
Transition … Moonglow revived in 1956. Moulin Rouge … 1952
Recorded 1958, released 1962.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies
Palantir was founded in 2003. It has 4,000 employees and $3B of revenues using technology to make the military more effective. It is valued at more than $300B, the 30th most valuable company in the world! Yes, 100X revenues (not 8X or 25X) and $75M per employee (not $3M-10M). The founder, Alexander Karp, has written a book about what’s wrong with the US and what to do about it, in his spare time. The book jacket says he earned his doctorate in “social theory” from Goethe University in Frankfurt.
The 218-page book is rambling, with an extra 66 note pages. The bottom line is that everyone should be like the author, a hard charging owner engineer, focused on technical results AND deeply interested in the social, political and economic success of the nation. Hence, it crosses political boundaries!!!! A majority of the book castigates “the left”. About a quarter criticizes the shallow market right. However, the author raises great questions about what is required for success by the US that should not be discounted by either side of the political spectrum, IMO.
On specific policy questions, the author wants freedom for his firm to grow and succeed. Define some guardrails for AI. Don’t worry about personal freedom versus facial recognition. Invest in science. Prioritize science and technology. Honor leaders and leadership. Support the founder and ownership culture. Value science above finance and consulting. Adopt hard power, hawkish, deterrence foreign policies. Prioritize economic growth. Embrace best business practices. Validate rational trade-offs.
Karp claims that the “vampire squid” left is:
The extreme claims are mostly self-refuted by any neutral reader. Karp inappropriately commingles postmodernism, classical liberalism, liberal institutions, interest groups, the Democratic Party and its supporters. It is unclear whether he is an advocate employing the strawman technique or really doesn’t understand the differences between the many groups in the leftist coalition. He generally defines the most extreme, exaggerated, indefensible examples for criticism. He ignores the differences between philosophers and real people. He does quite a bit of name calling. He portrays his opponents as simpletons, unaware of tradeoffs. He generalizes leftists as pure feeling, intuitive beings rather than mixed constructive thinkers. He fails to recognize any of Jonathan Haidt’s morality flavors as being essentially important to left and right.
Karp argues that “the technological republic” can address the problems he has identified. His primary solutions are technocratic ones. I think that the “neutral” problems he has identified are important. I don’t think his “solutions” really fix them. The solutions are mainly focused on using firms and talents like his in supporting the government’s military capabilities.
Greater nationalism is one approach to the core problems, but strong nationalism has a mixed history and may not be a widely supported solution in the modern or postmodern world. Individualism is too strong. Religious and political views are diverse. Racial, ethnic, regional and class groups are diverse.


Trump focuses only on win/lose. If the US earns $1 trillion from trade and the rest of the world (ROW) earns $1.2 trillion, he sees this as a $200 billion loss. The ROW is winning, taking advantage of the USA and its unenlightened deal makers. If the US earns $500 billion from trade and the ROW earns only $400 billion then we are winning by $100 billion. Trump sees the second scenario as far superior to the first. Relative winnings (win/lose) are the bottom line rather than actual winnings (win/win). This is a fundamental flaw.
Trump only sees costs; he doesn’t consider benefits. Net benefits, benefits minus costs is the right measure.
Trump only looks at the short-run. He ignores the long-run. He believes that he can always renegotiate any situation.
Trump only sees dollar signs. The trade balance can be measured. It is positive or negative. The cost of defense can be measured. Either we pay or others pay. We trade goods and services. Defense/security benefits matter. We care about immigration, crime, taxes, personal security, climate, health, economic development, investments, rule of law, intellectual property, labor, the environment, etc. Other countries care about all of these dimensions. We must too.
Citizens have an irrational commitment to their nations. They are willing to die for them. Nations have sovereignty. Each has certain minimal rights. Politicians respond to these irrational beliefs. Ignoring this reality is irrational, even though it is very frustrating.
The US learned from European, Japanese and American experiences. Empires are very costly to establish and maintain. Nations can be enticed into becoming reliable allies at a fraction of the cost. They are rationally willing to evaluate costs and benefits, risks and rewards, short-term and long-term, labor and capital, sovereignty and influence, security and opportunity. Trump is right to negotiate, but wrong to discount this basic approach.
The US has greatly benefited from the post-1945 system of global governance, finance, economic development, health and trade. Global deals designed by the global leaders provide a framework for low-cost transactions. Trump believes that the strongest nations can extract even more net value through individual deals. Too many countries. Too much complexity to negotiate all of these topics effectively.
