TRUMP: Without Precedent

Without Precedent

Trump is making American political history for all of the wrong reasons.

Without Precedent

(Evan Vucci/AP Photo)

By Peter Fenn | Contributor  USNEWS & WORLD REPORT

Oct. 17, 2016, at 10:45 a.m.

I have had trouble these last couple of weeks writing political columns. Not for a lack of material – there is gobs, really. Not because I don’t feel passionately about the issues and the candidates and the times we are going through – plenty of thoughts on all that.

The reason is pretty simple: The Trump campaign and all that surrounds it is so appalling that I have a serious problem believing that our nation and our politics have come to this.

We have seen some pretty tough words and actions before in American history. As Kathleen Hall Jamieson described in her book “Dirty Politics,” we have witnessed the president of Yale University, Rev. Timothy Dwight, charging that if Thomas Jefferson were to be elected, “we may see our wives and daughters the victims of legal prostitution; soberly dishonored, speciously polluted.” (Not one of Yale’s finest hours!) Harper’s Weekly in September 1864 provided some of the opponent’s descriptions of Abraham Lincoln: “Filthy story-teller, Despot, Liar, Thief, Braggart, Buffoon, Usurper, Monster, Ignoramus Abe, Old Scoundrel, Perjurer, Robber, Swindler, Tyrant….”


2016 Isn’t Normal

Don’t let Donald Trump’s ignorant and insulting campaign become America’s new standard.

In the campaign of 1884, rumors of Grover Cleveland fathering a child out of wedlock led to the chant, “Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa?” which the Democrats countered after his election with, “Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha.” James G. Blaine in that campaign was called “Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine the continental liar from the State of Maine.”

We have survived slings and arrows and tough campaigns, and we will survive this one. We have seen the rise and fall of demagogues in America – Father Coughlin in the 1930s who was anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi and who was forced off the radio after initially having 30 million listeners; Joe McCarthy who led a crusade against “Communists in the State Department” until it came crashing down on him in the 1950s; George Wallace who took racism to new heights in the 1960s and 70s.

Donald Trump is of this mold. But he is also the nominee of his party. He is the standard bearer of a new entertainment-infused candidacy that calls into questions not only his own basic values and humanity and competence but the judgment of Republicans who stand beside and behind him. He is also gross. He is disgusting. He is appalling. He is, to use his words, “not nice.” He is so completely out of his element, and as a presidential candidate, that is without precedent. That is why it is so hard to even contemplate the very notion that this man might occupy the White House. It is inconceivable that we would entrust the Oval Office to someone who could wreak such havoc on our country and the world.

Republicans, or most of them, know this. They realize what fury they have wrought. With each passing day of lies about himself and what he did to women, about Hillary Clinton, about insane conspiracy theories, Donald Trump shines more light on his soul. And it isn’t pretty or easy to think about it or write about it. And that is why modern day psychologists are surprised with what his candidacy has done to the national and individual psyches.


The Method to Trump’s Madness

There’s a reason he’s descended into conspiracy mongering, but the damage wrought could long outlast him.

So, I try to put this candidacy into the context of history and try to conclude that we have been here before. But we haven’t – not to this extent, not with Twitter and 24/7 cable, not with the vitriol he has created. Not when the man we are dealing with is so close to the presidency. We have never been here before and that is why it is so hard to wrap your head around Donald Trump, this campaign and the extent of his support.

Trump decided over this weekend to double down on the notion that the election is “rigged,” sending his surrogates on the Sunday talk shows to reiterate the Breitbart conspiracy theories. Newt Gingrich talked on ABC about “stolen” elections and urged citizens to act as vigilantes and go into polling stations. Mike Pence charged that there is “monolithic support of the national media for Hillary Clinton’s campaign” on CBS. And, of course, there is the unbelievable Rudy Giuliani who told Jake Tapper Sunday that “dead people generally vote for Democrats.”

This is absurd. It is also becoming more and more of an attack on our democratic system, a fear-mongering attempt to incite citizens to resort to over-turning an election if the outcome is not to their liking. To appeal to his base with such dishonesty and anti-democratic rhetoric and to spend the final weeks of the campaign talking about how it is all “rigged” against him makes Trump the leading candidate for “Celebrity Demagogue.” Let’s hope that show gets canceled on Nov. 8.

