out the Spherical Model website and read the rather long articles there on the three spheres.

The political, economic, and social spheres of the Spherical Model

Political Sphere

·        What do you believe is the proper role of government, and what are the limits?

·        Do you have favorite portions of the US Constitution, and/or any portions that you think ought to be changed, clarified, or improved?

·        When the US Supreme Court makes a ruling that you believe is at odds with the Constitution, what do you think the executive and/or legislative branches should do in response to the ruling?

·        What do you believe is the proper balance between public safety and individual freedom, and what do you believe government needs to do to reach that balance?

·        Who are your favorite examples of a good president—since 1900—and what about them do you admire?

·        How do you define extremists, and what views do you think are examples of extreme?

 Economic Sphere

·        What do you believe is the optimum percentage of GNP that should be taken in taxes?

·        What do you believe is the government’s role in contributing to economic health? For example, if there is a sudden recession (as we were hit with in 2008), how should government react?

·        What do you believe is government’s role in the distribution of income when there’s a wide discrepancy between the poor and the wealthy?

·        What do you believe should be government’s role in charitable help to the poor and suffering?

·        What do you believe are the purposes and limits of the commerce clause of the Constitution?

·        What do you believe is the role of the Federal Reserve, and how/whether it is benefiting the economy?

Civilization Sphere 

·        What do you believe about the connection between moral values and the law?

·        Which institution is most responsible for raising a generation that will benefit society, and why: schools, government, churches, nonprofit organizations, sports teams, families?

·        Which constituency’s desires is public education best accountable to, and why: US government, state government, local government, teachers, students, parents/taxpayers?

·        What do you believe should be government’s role in homeschooling, private schools, charter schools, and school choice?

·        What do you think is government’s role in defining marriage, and why? 

 

The original list (2013) included some issue-related questions. And in December 2021 I added some new questions. Let’s see if they’re still relevant (the subpoints are my current comments):

Specific Issue Questions

·        What are your feelings concerning Obamacare, and what do you think should be done?

o   I still think it’s wrong. As with just about any program that gets passed, it’s very hard to untangle and extricate ourselves afterward. No one is talking about it this year. But we do have Kamala Harris blathering about taking away private insurance from everyone—calling it Medicare for all, although she sometimes hides from that policy statement.

·        What do you believe are the motivations of people who support traditional (man/woman) marriage and family?

o   The woke agenda is receiving a lot of pushback from people who are sick of the LGBTQ agenda being shoved down our throats. But the fight against gay marriage is pretty much lost. Now it’s a matter of keeping our children safe from the indoctrination.

·        What are your beliefs about border security and immigration?

o   This is still a huge issue. Suddenly Harris, the border czar who has done nothing but facilitate illegal entry is talking about closing the border as soon as she’s elected.

·        What do you believe is the proper role of government concerning climate?

o   This is still an issue for Dems, but it’s not gaining traction among conservatives, who view the draconian rules as more about control than climate.

·        What do you see as the US role in the world, and what is your view of the UN?

o   Warmongering Dems and Republicans are on the opposite side from the populists on this issue. Trump didn’t start any wars and got us out of some. Biden/Harris are ready to give our entire military budget to Ukraine, and they are not exactly dedicated to Israel nor exactly against violent Palestinians.

·        What are your opinions on national debt, national deficit, tax increases and/or cuts, and national budget?

o   If we could just get back to some free market principles, that would be nice.

 

New Questions This Year (end of 2021, going into 2022 primary)

·        It is likely that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade this year. How do you see Texas and the United States moving forward on this issue?

o   Something actually got done! Now it’s an issue for the states. The Dems keep claiming Trump will do more, but he has not indicated any intention of doing more at a national level.