Trump comes from the real estate world where each deal is “one off”. International relations and trade are repeated deals. The optimal strategy is different when the “tit for tat” strategy can be used. Firms and nations will punish any bully, even at a significant cost to themselves. The strongest players must consider the weaker players’ strategies. When firms or nations find that they cannot trust someone the total costs go up significantly.
There are many strategies in the game of chicken. The strongest player does not automatically win. Bluffing matters. Posturing matters. Resources matter. The ability to endure losses and pain matter. Allies matter. Insurance matters. Flexible resources matter. Capacity matters. Creativity matters. Credibility matters. Non-negotiable factors matter. Trump seems to confuse simple economic might with certain winning.
Trump does not understand David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage from 200 years ago. You can be better than someone else in everything, at least in theory. You cannot have a comparative advantage in every production process. Between any two individuals, firms, states or nations, there will be differences in relative productivity. This is the basis for trade and specialization. The U.S. cannot be better in every industry. We can be relatively better in many industries, but not in all. As our incomes and standard of living increase, we will be relatively less competitive in those activities that can use lower cost labor. This is an unavoidable fact. We can choose to subsidize low skilled manufacturing employment, but we are fighting against very strong market forces.
Trump focuses on simple short-term one-time win/lose. The best negotiators know that the greatest value comes from “growing the pie” in the long-run (win/win). They don’t assume a fixed-sum game. They cooperate to grow the pie, perhaps at the expense of suppliers, competitors, labor, investors or customers. They exploit comparative advantages to lower overall costs, lower risks and increase benefits. They share or signal their relative priorities. They fulfill their commitments. They create incentives for sustained cooperation. They cooperate to build market power. They manage customer expectations. They under promise and over deliver. They manage the government. They build shared cultural expectations and priorities. They build personal relationships. They manage large risks. They manage and coordinate supply chains. Modern business is complex. The real winners understand and deal accordingly.
Trump’s dealmaking approach fails on every critical dimension. It is a losing approach for almost all firms and for all countries. His supporters need to understand that he cannot win with his approach and force him to change. His opponents need to highlight these failures. The United States has too much at risk from Trump’s losing strategies.

We’re still dealing with him. What box does he fit in?
Circus, PT Barnum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_a_sucker_born_every_minute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Time_Wrestling_(Detroit)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Madoff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_marketing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glengarry_Glen_Ross_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bakker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_Faye_Messner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Swaggart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Gantry_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Franco
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Broz_Tito
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Per%C3%B3n
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Orb%C3%A1n
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recep_Tayyip_Erdo%C4%9Fan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jennings_Bryan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
Not a pretty picture. Trump is all about spin and sophistry. Plato, Huxley, Orwell and Eisenhower warned us. We have failed to invest in the education, regulation and leadership required for our complex civilization. Let’s get going.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist_(dialogue)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Fall-of-the-Roman-Empire
There has been a groundswell of interest in addressing the loss of civility in modern society. Members of both parties, young and old, rural, urban and suburban have begun to engage on this important topic. Civility is treating others with respect, especially when you disagree. It is a mental attitude, a habit, a character trait, a set of actions. Civility is a key to effective life in community, especially for participating in a democratic government.
Yet, I will argue that the loss of civility is a symptom of much larger challenges rather than a root cause. We need to examine and address these challenges and their causes. Other symptoms of a civilization crisis include political polarization, declining trust, weakened institutions, less social capital, deep skepticism, increased pessimism about the future, anxiety, social isolation, lack of common morality, greater income inequality, personal insecurity, diminished global institutions, and a “secular age’ where religious belief is tentative, in tension with scientism, commercialism, postmodernism, pragmatism, libertarianism, materialism, progress, individualism and the classic liberal political state.
I have summarized the root causes as:
Radical Individualism
Human Nature
Skepticism
Imperfect Myths
Our Secular Age
Insecurity
We have unintentionally become a society of individualists, failing to adequately invest in community. We prioritize individual rights, commercial rights, gun rights, abortion rights, property rights, human rights, individual choice, self-actualization, creative development and raise tolerance to a mega-virtue. We need to re-establish the balance between individuals and the community.
With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1992, Francis Fukuyama’s bold claim that we were seeing “the end of history” seemed plausible, even likely. Liberal democracy, mixed capitalist economies and deepening global trade looked like sure winners. Historic options had been completely discredited. People are not so easily satisfied. Politicians are more creative than expected. They have redefined, repackaged, reorganized and recommunicated. They have convinced us to merge our religious and political identities. We have “retreated to our corners”, embracing polarized politics because the other guy is most certainly awful.