Trump Change is Chump Change

Trump Change Is Chump Change

The Clinton team has an opportunity to reveal the emptiness of Trump’s call for change.

Trump Change Is Chump Change

(Rick Wilking/AFP/Getty Images)

By Peter Fenn | Contributor USNEWS & WORLD REPORT

Sept. 27, 2016, at 5:05 p.m.

Not a great night for the Donald. Ninety minutes is not his friend. The one with the “stamina” and solid, reasoned, substantive answers was Hillary Clinton.

Campaign manager Kellyanne Conway described Donald Trump on TV shows this past weekend as “the Babe Ruth” of debates. What many forget is that in addition to his home run record, Babe Ruth struck out 1,330 times and led the American League in strikeouts five times. One could certainly argue very persuasively that there was no home run for Trump last night and several noticeable strikeouts. On the President Barack Obama birther issue, on treatment of women, on his six bankruptcies, on his leaving working people high and dry, Donald Trump more or less whiffed.

The assertion by Trump that beating Clinton in a debate “would be one of the easy challenges of my life” was boasting at its best, but reality at its worst.

In contrast, Clinton was prepared, poised and ready to be president. She was calm, collected and did not engage in side comments, interruptions or frustrated facial expressions, in contrast to Trump. On the likability meter she scored very well.

It will be interesting to see how the next two debates unfold. Already Trump is saying that he will be hitting Clinton harder. So how do both campaigns prepare for the debates on Oct. 9 and Oct. 19?

One of the concerns for the Clinton campaign in these final six weeks is the Trump message of fundamental change. Most campaigns, of course, are about change or fear of change. Even an open-seat race such as this one puts Clinton out as the candidate who is established and will continue the Democratic legacy of President Barack Obama. When you have a nation as frustrated with Washington and our politics as ours, it benefits a self-proclaimed outsider. Trump mentioned numerous times Clinton’s “30-year” involvement in politics and government. He is by no means a new face, but he is a fresh face when it comes to government.

So the question for the Clinton team is how hard to hit the “change to what” theme. On the economy, driving home the Trumped-up, trickle-down tax proposals makes real sense. With studies pointing to a loss of 3.5 million jobs, a $10 trillion increase in the debt and more tax breaks to the top 1 percent, Clinton has a good case to make that this is the change we don’t need.


Clinton Is All Smiles

She negotiated the perilous conditions of the first presidential debate with ease.

On foreign and defense policy, Trump’s call for change also gives the Clinton camp openings. Arming Japan and South Korea with nuclear weapons would be incredibly destabilizing. Pulling our support for NATO and cozying up to the Russians and President Vladimir Putin sends the opposite message that is needed. Clearly, building a wall, expelling immigrants and barring Muslims from the U.S. are precisely the kinds of policies that strengthen terrorists and harm America.

Failing to acknowledge that climate change exists and calling it a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese is contrary to the views of the vast majority of American voters. Trump’s version of change is becoming the oil and gas president – thanks, we’ve tried that.

Clinton campaigners should draw the clear contrasts between pragmatic solutions that she offers on creating new, good-paying jobs; college affordability; early childhood education; paid family leave; and equal pay with the paucity of plans and ideas offered by Trump. How will a massive tax cut for the rich help those who are hurting?

Bottom line: Trump change is chump change that would harm Americans and make the world less safe. Yes, it is about temperament and fitness to be president, but it is also about ideas that are wrongheaded and harmful. We have a lot to fear with the changes Trump is proposing.

The New Campaign “Abnormal”

2016 Isn’t Normal

Don’t let Donald Trump’s ignorant and insulting campaign become America’s new standard.

2016 Isn’t Normal

(Evan Vucci/AP Photo)

By Peter Fenn | Contributor  USNews and World Report

Sept. 21, 2016, at 3:15 p.m.

I have been teaching courses on campaign advertising and presidential politics at George Washington University for more than 20 years. There have been a lot of students, a lot of case studies and a lot of ads created since the mid 1990s. There have been a lot of changes in our politics during that time in terms of the explosion of money spent, the rapidly developing technology, the longer, more grueling campaigns, the 24/7 news cycle and the souring mood in the country.