·        In the Declaration of Independence, we dissolved political bands, not for “light and transient causes,” but for a “long train of abuses and usurpations.” Assuming that restoring and preserving our Constitution is the goal, could there be a catalyst for dissolving political bands, intended to be indivisible, and returning Texas to an independent nation? What would trigger such an action after the long train of abuses and usurpations we’re already seeing?

o   This is a Texit question. I still personally wonder what the catalyst might be. If we get through this election with a peaceful transfer of power, then maybe we won’t need to face it anytime soon.

·        One of the actual responsibilities of the federal government is protection of our national borders. When the federal government fails in that duty, what should our state do to protect our sovereignty?

o   This is another pertinent question for Texas leaders.

·        When the government deprives a person of property, such as a business, as it did during the pandemic shutdowns, what is the government’s obligation to restore that property to those who were deprived of it?

o   I’m still waiting for an answer—while the Biden/Harris administration is giving housing, income, and education to illegals. They just got shut down from using our taxes to pay off college loans (buy votes).

·        Is there anything that can/should be done about election law crimes of the past election? And what do you see as the way to restore election integrity going forward?

o   The Republicans are still concerned, with good reason. In Harris County, one judicial candidate won a lawsuit, and the judge is requiring a new election for that race; we haven’t heard when that will be. The term is now half over. And nothing was done about the other 23 or so cases from that election.

·        While conservatives generally support freedom for business, what can/should we do when large monopolies censor certain points of view on their platforms, or companies make requirements for employment or attendance based on private health decisions?

o   This is gaining in importance as the evidence of censorship and other social engineering by companies comes to the surface—along with the pressure from government on those companies.

 

 

 

Bonus Questions

Harris and Walz, image found here,
photo credit to Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Thursday night, while I was writing this, was the first interview with candidate Kamala Harris, who brought along her VP choice, Tim Walz. I won’t review that here. But in preparation, Breitbart offered “31 Questions Dana Bash Should Ask Kamala Harris, Walz in First Interview,” in categories such as the economy, immigration, freedom, foreign policy, and questions for Walz. Here’s a sampling:

17. Your party has claimed the mantle of “defending democracy,” but you were appointed as your party’s nominee despite never having received any vote as a presidential candidate in any primary. In what way did your nomination process reflect democracy?

22. Is there a fixed limit in your mind of how many U.S. taxpayer dollars should go to Ukraine, or is your sentiment “as many tax dollars as it takes?”

(for Walz) 29. You ran a hotline for Minnesotans to report their neighbors who violated your lockdown orders during the coronavirus pandemic. How is that compatible with your mantra of “Mind your own damn business?”

My guess is that Breitbart will not be tapped to host a debate or do an interview, as entertaining as that might be.

Less entertaining, but possibly effective, there’s another list, this one from Daily Mail, of 25 “Questions CNN’s Dana Bash SHOULD Ask Kamala Harris in First Interview.”   The first question is:

1.     Were you the 'last person in the room' with President Joe Biden as he prepared to enact his evacuation plan in Afghanistan, and did you voice any concerns about his strategy?

 

National Review also offered a list of questions that won’t be asked but should be, here. 

 

Ah, if only we didn’t have to invent the questions and the answers. If only real journalists could get near the candidates, as you would possibly see in a populist-led constitutional republic.

 

Debate Scoring

I spent some hours yesterday doing data related to Wednesday’s Vice-Presidential debate. I’ll include some of that, but it requires only a quick summary.

Vice President Mike Pence won. Overwhelmingly.

Vice-Presidential Debate, October 7, 2020
screenshot from Fox News video

But, depending on which media you listen to, you might not know that—even if you did watch with your own eyes. The stories were about how Pence interrupted continually, and disrespectfully “mansplained” to the woman opponent. “Mansplaining” seemed to be the word that got sent to all outlets in some memo. Did you see him do that? Neither did I.

One of the things I looked at was the interruptions. You can see the chart below, if you care about the data. (I’m using this transcript from USA Today.) 

