Writings and observations

Fear. Fear. Fear. Fear. Fear. Fear. Fear Fear. Fear.

Any terrorists out there, anyone at ISIS, watching last night’s Republican presidential debate had to be absolutely delighted: Their job of scaring the American people was being done to the utmost by the presidential candidates, just about all of them, of one of America’s two major political parties.

I’ve never heard a collection of presidential candidates sounding so frightened, so on edge, so ready to kill anyone and everyone – out of fear. What becomes most terrifying is letting any of them (with the possible exception of Rand Paul, who sounded the most grounded on this subject) anywhere near any actual military power, much less that of the by-far most powerful nation on earth.

One watcher pondered how it was “A debate about foreign policy in which no actual treaties were discussed. A debate about the most dangerous threats to America and no discussion of home-grown terrorists. A debate about national security that didn’t delve into the costs of war.”

At Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall recounted how the debate painted

. . . the global picture of a country, at least a major fraction of a country, totally unhinged by ISIS and the gruesome massacre in San Bernardino, California. Certainly the first half of the debate was roiled by repeated invocations of fear, the celebration of fear, the demand that people feel and react to their fear. This was logically joined to hyperbolic and ridiculous claims about ISIS as a group that might not simply attack America or kill Americans but might actually destroy the United States or even our entire civilization.

Politically, the GOP has an interest in whipping up this kind of hysteria. But a substantial number of people in this country also clearly need this fantasy vision of a great clash between good and evil which is in its own way only slightly less apocalyptic and unhinged than the philosophy of ISIS itself.

If one of them is elected, I’m not sure who exactly we’d be going to war with. But we’d be going to war with somebody, by damn. We’d be sending those troops in and dropping those bombs.

And on the day after election day, if one of them is elected, the people in every other nation on earth would have good reason to ask: Are we going to sit here and wait to be destroyed, or do something about it first? This kind of super-jingo talk isn’t being heard only by Americans, after all. Anyone who perceives a grievance with the United States, and anyone who wants to attack us, heard it too.

And the world takes another spin around the crazy wheel . . . But none of it, and none of this hysteria, is in the best interests of the United States or its people. – rs (image/BillyfabianCow)

Share on Facebook

First Take


It’s easy to get confused by this year’s campaign for president. If you get information from watching television or from Internet rumblings, you might think Republicans are driving toward a massive victory. And why not? Donald Trump packs thousands of people into every one of his rallies and the television ratings for G.O.P. debates are ginormous. So this must be the Republican year, right?

The problem with that narrative is that it misses the demographic shift that’s been occurring in America.

Fact is any Republican candidate for president starts off in a deep hole. To win a candidate will have to erase a structural deficit. Sure, it’s possible, but it’s also growing more unlikely because of the tone coming from the 2016 campaign so far. Why the deep hole? When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 the population of the United States was 80 percent white. Today it’s about 63 percent white.

One demographic profile of voters by The National Journal shows how dramatically the country has changed since Reagan’s landslide. He won with the support 56 percent of white voters in 1980. “But in 2012, when non­white voters ac­coun­ted for 28 per­cent of the elect­or­ate, Mitt Rom­ney took 59 per­cent of white voters—and lost the pres­id­en­tial race by 4 per­cent­age points. Without a total brand makeover, how can Re­pub­lic­ans ex­pect to pre­vail with an even more di­verse electorate in 2016?”

The country’s diversity trend is just beginning. The U.S. Census reports that American Indians and Alaska Natives grew 1.4 percent since 2013, compared to 0.5 percent for whites. “Even more diverse than millennials are the youngest Americans: those younger than 5 years old. In 2014, this group became majority-minority for the first time, with 50.2 percent being part of a minority race or ethnic group,” the Census said. So in 13 years the majority of new voters will be people of color and in twenty-five years a majority of all voters.
The GOP’s demographic challenge

The Republicans have a long term problem.