But, this year – campaign 2016 – is a whole new ball game. The question is: Is it an aberration or is it the “new normal” for our politics? Is this a precursor of what is to come or just a terrible outlier that we will get over and move back to regular order?

Has the unacceptable become the acceptable? I am worried that it has. Let us count the ways: A campaign season so long and drawn out that voters border on exhaustion. An electorate consumed with negative information and negative views of both candidates calling into question our electoral system. An almost complete lack of focus on substantive issues and differences between the candidates on policy makes them irrelevant in this years’ campaign – it is almost all personal. The level of vitriol coming from the Trump side is unprecedented in modern politics. The negative language, the coarse subject matter, the nasty tweets are so ubiquitous that they have resulted in a permanent fog of depression among voters.

The press needs to stop grasping for false equivalencies between Trump and Clinton.

From the start of Trump’s campaign it has been a vacuous collection of insults, racial and ethnic prejudice, gross personal attacks, and an almost total lack of knowledge of the issues the nation faces. He has shown himself to be unfit for office, as President Barack Obama charged: Trump “is not fit in any way, shape, of form to represent this country abroad or to be its commander-in-chief.” He has been called out by many Republicans, such as former Gov. Mitt Romney and Sen. Lindsey Graham; former President George H. W. Bush indicated he will even vote for Clinton.

Never before has one candidate, by simply opening his mouth, done so much to insult so many in such a short span of time. By attacking Muslims, he has pushed more people into distrusting and hating America; by insulting Hispanics and refugees he has undermined the basic values of our country and fanned the flames of prejudice and hatred; by personally attacking his opponents with lies he has legitimized political discourse of the basest kind. When PolitiFact judges more than 52 percent of his statements as “false” or “pants on fire” and another 17 percent to be “mostly false,” we know we have a candidate who has a problem with the truth. His statements were “awarded” PolitiFact’s 2015 Lie of the Year. What an award!

Even if Trump does not eventually prevail on Nov. 8, his candidacy has led us down a very dangerous path of anything goes, nothing is off the table, the ends totally justify the means and you can say or do anything, no matter how outrageous and wrong, and you won’t pay the consequences. If campaign 2016 becomes the norm, America has indeed lost its moral compass.

Trump Proves Once Again He Is Not Qualified to Be President

A friend of mine, an experienced political reporter and editor, believes there is a decent chance that Donald Trump will win in November because of our country’s celebrity culture and desire to wash their hands of anything resembling “normal” politics. She also believes that Hillary Clinton is in a very deep hole on the “trust factor” and that voters could very likely take the risky path and vote for Trump.

After his bungled photo-op in Mexico and tripling down on immigration in Arizona, I doubt that Americans will see Trump as someone capable of handling the presidency. Just the opposite: Trump every day tries to get over the bar and fails. The word goes out from Trump Tower that he can deal with foreign leaders – but he can’t; after much back and forth he agrees to give a speech on immigration that is supposed to reassure Americans that he can govern with reason and common sense – he disappoints, even with his teleprompter. The more that we hear he is going to gain control of his temper and his message and his racist tendencies, the opposite happens. He inflames. He baits. He appeals to the lowest common denominator in our country.


No Pivot in Our Time

Donald Trump deported any notion of a ‘softening’ on immigration.

So, what evidence do I have that Americans will increasingly reject a Donald Trump presidency over the next two months? A very interesting Quinnipiac poll taken from August 18-24 provides a better clue than many of the ubiquitous horse race polls we see every day. Quinnipiac tests who has the advantage on a number of issues and traits.

On the economy, Hillary Clinton has a small advantage, and on terrorism they are basically tied. On honesty, both are underwater, but Clinton more so than Trump. But the really defining differences come in what voters expect from their president.

Good leadership skills: Clinton +18, Trump -6; the right kind of experience to be president: Clinton +42, Trump -33; level-headed: Clinton +27, Trump -46; cares about average Americans: Clinton +4, Trump -16. These are vast and important perceptions of the candidates. Despite the negativity associated with both Trump and Clinton, when it comes to “presidential attributes” the overwhelming advantage goes to Clinton.

