Future of Education by Dr. Larry

Who is served by higher education?
 Fundamentally, higher education, like all socialization, serves both the greater society and the individual: society by increasing its cadre of specialized experts in maintaining and advancing society’s technology and life experience; the individual by further defining and securing his/her role in society.
Humankind are all herd animals. We are born with the need to belong to a group of our fellow humans. Sociologists describe those groups as family, clan and tribe, depending on the size and intimacy of the group. “Family” is composed of those we are closest to and is the smallest of the groups. “Clan” denotes a larger, less intimate group, such as our cultural or religious or political associations. “Tribe” is the largest and least intimate of our associations, but equally important to the individual’s well-being, including nation, language, and history.
All humans are also curious. Our search for new knowledge and understanding never ceases, although the range and perspective of inquiry varies considerably from individual to individual, often from time to time for the same person over a lifetime.
Within this framework, higher (and all) education primarily serves the tribe by expanding the individual’s scope and perspective of inquiry or curiosity. Life itself is constantly providing the same service, but in a random and unpredictable fashion. Education is supposed to provide perspective and order to the individual’s ability to interpret these experiences in a meaningful context.
What are the criteria for evaluating whether or not higher education is providing a valuable experience?
The criteria are easy to identify, if difficult to evaluate. They are: Does higher education fulfill its obligation to society? And to the individual?
a.    Society
Higher education’s obligations to the greater society are twofold: cultural and technological. The knowledge and skills pertaining to an expansion of the individual’s understanding of his/her culture include the history, language and ideals of the society in which one lives. The second criterion is the same obligation in the realm of the society’s technology base, in the broader sense of “technology”, namely the “techniques” by which the society copes with the various challenges of its existence: food, heat, light, communication, transportation, lodging, water, to name a few of the obvious. The technology requirement presumes specialization in some aspect of these social needs.
b.   Individual
Higher education’s obligation to enhance the individual’s well-being and success in his/her society include more personal knowledge and skills. Included here are topics such as religion, a practical understanding of how society is organized and functions, how government works, problem-solving skills such as logic, research, factual versus false data, appreciation of the arts, including painting, architectural, music, and the like.
 These are areas frequently of controversy. How to deal with dissent, to weave one’s own way though the thicket of varying opinions, false claims and disputed facts represents a valuable but illusive skill which should be part of every college experience.
We have now set the stage for a discussion of the future of higher education:
Higher education exists to serve society and the individual by expanding his/her knowledge and skills of
·       Society’s culture and technology
·       Individual’s personal well-being
In this manner, higher education seeks to expand the individual’s success in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
II
I have always been intrigued by the concept of “Individual Educational Plans” (IEP), defined as “a written plan/program [which]… specifies the student’s academic goals and the method to obtain these goals.” Originally signed by President Reagan in 1986 and enhanced periodically since, the IED is required for all handicapped children.
What if IEP’s were specified for ALL children?
The practical implementation of such an idea was beyond our capabilities until the introduction into education of the digital age. Unfortunately, computers were confined to two areas of education, teaching content (a problematic application) and administration. It has not been used extensively for the application which it would be most fruitfully applied, namely, implementation of complex scheduling. Elsewhere I have designed the way in which computers could be used to implement IED’s for ALL children. Needless to say, I was ahead of my time (where I spent most of my later years in education!).
However, I believe such a plan could now be implemented for higher education with today’s technology. After all, we were able to execute a form of this pedagogy in the 1970’s before computers were even introduced, as I explain the accompanying essay (see “The Fiddler and Me” attached).
The system would draw heavily from several sources: the Oxford University tutorial method of instruction, computer-based scheduling (which I helped introduce in my post-Crown Center career with Control Data Corporation) and doctoral degree programs, as well as the credit-for-experience, Portfolio Plan, which I pioneered in Kansas City’s Crown Center campus (details in accompanying essay). A very significant addition would be the computer-based courseware now available as well as the internet with its nearly unlimited research resources.
Briefly, the system would look like this:
1.     Each student would be assigned an individual carrel (as in graduate student libraries), equipped with desktop computer, software, headphones and webcam. (Fits nicely with social distancing.)
2.    Academic Plan – the first exercise would be a class which introduced the students to the system with the following components:
Development of his/her IEP based on each student’s individual interests and guided by a personal academic advisor. “What do you know now? (Portfolio optional) What don’t you know now that you would like to know? How will you acquire that expertise? How will we measure what you have learned? (Thesis required.)” Content could be achieved at the student’s discretion by seminar, tutorial or digitally. Benchmark endorsements from faculty required.
3.    A basic curriculum, to be attended by all students, addressing the commonly accepted cultural competences required by society, and graded on a Pass/Fail basis, with the requirement of an in-depth essay on a topic of the student’s choice.
4.   During each noon break a lecture would be given in the dining room by a professor on his/her chosen topic (attendance optional) addressing some aspect of culture or technology.
5.    Live instruction would take place in seminars attended by students whose interests were common to all, scheduled by computer as sorted by the common interests of the designated students. Individual tutorials, noon lectures and online course ware also provided as stipulated in the academic plan (IEP).
6.   Graduation – a thesis fulfilling the pre-arranged metrics for successful achievement would be published and presented in an oral defense to a panel of experts. Upon acceptance, the student would be graduated with the appropriate degree.
III
Many details are left undeveloped here because of space limitations. However, I hope this vision will be achieved somewhere down the road as higher education continues to evolve.