Harris enjoyed 9 uninterrupted 2-minute answers. Pence got only 4. The appearance was that he was going long, and that is why the moderator kept interrupting him. A closer look and that appears not to be so. Moderator Susan Page [a Democrat who is writing a biography on Nancy Pelosi] started interrupting him well ahead of the 2-minute mark most of that time, and would have spared him the negative appearance if she had signaled for him to wind up within 10 seconds, rather than breaking in. She almost never interrupted Harris, even though Harris went just as long or longer.

Pence did break in—but did not interrupt--during a particularly egregious lie, insisting he couldn’t let that stand. It was when Harris used the Democrat talking-point lie that President Trump had disrespected the military.

The Lies

Here is Harris’s lie—in the middle of her 2 minute and 22 second uninterrupted answer—and only after her full time does Pence breaks in to make sure he can respond.

HARRIS: And this is about a pattern of Donald Trump's, where he has referred to our men who are serving in our military, as suckers and losers. Donald Trump, who went to Arlington Cemetery, and stood above the graves of our fallen heroes and said, ‘What's in it for them?’ Because, of course, you know he only thinks about what's in it for him.

Pence has to correct that, so he insists on responding—against the refusals of the moderator:

PENCE: The slanders against President Donald Trump regarding men and women of our armed forces are absurd…. My son is a captain in the United States Marine Corps, my son in law is deployed in the United States Navy. I can assure all of you with sons and daughters serving in our military, President Donald Trump not only respects but reveres all of those who served in our armed forces, and any suggestion otherwise is ridiculous. Let me also say—

At this point the moderator stops him and lectures him on the rules. Seriously. A good moderator would have facilitated a response after such an accusation, not attempted multiple times to prevent it.

There were other egregious lies by Harris during the debate. The one that got me most upset was the answer to this question, asked directly by Pence, not the moderator, about whether a Biden administration planned to “pack the court” if Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court is approved; that is, add members of the Supreme Court in order to guarantee a partisan ruling forever forward. Harris fails to answer, but she does lecture us with this false history non-answer:

HARRIS: I'm so glad to have a little history lesson. Let's do that a little more. In 1860—

PENCE: Well, I'd like you to answer the question.

HARRIS: Mr. Vice President, I’m speaking. I’m speaking. In 1864, one of the, I think, political heroes—certainly the President, and I assume to you as well, Mr. Vice President—is Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was up for reelection, and it was 27 days before the election, and a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln's party was in charge, not only in the White House, but the Senate. But honest Abe said it's not the right thing to do. The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next president of the United States, and then that person can select who will serve for a lifetime on the highest court of our land. And so Joe and I are very clear: the American people are voting right now. And it should be their decision about who will serve on this most important body for a lifetime.

Pence called her on her deflection, adding,

PENCE: The people deserve a straight answer. And if you haven't figured it out yet, the straight answer is they are going to pack the Supreme Court if they somehow win this election. To the many people across this country: If you cherish our Supreme Court, if you cherish the separation of powers, you need to reject the Biden-Harris ticket come November the third and reelect President Donald Trump. We will stand by the separation powers and nine seats on the Supreme Court.

But I also want to call her out on the lie, because, as we’ve already covered, all 29 times a seat has opened up in an election year, the President made the appointment without delay. Let’s take a look at that 1864 election.  When a Supreme Court seat became open in October, just weeks before the 1864 election, the Senate was out of session, with members in their home states, campaigning; there was no one to send a nomination to—this is before telephones, cars, and airplanes. But Lincoln did encourage them to campaign on that issue. He would appoint a nomination the very first day the Senate was in session—and the Senate approved the nomination that day. There was nothing about, “Oh, let’s wait, because that’s the right thing to do.” That was simply a lie, prepared ahead of time, to deflect from a question she refused to answer.

One of the ugliest moments of the debate was having Harris lecture all of us about truth.

HARRIS: Let's talk about respecting the American people. You respect the American people when you tell them the truth.