Fukuyama says that pure liberal democracy depends upon a cultural, community, philosophical base to hold it together. We coasted on the tails of Western civilization and Christianity, but that common source is gone. We have become so concerned with defining and defending our identities that politics has become a matter of “ultimate concern”! Klein documents how we have moved into this mess and provides some practical solutions. Haidt outlines our built-in religious/political mental patterns and how politicians use them to craft seductive policies, parties and messages.
We have paths out of this polarized dead-end.
The breakdown of the “Christian consensus” undermines the certainty of religious belief, making any denomination, including “none of the above” simply one choice among many. Humans need answers to big challenges like:
Our present solutions are imperfect. We have not developed a context or framework for living comfortably and confidently in “A Secular Age”. We have confronted big challenges before and have succeeded.
Scholars, intellectuals, historians, political scientists, philosophers and theologians mostly reject the idea of creating a common morality to hold together society, especially our political culture and processes. I say that we have no choice but to try. We have done this in our public schools for a century. We can define a common moral core just like the Boy Scouts and Rotary have done.
The loss of a solid religious base combined with a high rate of technological changes and a meritocratic economic system create deeply felt insecurity. We must create a context where “everyman” can rest, survive and thrive.
We have many problems. We need many solutions. Some can be addressed through grass roots efforts to simply change the way we see the world and how we interact with each other. Some will require difficult political changes.
We have reached a point in US history and Western Civilization where individualism has overreached and eclipsed community, religion and morality. We see this everywhere. We need to recognize our difficult situation and build upon our historical strengths. We have made tremendous progress in all dimensions during the last 500 years around the world. We know how to get along even when we disagree. We need to refine and invest in those structures. We understand human nature much better today than we did in 1500, 1750 or 2000. We know we can’t create a “Tower of Babel” but we can create useful structures to manage our political and religious differences while offering everyone a good life.

The American two-party system has been captured by political extremists. Political parties no longer play their historical function of vetting candidates for broad acceptance, electability and support of party platforms. Parties are dominated by highly motivated extremists as staffers and volunteers. In the post-Gingrich era clever politicians use wedge issues and polarized positions to attract supporters. A majority of states are dominated by single parties and have gerrymandered 80% of the districts to be solidly single party. Majority party politicians are sure to win the general election, so they only worry about competitors from the wings. Special interest groups and large dollar donors support the extreme views in each party. Modern social media tends to reinforce the views of extremists, effectively connecting voters with simplistic answers.
National level politicians devote all of their time to winning elections and being re-elected. Few are interested in the hard work of crafting compromises or finding innovative solutions to the nation’s problems. Voters are frustrated by the lack of progress and responsiveness. They join the anti-Washington chorus. Politicians respond with empty rhetoric.
One solution is to “throw the bums out”. Require all candidates to demonstrate basic levels of character. Require them to actively look for solutions that meet the needs of a solid majority of citizens. Reward those who pursue middle solutions and who avoid the easy populist solutions and rhetoric.
In general elections, if your party’s candidate does not meet these basic requirements, cast a write-in ballot. Vote for Ronald Reagan if you cannot support an extremist Republican. Vote for Barrack Obama if you cannot support an extremist Democrat.
The US political system does not provide 5-7 real choices in general elections. We don’t have Green, socialist, regional, separatist, religious, racial, ethnic, libertarian or liberal democratic options. The Democratic party is split between center-left (moderate) and progressive wings. The Republican party was once split between center-right (moderate) and extremist wings. It is now all extremist, no RINOs allowed. The extremists found a true champion in Goldwater and lost. They recovered with Reagan 40. They tolerated Bush 41 and 43. They embraced Sarah Palin and then Trump 45 and 47.
Moderate, Main Street, Wall Street, philosophical conservatives have no political party home today. Moderate Democrats have little in common with the New Left, the progressive left, environmentalists, postmodernists, socialists, social Democrats.
The TRUE moral majority, real America is in the center. We are conservative, individualistic, practical, American, skeptical, historical, community loving, institution supporting, trusting, classic liberals. We ALSO believe in the liberal American ideals of human rights, liberty, social justice, equal rights, equal opportunity, and international solutions. We are multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi-religious. We intuitively respect diverse religious and political views. Not because we think that others are “right”, but because we accept different individual views as possibly valid. We think there is an objective physical and moral reality but are not confident that we alone possess the truth.
This is the “American genius”. We lean left or right. We think that we are right. But, we accept that our good neighbors have different views. We work together to find solutions for all, solutions that are accepted by a solid majority, not just what a political party can force through.