When voters were asked – regardless of how you intend to vote do you believe Clinton/Trump is qualified or not to be president? – Clinton is judged qualified to be in the Oval Office by 66-33 percent. Trump is judged to be NOT qualified by 58-40 percent. Clinton up by 33 percent, and Trump down by 18 percent.


Grading Trump on a Curve

So little is expected of Donald Trump that the bare minimum gets lauded as ‘presidential.’

Trump’s inability to tell the truth about his meeting with President Enrique Pena Nieto (“paying for the wall didn’t come up”) and his outrageous speech about the “Great Wall” in Phoenix present a clear image of a candidate out of control and unable to govern.

The decision to go on the trip to Mexico and the prepared remarks were the Kellyanne Conway wing of the campaign; the xenophobic speech in Arizona was the Breitbart Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions’ former aide Stephen Miller side of the campaign. How do you spell schizophrenic?

If you put the two sets of remarks side by side, the one in Mexico and the one in Phoenix, it is as if there are two totally different Donald Trumps. You can not be president, if within hours you completely and totally contradict yourself, once before a foreign leader and the other before a Joe Arpaio.

Fundamentally, Donald Trump is basing his whole campaign on attacking immigrants and those who don’t fit into his white world. Maybe that’s why Americans believe, according to the Quinnipiac poll, that Donald Trump appeals to bigotry by 59-36 percent.

The last 24 hours did very little to change that and may, in fact, have exacerbated it. A presidential day for Donald Trump? I think not.

Trump: The Breitbart Candidate

Trump’s True Colors

Trump showed us who he really is by letting a right-wing conspiracy theorist lead his campaign.

Trump’s True Colors

(John Moore/Getty Images)

By Peter Fenn | Contributor  US News and World Report

Aug. 24, 2016, at 10:25 a.m.

I have a confession: For several years I have been getting Breitbart News in my daily emails. No, I am not a crazy, closeted, right-wing conspiracy theorist; I just want to know what they are thinking.

It is not pleasant reading. It is not easy to experience the level of vitriol or the complete lack of fact-based theories and analysis. But thank goodness I have low blood pressure so it doesn’t set me into red-faced overdrive. But, I have to say, with the latest twists and turns in the Trump campaign, I am getting there!

For years we have seen conservative Republicans pushed to the side and vilified, be they Speaker John Boehner, Rep. Kevin McCarthy or, now, Speaker Paul Ryan. Democrats, of course, are responsible for the collapse of the Western world and the fact that your car won’t start in the morning, and everything in-between.

The one solution to all your problems, and the world’s, is, naturally, Donald Trump.

What we are experiencing with the latest Trump merry-go-round staff shake-up is a classic good cop, bad cop routine. Breitbart head Stephen Bannon takes over the slash and burn, angry, tear into Hillary Clinton part of the campaign. Campaign manager Kellyanne Conway is supposed to present the softer side. But it is clear that despite his words about “regrets” or his appeal to African-Americans before an almost entirely white audience, Trump is the Breitbart candidate.

The Breitbart headlines are legend. One that attacked conservative Bill Kristol for not supporting Trump read: “Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew.” Doom and gloom is their specialty. “Your IRA or 401-k is now worthless,” the site said in 2015. And, of course, there is always something for sale on the site. In July, Breitbart started peddling a t-shirt that Trump must just love, despite his supposed waffling on immigration: “Breitbart Border Wall Construction Co.” emblazoned with a colorful wall.

On David Duke’s recent radio show, his racist ally, Don Advo, said “So, something astonishing has happened, we appear to have taken over the Republican Party.” Duke agreed that they and Trump and Breitbart seem to have “the rank and file” but that “boll weevils are still in those cotton balls.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center traces Bannon’s takeover of Breitbart to a “noticeable shift toward embracing ideas on the extremist fringe of the conservative right. Racist ideas. Anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant ideas.”


The Alt-Right Rises

The conservative movement that shaped American politics for so long may be coming to an end.