And shortly later:                                                                                                                       

HARRIS: Well, I mean, I thought we saw enough of it in last week's debate, but I think this is supposed to be a debate based on fact and truth. And the truth of the fact is, Joe Biden has been very clear. He will not raise taxes on anybody who makes less than $400,000 a year—

PENCE: He said he’s gonna appeal the Trump tax cuts—

HARRIS: Mr. Vice President I’m speaking.

PENCE: Well—

HARRIS: I’m speaking.

PENCE:—it’d be important if you said the truth. Joe Biden said twice in the debate last week that he's going to repeal the Trump tax cuts. That was tax cuts that gave the average working family $2,000 in a tax break every single year—

HARRIS: That is— That is absolutely not true.

PENCE:—Senator, that’s the math.

When Harris says something is definitely truth and fact, expect to find ubiquitous footage of her or Biden declaring the exact opposite. Truth doesn’t matter to them; it is just a word they throw around because they think maybe it appeals to some voters.

One fact checker, Jacob Palmieri, detailed her debate lies, if you’re up to investigating them all: “WOW: 24 False or Misleading Claims Made by Kamala During the Debate.” 

The Data

Here are the time stats and interruptions, if you’re interested. It was a 90-minute debate, consisting of nine 10-minute segments on different topics of the moderator’s choosing. They were each to be asked questions for which they had two uninterrupted minutes to respond, following six minutes of discussion, with length of answers determined by the moderator.

Time ended up close to equal. Harris got 35 minutes 35 seconds; Pence got 33 minutes 54 seconds. Her time was much less interrupted than his. As I said, the moderator jumped in so frequently to stop Pence that it created the appearance that he was breaking rules when he was not. There was one response where she said she would give him one minute, and she jumped in at 40 seconds; he plowed ahead through her multiple interruptions and finished right at a minute.

I can’t find an instance when she interrupted Harris head of her allotted time.

 

Who	Time	Interruptions by moderator	Interruptions by opponent	2-minute answer	Shorter response
Harris	2:05	0	0	X
Pence	2:10	0	0	X
Harris	1:11	1	0		X
Harris	0:26	0	1		X
Pence	1:21	4	1		X
Pence	1:36	2	0	X
Harris	0:53	1	2		X
Harris	0:11	0	0		X
Pence	2:09	3	0	X
Harris	2:04	0	0	X
Pence	1:17	0	1		X
Harris	1:19	0	0		X
Pence	0:59	3	1		X
Harris	1:53	0	0	X
Pence	2:09	1	1	X
Harris	2:28	3	6	X
Pence	1:08	2	2		X
Pence	2:17	3	1	X
Harris	2:14	0	0	X
Pence	1:38	2	0	X
Harris	1:22	1	1		X
Pence	0:50	3	0		X
Harris	0:14	0	0		X
Pence	2:16	2	0	X
Harris	2:02	0	1	X
Harris	2:02	0	0	X
Pence	2:28	2	0	X
Harris	2:22	0	0		X
Pence	0:36	2	0		X
Pence	1:49	2	0	X
Harris	2:21	0	0	X
Pence	1:36	0	0	X
Harris	1:11	0	1	X
Pence	0:40	0	3		X
Harris	0:47	0	0		X
Pence	0:11	0	0		X
Harris	2:17	0	0	X
Pence	2:22	2	0	X
Harris	1:55	1	1		X
Pence	1:31	3	0		X
Harris	0:29	0	0		X
Harris	0:49	0	0		X
Harris	1:58	0	0	X
Pence	1:11	0	0	X
Pence	1:40	0	0	X
Harris	1:48	0	0	X

 

It was an interesting exercise. I like to know whether my perceptions are actually borne out by data. But all things considered, VP Pence held firm when he needed to, spoke when he needed to, and despite moderator interference came out appearing to be the gentleman that he is.