“Based on estimates of the composition of the 2016 electorate, if the next GOP nominee wins the same share of the white vote as Mitt Romney won in 2012 (59 percent), he or she would need to win 30 percent of the nonwhite vote,” Dan Balz recently wrote in The Washington Post. “Set against recent history, that is a daunting obstacle. Romney won only 17 percent of nonwhite voters in 2012. John McCain won 19 percent in 2008. George W. Bush won 26 percent in 2004.”

It’s important to remember, however, that presidential elections are 50 separate state elections that determine the electoral college vote. So discount every poll you see that compares one Republican versus one Democrat. Instead think: Which states?

And it’s in these state contests where the American Indians and Alaska Native voters are becoming more important, especially as part of a coalition.

Nevada is a good place to start examining these trends. In 2012, Nevada voters were about 65 percent white. Next year’s voters are projected to drop to about 60 percent. So it will be possible to build a winning coalition made up of some white voters (a third or so) plus significant majorities from Latino, African American, Asian American and Native Americans.

Other states where such coalitions are possible: Alaska, Arizona, Wisconsin, and, eventually, Oklahoma.

The web site Five Thirty Eight has a nifty electronic interactive calculator that lets you project election scenarios. What happens if more minority voters turn out? Think landslide. More important: Break down the Republican constituencies and see where that party’s strength comes from. “Whites without college degrees are now the bedrock of the Republican coalition: They voted for Mitt Romney 62 percent to 36 percent in 2012,” Five Thirty Eight reports. “However, their share of the electorate is rapidly shrinking: They skew older and more rural, and we project that their share of the national vote will fall to 33 percent in 2016, down from 36 percent in 2012. Nonetheless, they still factor heavily in battleground states such as Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio and Wisconsin.”

What’s striking about this election so far is that the Republican candidates are not trying to build a coalition with minority voters, young voters, or even fix the gender gap that’s been a problem for decades. Millennials are now the largest age group – some 90 million people – and are more independent than previous generations. Most millennials lean toward the Democrats, but even those who say they are Republican see the world very differently than today’s Republican candidates. Pew Research Center found: “The generational divisions among Republicans span different dimensions of political values. Some of the most striking generational differences within Republicans concern social issues like homosexuality and immigration, but younger Republicans are also less conservative when it comes to values related to the environment, role of government, the social safety net and the marketplace.”

So as we enter 2016 it’s important to discount the news coming from the campaign. It’s going to be a crazy year with all sorts of scenarios possible ranging from fights at the conventions to third-party runs. Sure, it’s even possible, that one of the Republican candidates will whip up magic and unite a coalition of voters. But that would take words designed to reach consensus with the new majority of voters. There will be another GOP debate Tuesday. (I will be live tweeting.) Watch and see if even one candidate recognizes that the road to the White House is red, brown, black and young.

Mark Trahant is the Charles R. Johnson Endowed Professor of Journalism at the University of North Dakota. He is an independent journalist and a member of The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. On Twitter @TrahantReports

Share on Facebook


The signing of the final decree of the Snake River Basin Adjudication in August 2014 must have felt to some people like an end of Idaho water history – and it was the conclusion of a major chapter in that history. But by no means the end of all of it.

In fact, in some ways it opened whole new areas for conflict and dispute, which is not a criticism but a way of saying that what the SRBA really did, which was to clarify who had rights to what water, was to nail down facts but not make policy judgments about what should be done with them. The reality is that there’s less water in the Snake River basin than Idahoans would ideally like to have, and that means there’ll be conflict.

One policy area where Idaho has been notably successful, an arena where other states could usefully draw positive lessons, over the years has been water management. This video (sent our way by former newspaper colleague Steve Steubner, who worked on it) outlines usefully what some of the issues are now and how they’re being addressed. At least for now. This is a territory where the debates will be going on for a very long time. – rs

Share on Facebook

First Take Idaho