Dr. Larry our choices

Survival or Depression: A False Choice
‌
We have to ignore the alarmists and get back to work
By Dr, Larry Fedewa
(Washington DC, July 13, 2020) One of the ongoing controversies in recent days is the dispute over which should be the nation’s top priority: economic recovery or pandemic precautions? Both positions are framed in the same terms: no recovery will be successful if everybody is afraid of catching the virus; likewise, drastic prevention measures, if continued, will bring on the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression of the 1930’s. The answer is that both positions are essentially correct.
We cannot afford either of these alternatives. Common sense tells us that we must resume full economic recovery as soon as possible, but we ignore the frightful prospect of an unchecked pandemic at our own peril. Each consideration has its own imperative: we must resume economic activity at its fullest capacity as soon as possible and take all reasonable precautions at the same time.
So, the key question is: what are reasonable measures for protecting ourselves as a society?
The first answer to this question is what we should not do. We should not trust the public health officials’ solution to this problem. They speak from a very limited perspective, namely, the optimal methods for avoiding the disease altogether. Obviously, the surest way to avoid the disease is to cease all human contact entirely — “shelter in place”.  There are several economic activities which can be executed alone, thanks to the internet and the telephone, such as, writing, meeting, accounting, record-keeping, reporting, selling (some items), etc. The surge of some sectors of the economy, such as mail-orders and delivery services, show the enhanced value of such activities.
Starting from avoiding all human contact as the best protection for individuals — which even public health experts realize is not doable for most people — the next step is simulating “personal quarantine”.  Thus “social distancing” and masks. This practice is marginally practical, meaning it can be done successfully by people engaged in some economic activities, such as counseling and lecturing.
Most economic activities, however, require closer contact. Therein lies the problem. Since most manufacturing and service industries are not compatible with “social distancing”, and since the nation cannot survive economically without these major sources of income, and, further, since the pandemic is not going away any time soon – in view of all these factors, another solution has to be forthcoming.
What is that solution? It seems clear that the solution is to carry on our economic life, using as many precautions as are feasible but not to the extent of continuing to suspend any significant activities which do not lend themselves to such precautions. For example, the practice of taking the temperature of all entrants to a building and requiring masks to be worn while inside – as being practiced in more and more venues already – can be adopted by far more businesses. Perhaps even on a mass scale such as ball games. Yes, it increases the cost of doing business, but that is better than no business at all. Imagination and creativity will be needed to cope with these issues. But those are characteristic attributes of Americans.
The new question needs to be “How?” not “If”.
And how do we regain the confidence of the American public? How do we answer the inevitable charge that we are putting money ahead of saving lives?
The first thing we do is to stop measuring the success or failure of our efforts to contain the virus by the number of cases identified. This number is bound to increase as more and more people are tested every day. The proper metric is the death rate due to the virus. Even with the sloppy counting being used, the rate of COVID-19 deaths is actually going down. For example, the percent of deaths to cases reported for July 11 was 1.3%. (Source: Johns Hopkins CSSE) Longer term reports are equally encouraging.
What accounts for this statistic? In general, there are several reasons for this progress:
1) therapeutics are increasingly effective – both human competence, which has improved with experience, and new medicines which have been developed specifically to treat this COVID-19 illness. Treatment can be expected only to improve with more of both human and pharmaceutical development. Also, vaccines are due to start becoming available by the end of 2020.
2) Hospitals are getting more efficient in their protocols and procedures. The metric for the early preparatory efforts by the Administration was the fear of overcrowding the hospital capacity of the United States. While this is still a possibility on a local level, the occupancy is currently under control.
3) As younger people start to constitute a larger percentage of the total test population, mortality rates are expected to continue to decline because the virus appears to be less lethal for youths. In fact, many youngsters who have been infected never suffer any symptoms at all. Their primary danger as a group seems to be their unwitting role as carriers of the disease to older contacts.
In general, America is learning to live with COVID-19 and to survive. It is now time to begin to flourish as we were before we were so rudely interrupted.