Now he joins the campaign at the top of Trump Tower, ready to do for the country what he did at Breitbart: spread conspiracy theories, demonize Republicans and Democrats alike and attack with a constant flood of lies and distortions that are consistently disproven. My favorite was Breitbart’s constant attacks against the Khan family’s patriotism after the Democratic convention.

Most of Breitbart falls on deaf ears, but the fact that Bannon is now in charge of the Trump campaign should give us real pause when we hear scripted lines from Kellyanne Conway’s laptop about a “kindler, gentler” candidate. The real Donald Trump may actually be worse than we thought: a manipulative, say anything, do anything, 21st century P.T Barnum who, as we have said before, believes that there’s a sucker born every minute.

No More Teflon Don

No More Teflon Don

The rules of politics do apply to Donald Trump.

No More Teflon Don

The Associated Press

By Peter Fenn | Contributor USNews & World Report

Aug. 15, 2016, at 4:10 p.m.

It was quite extraordinary. Throughout the summer of 2015, into the fall and on through the primaries and caucuses, Donald J. Trump was saying the most outrageous things and yet he kept winning and rising in the polls.

Calling immigrants rapists, wanting to build walls that Mexico would pay for, banning those of the Muslim faith from entering the U.S., denigrating the service of Sen. John McCain, directing schoolyard insults at his opponents, leveling attacks against our NATO allies, producing tweets and language that made the average reader cringe – Trump was seemingly impervious to the consequences of his actions.

He was viewed as Teflon Trump. His infamous statement in Iowa in January that “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, okay, and I wouldn’t lose any votes, okay?” became just one more over-the-top comment that seemed to bounce right off.

It gave rise to the notion that Trump was such a different kind of candidate the rules did not apply to him, that he was given a pass by a large segment of Americans, that “speaking his mind” – even if he was off-base, – was acceptable.

The trouble with this analysis is that it was made during a crowded primary season, when Trump was getting about 13 million votes, less than half of those cast in Republican contests. He brags about this total (Obama and Clinton each got more in 2008), but the fact is his voters account for about 10 percent of the total votes that will be cast in November. In other words, he has a long way to go in a general election.

Now that the contest is beyond “Celebrity Apprentice” and Twitter wars, now that voters are focusing on who will sit behind that Oval Office desk, and now that the day-to-day campaign is exposing Trump’s true beliefs, lack of knowledge, untruthful statements and scary temperament, we are in a whole new ball game. Those who believed that Trump was the Teflon candidate were dead wrong.

What appeared to be an invulnerable candidate in the winter and spring has turned into an unacceptable one for many voters. This has become a real choice between two candidates. It was inevitable that Trump would wilt under this pressure, that the power of the microscope would be turned up on his flaws, that his inability to act like a president would create unease, even among his supporters.

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight now gives Trump only an 11 percent chance of winning; the Real Clear Politics average lead for Hillary Clinton is about 7 percent; Charlie Cook’s latest tally of Electoral Votes shows an extremely difficult path for Trump. Once he got the nomination, once the stakes were clear in this election, once the windows opened and voters could get a clear view of Trump, the veneer of his candidacy began to get peeled away.

Donald Trump, pure and simple, is an unacceptable candidate for president and any notion that he was a Teflon candidate who could say or do anything, or that nothing mattered, has been shattered. No one is Teflon, least of all Trump.

Once the light of day had been shone on this man, there was very little left to say. The bottom line: the words Trump and president should never be uttered in the same sentence.

July 15 Post—-Pence Was the Wrong Pick

Another Old White Guy

By making Mike Pence his running mate, Donald Trump prioritized his base of older white men.

Another Old White Guy

(Michael Conroy/AP Photo)

By Peter Fenn | Contributor  USNews & World Report

July 15, 2016, at 12:15 p.m.

OK, I am an old white guy, I admit. But I am increasingly in the minority in America. Women are the majority of voters in this country, as we know. Younger voters are taking over. Hispanics are growing in key states. African-Americans and Asians are voting in greater numbers. The country is changing and the wonderful Broadway play “Hamilton” is a symbol of the new America. All the white guys of the revolution, the founding fathers, are portrayed by such a vibrant, multi-racial cast.

So why did Donald Trump pick 57-year old Mike Pence for vice president?


