Making sense of the US performance

The US Presidential Election season is back. The 2024 Election is the seventh presidential election since I started following it in 2000. I have to admit that the fever and anxiety have only increased with every passing election. The decency with which Al Gore wished George W Bush after 537 votes decided a well-fought election and a 5-4 decision in the Supreme Court is not in the culture anymore. 12% of the population who can vote (Approximately 31 million) weren’t born when this incident happened. As far as the Congress goes, friendships and respect across the aisle have been replaced with partisanship and divisiveness. The left wing of the US Congress believes that the country is still deeply rooted in racism, sexism, inequalities and constriction of opportunities. The right wing of the US Congress considers that the past was a glorious time, the future is looking bleak, and there is a war on culture and religion. People like me, who, for all practical purposes, were socially and economically left of the 1980s and 90s, are left baffled by this. At the risk of sounding like a lesser intellectual version of Steven Pinker, I want to analyse if the situation is indeed alarming and how to deal with this anxiety.

The two key outcomes I want to achieve out of this are

1. Are Donald Trump and Joe Biden as good or bad as their supporters and detractors respectively make them to be?
2. Is there a reason to be anxious about this election result? Will anything go wrong?

In the first stage of this process, I want to look at the data from the time of Barrack Obama to Donald Trump and finally to Joe Biden. I want to break the data into the following categories.

1. Economic
2. Action on Illegal Migration
3. Income and Wealth Distribution
4. Climate Impact
5. Military Spending and Wars

Economic Factors

For the purpose of this exercise, I analysed the overall GDP, GDP per capita, GDP growth rate and finally, the Debt to GDP ratio. Starting at 16 Trillion dollars in 2008, the US economy has grown at an average of 3.88% yearly, cumulating to over 38% by 2022. Barring the COVID-19 impact in 2020, it has been a rather steady growth. The same pattern is reflected in GDP Per capita. The only alarming figure in the economy is the Debt/GDP ratio. While the GDP has grown at 3.33%, the debt has grown at a higher rate, thanks mainly to the boost provided during the Covid-19 crisis. While for any other country, a Debt/GDP of over 100% is a concern, the US $ being the global reserve currency, is better positioned to deal with this.

The most disturbing figure, though, is inflation. While it has been controlled for the better part of a decade after GFC, the war in Ukraine and the impact of the pandemic have put pressure on essential commodities, including fuel prices. If we combine this with the high debt, then we have another brewing crisis here.

Action on illegal immigrants

This was among the most sensitive issues between the Democratic and Republican parties. While Democrats were blamed for open borders, the Republicans were blamed for being insensitive and cruel. Well, as the saying goes, data never lies. The truth is Obama and Biden deported more people than Donald Trump ever managed. Trump, however, made more noise about this than Obama or Biden did.

Income and Wealth Distribution

One of the most popular opinions is that the Republicans are the party for the rich and Democrats are the party for the working class/unions akin to socialists. The reality is that the income distribution pattern in the US hasn’t changed in the last 16 years. Irrespective of which party is in power, they side with their donors to arrest wealth distribution of any kind. It is true that the top 1% have earned more in terms of percentage, but the pattern and percentages are no different from the past. I am not justifying the disparity here but merely pointing out that the situation hasn’t changed to warrant anxiety.

However, the GINI index, which measures the dispersion of income, wealth and consumption inequality, presents a more positive figure. For the first time in years, the figure is below 30 now. It isn’t a reason to celebrate, though, as the contributors to this are most likely inflation and economic slowdown.

The last figure to look at now is the unemployment percentage. Again, barring the impact of Covid in 2020, we have seen this figure decline consistently from 2011. It doesn’t matter if the president is a Republican or a Democrat.

Climate Impact

The last of the factors I want to look at is the impact on climate. As we look at per capita emissions from 2008, we see a steady decline even during the period of Donald Trump. Irrespective of whether the US is part of the Paris Agreement, the underlying change continues to happen, transportation is getting cleaner, and the emissions are going down.

Military Spending and Wars

Inflammatory speeches and partisan opinions aside, the US hasn’t engaged in a new war since Hillary Clinton left the Secretary of State office. Neither Trump nor Biden have armed children in Africa or bombed a new sovereign nation. Bombastic speeches aside, Trump did diffuse a dangerous situation with Assad in Syria. Biden’s speech aside, he hasn’t added fuel to the fire in the latest conflict in Gaza. All said and done, the spending on the Military hasn’t come down. Having reached its lowest point in 2016, the spending is on the ascendency. I am sure most military officers will take spending over war.