What is at Stake

What is at stake

View these data and ask yourself, who do you want to run the government over the next four year?  One can judge leadership in crisis and ideas over overcoming obstacles  While much of the pressure is being put on Florida, Arizona and Texas to pause or stop the reopening, the reality is that you are safer in a Republican state than Democrat state and more likely to be employed.

In states with Democratic governors, 93,000 have died of Covid and only 32,000 have died in GOP states (week ending June 26th), and on a per capita basis, 415 death per million have died in Democrat govern states versus 200 death per million in states run by Republican governors.   So, you are twice as likely as to die in states with Democratic states.  I will point out that these data’s are skewed toward Democrats since two of the bigger nominally blue states, Maryland and Massachusetts have Republican governors who followed the lead of their Democratic governors in ordering a lockdown and two nominally red states, Kansas and Montana have Democratic governors and they have followed the lead of their follow Republican governors in opening up.

 

(I included Democrat data that includes DC and excludes DC versus Republican states below is the raw numbers of death)

Dem/DC 91,557
Dem 91,011
Rep 31,917

(Below is data that is based on deaths per million)

Death per capita
Dem average/DC 415
Dem average 401
Rep average 200.7

On the economic side, again Republican governors are ahead of their Democratic counterpart as Republican states had less unemployment and lower percentages of civilian labor receiving unemployment claims.   According to May data saw Republican states unemployment was 11.4 percent compared to Democrats governors with 14.3 percent unemployment. The percentage of the civilian labor force receiving unemployment claims was 8.9 percent in Republican states versus 11.9 percent in Democratic states run by governor.  (data based on June 20th data)

May unemployment Claims % of civilian population
Dem average/DC 14.1 12.2
Dem average 14.3 11.9
Rep average 11.4 8.9

While Trump and GOP are taking the heat for the COVID virus spread, a major reason for much of the spread of the virus has been Democratic governors mismanagement beginning with Andrew Cuomo reign that resulted in over 31,000 deaths including seniors and their caretakers when he thought it was a great idea that one should put infected patients back into nursing home.   While Florida and Texas are taking the heat for their reopening, what is missing from the rapid rise in cases were the massive protest throughout the country and much of the increases occurred after the protest supported by Democrat. Much of the media have blamed the reopening and ignore the massive protest for the spread but then we are seeing an infection explosion among the young, the one group least likely to die. The overall death has been declining for the past several weeks and are 90 percent lower than the peak, news that should be treated as good.  For the Democrats, they want to stop the economy from growing and aid in the election of Joe Biden and take over the Senate and they understand that if the economy continues to grow, there is a chance they could yet lose this election.  The real fact is that Democrats have mishandled this virus on a state level, and they have been responsible for the lion share of deaths recorded.  Democrat governors slowing down the opening in their states have added to the economic woes of their voters, but they do not care.