He appeals to his base of older white men with silver hair. Hard-core conservatives. Religious, anti-abortion activists. Rural, especially mid-western, voters. And the new establishment Washington insiders – extremely conservative members of the Freedom Caucus and the Republican Study Committee, that he chaired.

There is an advantage, I suppose, of going to the more conservative tea party Republican base, but there are two very distinct disadvantages.

The first, of course, is that his policies and his positions alienate women, Hispanics, African-Americans, young people and the LGBT community. He is one of the most anti-choice people Trump could pick, leading the fight against Planned Parenthood and supporting the most restrictive measures on abortion. He supported and signed the restrictive “religious freedom” law in Indiana and had to backtrack after the business and civil rights communities raised an uproar. He is a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage.

In short, Pence offers nothing to mainstream Republicans, urban and suburban voters, people who are looking for some sign that the Trump party will include them.

The second problem with a Pence pick by Trump is that he is clearly on the opposite side of Trump on his two signature issues: immigration and trade. Gov. Pence even tweeted that Trump’s plan to ban Muslims was “offensive and unconstitutional.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement of The Donald.

When it comes to trade, Pence is a solid and uncompromising “free-trader.” He supports Fast Track to give the president authority to negotiate agreements, he voted for every free trade agreement while in Congress, he supported CAFTA and supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership that Trump condemns in the strongest possible terms.

Trump and Pence are polar opposites on trade. Pence will have a lot of explaining to do!

Hardly a match made in heaven on a lot of fronts.

So, another white guy – but then I guess you could argue that it is better than a ticket with Newt Gingrich, otherwise known as the six-wives, old-white-guy ticket.

Two Different Conventions. Two Different Candidates

A Tale of Two Conventions

Hillary Clinton’s convention appealed to the better angels of our nature. Donald Trump’s channeled Debbie Downer.

A Tale of Two Conventions

The Associated Press

By Peter Fenn | Contributor—USNews & World Report

July 29, 2016, at 12:00 p.m.

From Cleveland to Philadelphia, it was as if we were on two different planets, maybe two different galaxies. There was the “Debbie Downer Convention” and then there was the “Can-Do Convention.” I think you know which was which!

Like Rachel Dratch’s character in “Saturday Night Live,” you could depend on Donald Trump to bring everyone down with his over-the-top negative pronouncements and ludicrous put-downs and insults. All the Republican convention needed was the SNL “wah-wah” sound from a muted trombone at the end of each of Trump’s nasty, negative comments.

The fear and loathing convention in Cleveland featured more doom and gloom than a Freddy Krueger slasher movie. Really, this is what the Republican Party has come to in 2016? As some have said, it is as if they have gone from “morning in America” to “mourning in America.”

The use of fear as a campaign tactic has always been with us, but this convention and this candidate have taken it to a whole new level. With little understanding of either history or the current problems facing the country, Trump uses the style of a demagogue to whip Americans up into a frenzy.

Think about it. As our economy rebounds, are we facing the crash of ’29 and the Great Depression? As we face down the Islamic State group and other terrorists, are we confronting Hitler marching across Europe and exterminating 6 million Jews? As we work to raise income levels and to grow the middle class, are we facing the 1930s with one in four Americans out of a job? When we confront Ebola or Zika, are we talking about the flu plague of 1918 that killed over 50 million people? We live in a complex and dangerous world but do we have the specter of nuclear annihilation hanging over our heads?

The problems we face can be solved and are, in fact, much less severe than what America confronted less than 100 years ago. Donald Trump did more than sell America short – he used rhetoric designed to inflame and divide and, of course, conquer.

Contrast this with the Democratic Convention and Hillary Clinton, who appealed to our better angels and offered a vision of working together to tackle and solve America’s problems. Philadelphia 2016 brought forth the miracle of the promise that came out of that city 240 years ago.


Hillary Clinton’s Last Ceiling

Hillary Clinton took on Donald Trump while aiming for the last glass ceiling.

This campaign is about two very different visions, two very different approaches, two very different people. Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton is the “can-do” candidate, the roll-up-your-sleeves candidate, the candidate who knows how to take ideas and put them into action. Her goal and the Democratic Party’s goal this week was to give Americans not only a blueprint for building a better America but to convince them that the spirit is still alive, that it does take a village, that this is not a nation of dictators but a democracy, where everyone matters and everyone contributes and everyone can benefit.