As seen from the data (source: World Bank and OECD), the health of the United States is not dependent on the president at all. One could find more correlation between the war between Russia and Ukraine than the president or the party of the president. However, this definitely doesn’t mean that there aren’t problems or that the data is good. It is just normal. In the next part, I will focus on dealing with the probability of another Trump presidency. Whether we like him or loathe him, it is impossible to ignore the impact his term had on the mental health of all Americans.

The last week saw the result of three national election results in Indonesia, Australia and India. In all three places the incumbent leaders fondly called Jokowi, ScoMo and NaMo were reelected respectively. We all know the result, what we need to do is understand it. I want to quote Albert Einstein, one of my heroes.

Any fool can know. The point is to understand.

Now I want to understand the result and see what I can learn about politics in a representative democracy.  Albert Einstein also said “We now have to divide up our time like that, between politics and our equations. But to me, our equations are far more important, for politics are only a matter of present concern. A mathematical equation stands forever.”. Since I am not smart to present the behaviour of the whole universe in a mathematical equation, I find it easier to concentrate on politics.

Politics vs Governance

Politics is the act of gaining power. Governance is the act of enacting policies and controls using the power to reach the outcome. There are plenty of ways to get power. In a representative democracy, an election is a way of getting the power directly from the voters. Once in power, part of the governance is also to enact policies which control the scope of the politics. This cycle is intended to keep societies in balance.

In general, politics has a very negative connotation and quite justifiably so. Politics is not a game where both parties play the same game the same way with the same resources. It is inherently divisive and is a game where people are allowed to play rough under a very broad legal umbrella. Acts which would normally be considered uncivil are almost essential in the space of gaining power. It is a fight for dominance in the hierarchy and fights are inherently unhealthy and disturbing. In order to win an election, the parties have to perform this act well.

Steps to win elections

Understand how people vote

In any election, people vote based on the below criteria.

• Loyalty to an ideology/party/person
• One issue closest to me
• The charisma of the leader
• Policies and Manifesto
• Past performance
• Least objectionable

Primary Research/Listen

There is no substitute for primary research. The research should give the following answers.

1. Percentage of people in each of the category given above
2. Key issues in people’s mind
3. What policies will shift people’s opinion towards you? What is the percentage swing?
4. What policies will shift your loyal vote base away? What is the percentage swing?

Communicate the policy

Draft a policy set: The manifesto is a policy set which will help you get the maximum swing.

Create a slogan: The best way to communicate a summary of the policy is to create a slogan which will resonate with the voter base. It should play with the confirmation bias of the users.  As Einstein said, “If you can’t express is simply, you don’t understand it well enough”.

Create a communication strategy: Build an on the ground strategy to communicate the policies to people.

Outsmart and outwork the opponents

Hillary Clinton didn’t visit some of the states which she was confident of winning. She lost them by a very few votes. There is no substitute for hard work. Always the party which is smarter and ready to put in the hard yards wins.

Steps to lost elections

Alienating voters

The centre-left parties have been extremely guilty of insulting its voters. No voter likes to be patronised. It is worse to insult their loved ones. Few very common examples are the ‘Basket of deplorables’ comment by Hillary Clinton, ‘Anti-LGBT’ comment by Bill Shorten and ‘Divider-in-Chief Hindu nationalist’ comment by Indian Liberal media. These didn’t help their cause.

Resting on laurels

As I mentioned above, there is no substitute for hard work. The common theme sometimes is the leader not even visiting the constituencies. One can remember Hillary Clinton not even visiting some of the rust belt states. Rahul Gandhi didn’t campaign in his constituency Amethi. If a politician is so overconfident that they are not going to even address the people directly then it is a matter of time before they lost. The voters don’t like a condescending leader.

Weak leader

As strong as a system may be, it is important to have a respectable leader. The elected leader represents the people. So, the voters need to see the person as a strong respectable person. A weak leader is not going to be helpful.