The economic lockdown has proven to be a disaster as a strong economy was derailed and millions found their business shuttered and millions more unemployed. The biggest losers were business run by Blacks, Hispanics, and immigrants as a higher percentage of their businesses deemed non-essential.  State governments have granted themselves extraordinary powers and states run by many Democratic governors have abused that power beginning declaring what is and what is not essential businesses. Many people have seen their dreams crushed and the unemployment numbers have exceeded what it should have been.  From mandating masks, shutting down businesses, declaring war on church gathering while allowing the “right kind of protest” to happen, Government have dictated what free speech is allowed and whether Churches would even be open.  Abuse of rights have occurred, and Democrats have led the way.  We are getting a taste of what will happen if Democrats control all aspect of government.  Considering that the socialist left of the Democrat Party has already declared war on the gun industry and fossil fuels industry, many businesses will be under siege as the federal government will expand their power.

The narrative is that Trump and the GOP have failed to stem the virus, but the reality is that government response was completely the wrong response and there is no learning of past lessons.   If Trump made a mistake, it was actually to shut the economy down.  While in early March, there was a reasonable fear that this virus was more serious and Models claiming that 2 million would die and this set up a panic that led to Trump shutting down the economy.

The reality is that the virus was far less than lethal than imagine and that the biggest threat was to those with co-morbidity and in nursing homes.  This has given us the ability to target our response and keeping the economy open but we have done the complete opposite.   Trump and GOP effort to reopen the economy is not only the correct response, but the only recourse.

As for Joe Biden, he has demonstrated at his best mediocrity.  For fifty years, he has wrong on almost every major foreign policy from opposing the successful Reagan foreign policy that ended the Cold War while being part of the worst foreign policy team as Obama’s Vice President.  He even opposed the one decision that Obama made that almost every American agreed with, the killing of Bin Laden.  He was caught on tape bribing Ukrainian officials to stop an investigation into a company that his son was making millions of dollars nor this was all.  His son also profited from dealing with China while his father was negotiating with the Chinese governments.  Biden over the years have used his power to benefit his family members and has shown himself as a creature of the Swamp.  About Biden’s own capacity to lie to benefit his career, Kevin Williamson wrote, “ For some reason, the evidence shows, in the early 2000s, Joe Biden began to remark in public that his wife had died at the hands of someone who “allegedly . . . drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch.” That Curtis Dunn “was an errant driver who stopped to drink.” That drunk-driver story spread into news accounts. The Dunn family, who had strong sympathy for Biden, was shocked by the sullying of their now-dead father. They wrote the senator and asked him to stop and reminded him of the exonerating investigation. When that did not happen, they went public. Per a 2010 Biden profile in The Atlantic: For many years, he described the driver of the truck that struck and killed his first wife and their daughter in December 1972 as drunk, which he apparently was not. The tale could hardly be more tragic; why add in a baseless charge? The family of the truck driver has labored to correct the record, but Biden made the reference to drunkenness as recently as 2007, needlessly resurrecting a false and painful accusation…This is profoundly disturbing. But by our current standards, hair-sniffing rates condemnation, while the false accusation of an innocent dead man, and the embellishment of a personal tragedy — could the Biden tragedy be more tragic? — are forgotten and/or ignored.”   Biden own personal tragedy turn into a campaign story that included lies about a man who could not defend himself.  This is not a man who will bring back integrity to the White House but allow the White House to be use for profiteering by his family while others run the administration behind the scene.

I began this essay with detailing how Republicans have been more successful in saving lives and jobs but that is not the story voters are hearing. Kristi Noem’s accomplishment have been ignored and Andrew Cuomo incompetence is paraded as brilliance.  Democrats are the socialist party of American and made it clear that they will transfer America away from a Democratic capitalist society and allow anarchy triumph over the rule of law.  Cites are seeing crime wave happening while Democrats call for defunding the police, the last line of defense in many urban cities.  The lawlessness of the Obama era will return and a foreign policy of appeasement as United States surrender sovereignty to transnational organization and simply allow China to become the dominant power in the world.  We are witnessing a battle of civilization or if we even remained a civilized state.  Many within the right or in the political middle may view Donald Trump as the imperfect vassal to defend Western Civilization but he is what we have left in 2020 to defend Civilization. Decline of a civilization is a choice and electing Joe Biden is making that choice.