Other Observations

Harris has the disadvantage of being a dislikable human being. One of the men I talk with asked, really wanting to know, whether his perception of her was sexist or real. Because men get accused of being afraid of, or prejudiced against, any assertive female; it’s a landmine. Would he have thought she was simply a strong personality, if she were a male? No, I told him. Assuredly no. She is unlikable to all humans. That’s why she couldn’t even get the support of her home state long enough to hang in for the first primary state.

Women are often at a disadvantage vocally. A higher pitch can be harder to listen to in media. This is not always true. Some women have both soothing and interesting voices. That’s true for many in the media, including Hollywood media. Ellen Degeneres. Janeane Garafalo (until she stopped saying scripted lines and started saying political garbage, so I had to stop paying attention—and apparently so did everyone else). Both Deschanel sisters (totally different, both interesting). Megyn Kelly. Heather MacDonald. Condoleeza Rice. My BFF Sherri (who is not in media or politics, but still has a noticeably pleasant voice).

But Harris is particularly disadvantaged. Her nasal, sneering condescending tone is every bit as ugly as Hillary Clinton’s stilted harangue. And both have an especially annoying cackle in place of a laugh.

On the other hand, Pence, who had his own radio show, is especially advantaged vocally. Plus, he’s naturally a nice guy. And he happens to be smart enough to bring the facts to bear—another place where Harris is especially disadvantaged, not having lived a life that values truth or facts.

There was a standard look Harris used throughout the debate. It was easy to get a screenshot.

Kamala Harris during the debate
screenshots from Fox News video

Biden did himself—and his party, and the country—a disservice by limiting himself to intersectional criteria. There are only so many black females to choose from. And all the good ones for the country are Republicans.

He chose a black woman—because she was a black woman, not for any other qualification or characteristic. And even those are questionable. She is my color (I am of Scandinavian heritage). Literally, we appear to have the same amount of melanin in our skin. I haven’t compared us in person, but that is my perception. I have the also-unearned advantage of not descending from slave owners, as she did. Yet she’s promoting reparations for racism toward people of her skin color—but not mine. I’m supposed to feel guilty for my skin color—which is the same color as hers. And I’m supposed to pay those reparations. That’s how stupid that whole racist way of thinking is.

One thing we know from this debate: Trump is as well-supported by his Vice President as any I’ve seen in my lifetime; Pence is fully capable. He doesn’t inspire energy as the top of the ticket does; but he inspires confidence in every other way. Biden appears unable to carry on a conversation without someone in his ear telling him what to say. And he chose a VP candidate whom his entire party already rejected, and who is so corrupt and uninspiring that the very idea of her having to step in when he becomes incapacitated is horrifying.

Addendum

I listened to Steve Deace on Glenn Beck Radio this morning. Both of them were saying, by their experience, they know many people who didn’t vote for Trump last time (the two of them for example, and I’ll add myself) who are voting for him this time. But do they know a single 2016 Trump voter refusing to vote for him this time? I don’t. Later I followed that with a clip from Deace’s show, talking about polling, which is his specialty. Maybe I’ll cover this another day, but the idea that we’re being lied to by the media—not a new idea to us on our side—is appearing more blatant. Here’s what he said about the unbelievable polling we’re seeing, which I think will give you hope:

If you were to consider every other metric that matters when looking at an election environment—for example, look at the voter registration numbers, and it’s not just in Pennsylvania; this is going on across the country. If you looked at things like the NBA ratings, television ratings, tanking over wokeness. And that’s the most liberal fan base in American team sports, probably other than soccer. And even they don’t want to watch this stuff. Look at the falling unemployment rate. Look at all of those metrics. If you never looked at a single poll, and you just looked at every other metric that told you what was going on in an election campaign, you would think Trump is cruising to reelection. The only thing that says differently are the polls. Draw your own conclusion from there.

The lesson: don’t let the mainstream media tell you what to believe. Look elsewhere. And think for yourself.