Not understanding the needs

The most extreme mistake is to misunderstand, malign, dismiss, patronise or worst of all not attempt to understand the needs of the voters. The voters needs have no obligation to be in line with your ideology. The key mistake made here is go with a slogan which is completely different from the needs of the people. The Trump’s build the wall didn’t work in the states where people didn’t have problem with loss of jobs, crime or immigration. In the same vein, Hillary Clinton’s slogan ‘Stronger together’ didn’t address the issues of the rust belt. ALP under Shorten failed to address the needs of the working class in Queensland. This led to their collapse in the Australian federal election 2019.

To conclude, politics in a representative democracy is a game of tricks to gain power. It requires a lot of ground work, respect for the opinions of the voters and willingness to do the hard work. This will sometimes mean the party has to be decisive without alienating the voters. Insulting groups s a good strategy if you are a comedian wanting to win claps but not if you are a politician wanting to win votes.

14-Feb-2019, as the world was celebrating St. Valentine’s day over 40 CRPF( Central Reserve Police Force) soldiers were killed in a terrorist attack in the Pulwama district of Kashmir. Justifiably, it has been followed by anger, scorn and calls for revenge. Sadly, the intellectually lazy members of the society have also pinned this on the terrorists being victims.

The Kashmir issue is also the most contentious and divisive after the Isreali-Palestine struggle. In spite of my interest in the subject, I have found it is hard to write on the topic because of the number of variables involved. I do not want to reduce the complexity of the issue in an attempt to dissect it. It requires acknowledgement of history, the mistakes made and above all the experience of people who identify themselves as Kashmiris. I finally feel like I have a position which can be articulated. It is what Eric Weinstein put eloquently calls as the long-short position. It is a strategy predominantly seen in Hedge Fund management. I want to run through my thought experiment of how this approach can be used in the Kashmir issue. For the purpose of this blog, I do not want to cover the issue details. There are plenty of sources which anyone can search to read on the actual issue.

Expected Outcomes

I want to start by calling out an end outcome to this struggle and my acknowledgement of the situation.  Towards the end, I will also mention my sources. My strawman of the outcomes of any solution for this issue will contain the below mentioned three points.

1. Peace for all Kashmiris irrespective of their faith or lack of it
2. National Security for India and Pakistan
3. Agreement on borders and sharing of waters

Acknowledgements

While I try to unravel this convoluted issue, I want to also acknowledge a few points on the overall situation.

1. With regards to liberty, even a corrupt Indian Government is any day better than the theocratic mob rule in Pakistan
2. The people who are promoting mass attacks in Kashmir are not freedom fighters
3. The Indian Military forces have committed crimes in Kashmir
4. Pakistan is harbouring the terrorist jihadist organisations
5. Kashmiri youth have been radicalised
6. It is not easy to differentiate between the peace-loving Kashmiris and the supporters of terrorism in any counter-terrorism operation.

The key points which prevent the struggle are given below.

1. Political implications of a negotiated solution in both countries
2. Unwillingness on the part of Pakistan’s Government to dismantle the terror outfits operating in their country
3. Massive radicalisation

There will never be a world with or without humans that don’t have bloodshed. We do live in a glorified jungle. Animals hurt each other for survival. However, what animals also do is to create territories and form norms for survival. So, if principles of the game don’t align it is important to create boundaries and stay within the rules of those boundaries. This is true with international relations too. The struggle in Kashmir is more ideological and political than sovereignty. It cannot be resolved without addressing the core. India or for that matter even Pakistan will not be able to adopt the ideology of their neighbour. So, we have to look at the solution. Considering that Pakistan’s democratically elected government has limited power over its military and intelligence, I do not have a solution in mind for them. I want to focus on what I believe India can do to address it.

Using the Long-Short strategy

Now let me transition to the long-short position I favour as on this problem. The two positions are focusing on the development of Kashmir and internal security. These are within the paradigm of the duty and right of the government.

Focussing on development

The government of India has for long called Jammu and Kashmir an integral part of the country. However, this has to be translated into action. There are critical aspects of development which has to be driven as a result.

1. Academic development – Building schools, drive more population to fields of study which will expand their perspective beyond religion
2. Infrastructure development: Building roads, bridges, hospitals, factories, power plants which will promote a better lifestyle.
3. Social development: Having a social system which will support people in need. This includes health care, housing and rehabilitation of people.
4. Economic development: Build opportunities for people to get into full-time employment. The job market in Kashmir is ripe but it is also blocked.