From Doctor Larry

he original poem was written in 1960 and proved remarkably prescient of the .events to follow in the eventful 1960;s. It was the basis for this poem which was written in 2012, at the height if the Obama era, and has proven predictive of events up to the current civil unrest. It expresses, I think, the challenges we face today when our very freedom is stake.
The hallmark of America’s genius since July 4, 1776 has been our ability to conceive and follow as our guiding star, our God-given right “to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” A major component of this ideal is “equal justice under the law”, which has seen a long, slow, and costly struggle, including a war which cost more American casualties than all the other wars combined. And we have come a long way since 1776. But not far enough.
Some of our fellow Americans have become impatient — and rightfully so — with the fact that this goal has not yet been achieved. Unfortunately, in their impatience, they have attacked the wrong target. Equality before the law does not require the suspension of the law or even of enforcement of the law. It means better laws, better standards and practices of the police, better judges, and better judgement on the part of each of us.
Racism in the sense of preference for our own kind may be an unfortunate characteristic of the human condition, but it must never be allowed to cloud our judgement of right and wrong. On the contrary, we must fight against it, as in the parable of the Good Samaritan. We can strive continuously and sincerely to expand our sense of “our own kind” to include all Americans, and the Christian ideal of “all humankind”.
The history of the past three centuries has proven America more successful than any other civilization ever “so conceived and so dedicated”. We cannot, we must not, give up now! Those who threaten our way of life must be overcome at all costs! We have to endure our shortcomings as we seek to eliminate them. Our individual freedom is a requirement to achieve these lofty goals, but they will never be achieved by mob rule.
As Americans we must be true to our heritage. It is our only hope for the advancement of human rights. America is still the shining city on the hill and a beacon of light to the world, but only if we continue to protect it.

data updated

Updated data.  First data GOP and Democrats economic data.May unemployment and percentage of civilian labor force along death per capita.  the second data is death per capita Democrats state with DC and without and GOP.  final data is 8 populous states four GOP, four Democrats states,

May unemployment Claims % of civilian population
Dem average/DC 14.1 12.2
Dem average 14.3 11.9
Rep average 11.4 8.9
Death per capita
Dem average/DC 415
Dem average 401
Rep average 200.7
May unemployment Claims % of civilian population Death per capital
Florida 14.5 10.1 Florida 155
Texas 13 9.4 Texas 79
Ohio 13.7 8.2 Ohio 238
Georgia 9.7 15.2 Georgia 254
GOP Avg 12.7 10.7 GOP Avg 181.5
California 16.8 15.9 California 145
New York 14.5 18.3 New York 1612
Illinois 15.2 11.9 Illinois 534
Pennsylvania 13.1 12.4 Pennsylvania 517

 
Dem Avg 14.9 14.6 Dem Avg 702

Data

Data  unemployment through May and claims % of civilian Population June 13 Democrats average include DC and not include DC.

 

May unemployment Claims % of civilian population
Dem average/DC 14.1 13.8
Dem average 14.3 13.6
Rep average 11.4 9.5

Deaths per capital

Death per capita death per million
Dem average/DC 418.3
Dem average 404
Rep average 210

 

 