Trump channels anger, Hillary channels hope; Trump divides and denigrates, Hillary unites and lifts up; Trump insults and goes it alone, Hillary embraces and reaches across the divide.

When Americans are disheartened it is easy to play to their fears, but real leaders take the opposite course; they inspire and create a better path. They bring people together to solve the problems and make life better. They reject the politics of irrationalism and fear. The last thing we need right now is more Debbie Downers, especially those who, as Vice President Biden said, really don’t have a clue.

Tags: Convention2016 , Republican National Convention, Democratic National Convention, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, 2016 presidential election, politics, campaigns

Trump: Too Ignorant to be President

Trump: A Case Study in Ignorance

Should he ever become president, Donald Trump is on course to become the Terrorist-Creator-in-Chief.

Trump: A Case Study in Ignorance

(Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)

By Peter Fenn | Contributor

June 15, 2016, at 8:00 a.m.

Not only is Donald Trump a clear case of someone who knows so little yet says so much, completely unprepared for the consequences of his actions, but if elected, he will put in place policies that will result in the exact opposite of what he claims he wants to achieve.

Take one issue: Islamic terrorism.

Let’s look at some numbers from Pew Research Center’s report on Muslims and Islam last December. As of 2010, there were 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, 23 percent of the population. Islam is far and away the fastest growing religion – they are projected to grow at a rate of 73 percent from 2010 to 2050, compared to 35 percent for Christians and 34 percent for Hindus. That projected growth rate is faster than the world’s population is expected to increase. While women in other religious groups have an average of 2.3 children, Muslim women have an average of 3.1.

With a median age of 23, Muslims are young compared to other religious groups, as well. Young and impressionable.

So, the real question is: What is the effect of Donald Trump’s xenophobic, vitriolic, unbridled negative view of Muslims? Bans on Muslims, shutting down places of worship, stoking fear, even political and personal attacks against the president – every day another assault.

Is he bringing Muslims together to battle the Islamic State group and other extremist groups? Hardly. Is his rhetoric encouraging clerics and mosques to cooperate in identifying possible terrorists and joining forces to prevent horrific acts of violence? No chance. Is he sending a message to the world of tolerance and solidarity with 23 percent of the world’s population? Are you kidding?

Even before Trump, before his outrageous campaign for the presidency, there were disturbing poll numbers about the Islamic State and the use of violence. Though the vast majority of Muslims deplore violence and the tactics of the Islamic State, that sentiment is not universal. Pew found that in the Palestinian territories, 40 percent say violence is sometimes justified, 39 percent agreed in Afghanistan and 29 percent in Egypt.

Suicide bombings are rejected by the vast majority of Muslims. However, one series of very disturbing results comes from the perceptions of Muslims toward the West and vice-versa. In predominantly Muslim countries, Westerners are perceived as selfish by 68 percent, violent by 66 percent, greedy by 64 percent and immoral by 61 percent. Conversely, in the U.S., Russia and Western Europe, about 50 percent perceived Muslims as fanatical and violent; the good news is that 51 percent viewed Muslims as honest, and 41 percent as generous.

The difficulty with Donald Trump, of course, is that he does not do nuance; he does not focus on the impact of his words nor the consequences of his actions. But it doesn’t take a mental giant to figure out what his campaign is doing to create a negative view of the United States by Muslims around the world.


Trump’s Orlando Speech Was a New Low

He delivered one of the most demagogic anti-immigration speeches by a candidate in modern times

Let me just do a little hypothetical math here for those who are worried that Trump may be creating a much bigger problem than any of us realize. As we have established, there are over 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Let’s presume that 20 percent of those Muslims have an increasingly unfavorable view of America and the West – not evenly spread throughout the world, of course, but concentrated in much higher numbers in high-conflict areas. In shear numbers that would be 320 million Muslims who increasingly dislike America and the West. Could be more, could be less.