Focus on internal security

The only way to get peace for people who want it and desperately need it is by focusing on inland security. This requires investing a lot in investigative infrastructure, surveillance and enforcement agencies. This also requires a lot of transparency. There are two risks and three mandates for this.

Risk #1: Privacy invasion: Surveillance naturally causes privacy issues. However, intelligence and investigative services are inherently privacy breaches. Liberty works only when the environment is for liberty. The Kashmir struggle cannot be put in that bucket.

Risk #2: Policy hindrances: This solution requires a set of policies which need to have an interest which goes beyond partisan political perspectives. For this to pass the parliament and state assembly requires a degree of goodwill that I haven’t seen. Further one of the key aspects of these policies should be to stay outside of any religious affiliation or promotion. For example, there is no need to have waivers for either Mecca or Amarnath.

Mandate #1: Consider the LoC as the border: The Line of Control between India and Pakistan should practically be considered as a border. This also means tight security and heavy surveillance.

Mandate #2: Avoid diplomatic contact with Pakistan: The government of Pakistan seems to a puppet of its army and intelligence agencies. There are plenty of non-state and state actors which support the terrorist organisations. There is no use in having a diplomatic relationship with a state that doesn’t believe in diplomatic relations. The Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan responded to attack asking for evidence. It is strange he is asking for evidence considering Jaish-e-Mohammad the agency operating out of Pakistan has already admitted to carrying out this attack.

Mandate #3: Drive the UN to recognise the border

India should focus on solving the issue of Kashmir by making the United Nations recognise the line of control as the international border. This will mean India has to forego land it doesn’t control and hasn’t controlled for decades. India should take that stand as everyone on the Pakistan side of Kashmir is a willful Pakistani citizen. If they are not, I believe they are to raise their voices.

In conclusion, I want India to take a more pragmatic approach on Kashmir which is true to the people of Kashmir and also protects the lives of people who are willing to continue living in Kashmir or fighting for its security. This duty comes with the right to be hard of terror or organisations which promote violence from either within the country or from actors in Pakistan. The realist in me doesn’t see that happening though.

The President of the United States of America declared a National Emergency in the southern border to fund his border wall. The Democrats and some of the Republicans oppose the move. I find this a missed opportunity at huge levels. The Democrats continue to be against their own people under the pretext of being moral. The end up being neither. Here is my simple take on this.

The different viewpoints in this include

1. The wall will not help
2. The net migration from the southern border is negative
3. It is immoral to push back fleeing refugees
4. It is not possible to build the wall because of the terrain
5. It is not an emergency
6. It will increase the national debt
7. If Trump declares an emergency then Democrats will use this precedence in the future

While there is some degree of truth in all the claims above, it is not a helpful suggestion. The most common Republican hypocrisy is that they are against birth control but also pro-war, Anti-social security and for the death sentence. Their counterpart Democrats seem to be all for immigration till those people become citizens at which point they are ignored.

There are two big crises in the US at the moment. The first one is well paying secure jobs and the second one is health care.

The best way for the Democrats to have handled this issue is by negotiating directly with Trump. In return for fully funding the border wall, the Democrats should have negotiated the below deal

1. Increase the national minimum wage to $15
2. Increase taxes on corporations which outsource jobs or operate offshore services for US business
3. Increase Medicare to Medicare for all
4. Negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for a better deal
5. The Wall will be built by an American company using only American workers.

This would have put Trump’s policy to test. He will now have to compromise on all his claims if he denies the items Democrats bring to the table. That way, Democrats could have shown they are for people in their country. However, the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will not do that. They are both bought out by big pharmaceutical companies. They are just as status quo as the rest. The members of the new age progressive cult including Alexandria Ocasio Cortez or Ilhan Omar are too occupied in their headspace. Combined their only common goal is to oust Trump. They have their goals but have no non-authoritarian way to reach there.

In conclusion, as a person who can never vote for someone like Donald Trump, I am increasingly surprised by the combination of clueless and callous opposition.  Trump is throwing opportunities for the Democrats to capitalise.  They are keen on talking about the wordings of this tweet and the morality of the throw instead of using the opportunity to solve a real issue.