From Dr. Larry

Trump’s controversial rally
A lot to argue about!
By Dr. Larry Fedewa
(Washington, DC – June 21,2020) President Donald J. Trump held his first post-lock-down rally last evening in Tulsa, Oklahoma. There was controversy before, during and after the event. Criticism was not confined to the content of the speech as usual but spread over the unusual areas of the timing, location, venue, and attendance of the rally.
The earliest criticism concerned the timing of the event. A Trump rally, held in an indoor arena, was criticized as a blatant violation of the CDC current (and often changing) recommendations regarding safeguards against the “Chinese virus”, as Trump calls it. Among the most obvious violations were the lack of social distancing in the densely packed house, without compulsory masks, and held indoors (as opposed to outdoors).
After the rally, much was made of the lower attendance. Not only were there noticeable empty bleachers (which the network cameras showed frequently), but also the scheduled outdoor appearance by the President was cancelled because the only crowd out there was the ever-present (thankfully peaceful) protesters. Nevertheless, there were approximately 18,000 or more in attendance, counting the seating on the floor of the arena, out of a published capacity of 19,000.
One unaccounted-for factor was the absence of the 0ver-65 crowd who tend to be among the most loyal of the Trump base.
So, what to think about all this? First of all, there is the symbolic significance of the scheduling. The President has shown in various ways that the public health contingent – which essentially scared him (and all of us) into the lock-down in the first place – is no longer calling the shots in the White House response to the pandemic.
This column remarked very early in the process the fact that the public health perspective is necessarily limited. Never before in American history has this group been given such control over public policy. At the first sign of a public health threat, Mr. Trump, in typical CEO practice, called into service the finest experts he could find in this field – which he admitted was far from his own experience. He then followed their advice, quite uncritically. As I pointed out at the time, this was a huge gamble: if it went wrong, it could, among other things, cost him the election and even his place in history.
After a while, he did begin to appreciate the narrowness of that perspective. But he was stuck in the middle of a lock-down which he had ordered! Thus, began the journey back to recovery, to normalcy.
His diffusion of power to local politicians was a stroke of genius. Not only did he gradually shed the sole responsibility for the lock-down, but he made friends and evoked loyalties among an entire new group of politicians with whom he had had little prior contact. And it was acting out the essence of the Constitution, which sees the sovereign states as surrendering and thereby validating some of their powers to create the federal government.
This entire scenario was moving along quite nicely. Then two unexpected things happened: the Washington Democrats in Congress began to “adopt” the public health establishment, endorsing ever more stringent limitations on the population in the name of the pandemic. As this attitude began to percolate out to the state governors, the recovery slowed down.
By this time Trump and his people had fully realized that the lock-down had nearly ruined the economy and still threatened to do so. They went into overdrive to speed up the recovery.
Trump was still winning, however, until the next shoe dropped: a cellphone video of the brutal murder of a defenseless Black man by a White policeman in Minneapolis went viral on social media. The reaction was a worldwide protest against civil authority in America. After a few peaceful marches, the movement turned violent and radical leadership emerged. Among other secondary effects, the total attention of America — and much of the world – turned away from the economic recovery and toward the protesters and the rioters.
Some past events of this type have elicited soaring rhetoric from leaders such as the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and Senator Robert Kennedy to begin healing the wounds. Soaring rhetoric is not one of Mr. Trump’s talents. Nor does he have the soothing, compassionate manner of a Bill Clinton or a George Bush. In the face of these disasters, Donald Trump stumbled.
The Democrat opposition immediately made him the face of the disaster. His poll numbers tumbled, yielding to the reclusive Mr. Biden whose silence has served him well.
Trump may not be a great orator or an instinctive healer, but he does excel at one thing: he can draw thousands of impassioned participants to his rallies. This is his unique sandbox and he felt the urgency to activate it, as he sensed the election starting to slip away.
The Tulsa Rally was the first step on Trump’s road to recovery. It was an act of defiance to the public health establishment and their new sponsors, the Democrats and the press. It also emphasizes the simple truth that the virus is going to be around for a long time, and we have to learn to live with it while carrying on our normal economic activity. Our financial survival as a nation depends on it.
Whether Trump’s new strategy succeeds or not depends on the next steps. In one of Mr. Trump’s favorite sayings, “We’ll see what happens.”
Indeed, we will.