OK, so assume you have 10 percent of those who actually despise what Trump stands for, who feel Trump is declaring war on them and who believe that action is called for, political or violent. Sadly, you now have 32 million Muslims out of 1.6 billion who are serious about real opposition.

Now, suppose you have a small percentage – 5 percent – of the 32 million who think they are willing or able to take up arms and become terrorists. That would be 1.6 million people. OK, but only 10 percent of those actually have an opportunity or make the move to become violent. That is still a population of 160,000 individuals. That is 160,000 people to watch, keep track of and identify out of a population of over 1.6 billion.

The truly scary thing is that when you combine these vast numbers with people with serious mental illnesses, access to almost any weapon they desire and the opportunity to wreak havoc almost anywhere in the world, you have a problem that demands cool heads and careful thought.


Trump 2016: The Ultimate Scam

Voters shouldn’t allow Donald Trump to scam them like he scammed the students of Trump University.

No question, the FBI, Homeland Security and CIA and others have produced much more sophisticated analyses than I have on playing out these scenarios. And experts have already said it is a real concern. Michael Hayden, head of the CIA and NSA under George W. Bush, said that with his divisive anti-Muslim stance, Trump is “using [the Islamic State’s] rhetoric” and “feeding their recruitment video.” Indeed, Islamic State terrorists even featured the GOP front-runner in a propaganda video to inspire new terrorist recruits. As Obama said just yesterday of Trump’s vitriol, “If we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims as a broad brush, and imply that we are at war with the entire religion, then we are doing the terrorists’ work for them.”

My point is that Donald Trump does not seem to understand what he is doing to inflame a sizable faction of 23 percent of the world’s population. He does not seem to understand what the implications of creating a crusade against the Muslim faith will be – to embolden and produce more terrorists in a climate of hate and fear, advanced by his own verbal jihad.

Trump’s stated objective of combating terrorism has been turned on its head – he will, in fact, be the Terrorist-Creator-in-Chief should he ever become president of the United States.

Role Reversal: Why Hillary Beats Trump Hands-Down

The Real ‘Woman Card’

Anti-feminist stereotypes traditionally lobbed at politically ambitious women now legitimately apply to Donald Trump.

The Real ‘Woman Card’

(Photo by Tomohiro Ohsumi/Getty Images)

By Peter Fenn | Contributor

June 20, 2016, at 3:15 p.m.

In the early 1980s when I started my political consulting firm, I began working for the Women’s Campaign Fund. Some of my first clients in the election of 1984 were Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, chair of the platform committee and nominee for vice president, and another candidate for Congress, Jane Wells Schooley of Pennsylvania, former vice president of the National Organization for Women.

At that time, there were two women in the United States Senate and 22 members of the House, a grand total of 24 out of 535. Today, we are up to 20 female senators and 88 representatives for a total of 108 – still not enough, but an improvement over the last 30 years.

During those early years, female candidates faced very tough obstacles: Do you have enough experience? Do you know “the issues” well enough? Are you “tough” enough to handle a campaign and the office? Do you have other “obligations” – children and family? Are you too “emotional” to govern? Do you understand budgets, foreign policy, legal issues, defense policy? In short, are you competent enough to handle all these “complex” governance problems as a woman?

Women had to be smarter, more knowledgeable, more experienced, cooler and calmer under pressure, even more “ready” for office than men to get elected. That situation has changed for the better, though some of the same prejudices are still present today.

Women like Ferraro and Wells Schooley were trailblazers, no question, and the Women’s Campaign Fund and later Emily’s List had to constantly fight against stereotypes.

That brings me to one theory of the 2016 presidential election. We are seeing a very serious role reversal in the Clinton-Trump race. The very criticisms that men unfairly hurled at politically ambitious women are now actually true about Trump. The old stereotypes and attack lines for women have suddenly become part and parcel of who Donald Trump really is:

Who is the most emotional, off-the-wall, candidate? Donald Trump.

Who is shrill and flailing at his rallies? Donald Trump

Who has little knowledge or understanding of the issues confronting the country? Easy one, Donald Trump.

Who lacks basic competency in governing? Donald Trump, hands down.

Who routinely makes statements that lack credibility, don’t rely on facts and depend on his “mood” at the time? Yup, Donald Trump.