From Dr. Larry

Trump’s controversial rally
A lot to argue about!
By Dr. Larry Fedewa
(Washington, DC – June 21,2020) President Donald J. Trump held his first post-lock-down rally last evening in Tulsa, Oklahoma. There was controversy before, during and after the event. Criticism was not confined to the content of the speech as usual but spread over the unusual areas of the timing, location, venue, and attendance of the rally.
The earliest criticism concerned the timing of the event. A Trump rally, held in an indoor arena, was criticized as a blatant violation of the CDC current (and often changing) recommendations regarding safeguards against the “Chinese virus”, as Trump calls it. Among the most obvious violations were the lack of social distancing in the densely packed house, without compulsory masks, and held indoors (as opposed to outdoors).
After the rally, much was made of the lower attendance. Not only were there noticeable empty bleachers (which the network cameras showed frequently), but also the scheduled outdoor appearance by the President was cancelled because the only crowd out there was the ever-present (thankfully peaceful) protesters. Nevertheless, there were approximately 18,000 or more in attendance, counting the seating on the floor of the arena, out of a published capacity of 19,000.
One unaccounted-for factor was the absence of the 0ver-65 crowd who tend to be among the most loyal of the Trump base.
So, what to think about all this? First of all, there is the symbolic significance of the scheduling. The President has shown in various ways that the public health contingent – which essentially scared him (and all of us) into the lock-down in the first place – is no longer calling the shots in the White House response to the pandemic.
This column remarked very early in the process the fact that the public health perspective is necessarily limited. Never before in American history has this group been given such control over public policy. At the first sign of a public health threat, Mr. Trump, in typical CEO practice, called into service the finest experts he could find in this field – which he admitted was far from his own experience. He then followed their advice, quite uncritically. As I pointed out at the time, this was a huge gamble: if it went wrong, it could, among other things, cost him the election and even his place in history.
After a while, he did begin to appreciate the narrowness of that perspective. But he was stuck in the middle of a lock-down which he had ordered! Thus, began the journey back to recovery, to normalcy.
His diffusion of power to local politicians was a stroke of genius. Not only did he gradually shed the sole responsibility for the lock-down, but he made friends and evoked loyalties among an entire new group of politicians with whom he had had little prior contact. And it was acting out the essence of the Constitution, which sees the sovereign states as surrendering and thereby validating some of their powers to create the federal government.
This entire scenario was moving along quite nicely. Then two unexpected things happened: the Washington Democrats in Congress began to “adopt” the public health establishment, endorsing ever more stringent limitations on the population in the name of the pandemic. As this attitude began to percolate out to the state governors, the recovery slowed down.
By this time Trump and his people had fully realized that the lock-down had nearly ruined the economy and still threatened to do so. They went into overdrive to speed up the recovery.
Trump was still winning, however, until the next shoe dropped: a cellphone video of the brutal murder of a defenseless Black man by a White policeman in Minneapolis went viral on social media. The reaction was a worldwide protest against civil authority in America. After a few peaceful marches, the movement turned violent and radical leadership emerged. Among other secondary effects, the total attention of America — and much of the world – turned away from the economic recovery and toward the protesters and the rioters.
Some past events of this type have elicited soaring rhetoric from leaders such as the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and Senator Robert Kennedy to begin healing the wounds. Soaring rhetoric is not one of Mr. Trump’s talents. Nor does he have the soothing, compassionate manner of a Bill Clinton or a George Bush. In the face of these disasters, Donald Trump stumbled.
The Democrat opposition immediately made him the face of the disaster. His poll numbers tumbled, yielding to the reclusive Mr. Biden whose silence has served him well.
Trump may not be a great orator or an instinctive healer, but he does excel at one thing: he can draw thousands of impassioned participants to his rallies. This is his unique sandbox and he felt the urgency to activate it, as he sensed the election starting to slip away.
The Tulsa Rally was the first step on Trump’s road to recovery. It was an act of defiance to the public health establishment and their new sponsors, the Democrats and the press. It also emphasizes the simple truth that the virus is going to be around for a long time, and we have to learn to live with it while carrying on our normal economic activity. Our financial survival as a nation depends on it.
Whether Trump’s new strategy succeeds or not depends on the next steps. In one of Mr. Trump’s favorite sayings, “We’ll see what happens.”
Indeed, we will.