This requires us to vote against our own side on the simple “left to right” spectrum when candidates fail to meet the basic standards of character or promoting the common good.
Politicians have learned that it is easy for them and highly effective to portray policy positions in ways that make you feel victimized by someone. You blame that someone. You catastrophize the situation. You demonize the supposed villain. You look to the politician and political party for salvation. You attack the opposition. Our political process is polarized. We lose civility. The cycle repeats.
You can choose to reject the victim framework used by many politicians. Few political issues are simply black and white with clear villains and heroes. Most ongoing political issues remain because well-meaning people hold conflicting or non-aligned views. Politicians promote the victim framework and extreme positions because they are easy to communicate, they trigger emotions, and they can be linked to form a simple political platform. Red or blue. Liberal or conservative. Republican or Democrat.
An increasing number of Americans identify as “independents”, not strongly aligned with either party. You probably have strong opinions on some issues and weaker ones on others. You probably hold some combination of liberal, conservative and moderate views on various issues. Many politicians and political parties invest in creating “victim” language for policy areas. Once you become aware of these tricks, you can better choose your own policy views, avoid the victim game and hold politicians accountable for doing their jobs: representing all of their constituents and solving problems.
Politicians create issues to effectively define their positions and beliefs. They prefer “wedge issues” because they are most effective in separating individuals into opposing groups. They prefer “victim” issues because those who feel they are victims both oppose the other party and bond with the politician and his party. These distinctive, emotional issues are the most effective tools for politicians. As citizens, we must be aware of these attempts to oversimplify, to conflate, to polarize, to misrepresent, to motivate, to distract, to anger, to demonize and ultimately to disappoint.
There are “differences of opinion” on each item above. Some are honest, perhaps irreconcilable differences. Others are merely fabricated differences. Making a mountain out of a molehill. We have a personal and civic responsibility to be engaged, thoughtful participants in politics. We have allowed politicians to take misleading, divisive short cuts for much too long.

https://www.modernmindmasters.com/victim-mentality-learned-helplessness/
Politicians have learned that it is easy for them and highly effective to portray policy positions in ways that make you feel victimized by someone. You blame that someone. You catastrophize the situation. You demonize the supposed villain. You look to the politician and political party for salvation. You attack the opposition. Our political process is polarized. We lose civility. The cycle repeats.
You can choose to reject the victim framework used by many politicians. Few political issues are simply black and white with clear villains and heroes. Most ongoing political issues remain because well-meaning people hold conflicting or non-aligned views. Politicians promote the victim framework and extreme positions because they are easy to communicate, they trigger emotions, and they can be linked to form a simple political platform. Red or blue. Liberal or conservative. Republican or Democrat.
An increasing number of Americans identify as “independents”, not strongly aligned with either party. You probably have strong opinions on some issues and weaker ones on others. You probably hold some combination of liberal, conservative and moderate views on various issues. Many politicians and political parties invest in creating “victim” language for policy areas. Once you become aware of these tricks, you can better choose your own policy views, avoid the victim game and hold politicians accountable for doing their jobs: representing all of their constituents and solving problems.
Politicians create issues to effectively define their positions and beliefs. They prefer “wedge issues” because they are most effective in separating individuals into opposing groups. They prefer “victim” issues because those who feel they are victims both oppose the other party and bond with the politician and his party. These distinctive, emotional issues are the most effective tools for politicians. As citizens, we must be aware of these attempts to oversimplify, to conflate, to polarize, to misrepresent, to motivate, to distract, to anger, to demonize and ultimately to disappoint.
There are “differences of opinion” on each item above. Some are honest, perhaps irreconcilable differences. Others are merely fabricated differences. Making a mountain out of a molehill. We have a personal and civic responsibility to be engaged, thoughtful participants in politics. We have allowed politicians to take misleading, divisive short cuts for much too long.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election
Donald Trump clearly won the 2024 electoral college by 312 to 226. He won a 49.8% plurality of the popular vote with 77.2 million versus Kamala Harris’ 75.0 million (48.3%).
The voter participation rate in 2024 was down from 2020, with 86.4 million eligible voters not voting. Hence, the non-voters at 35.8% of the total were the largest category in 2024. Trump earned support from 32.0% of eligible voters. Harris won 31.1% of eligible voters.
When the election is reframed as a 3-horse race, Trump finished second to those who did not cast a ballot.
Trump finished first in 16 of the 51 states (+DC), earning an average of 36.8% of eligible voters’ support. His best showing was 43.5% of Wyoming voters’ ballots. The eligible voter shares of these states to the total at 32.8% is close to the states’ share (16/51).
Trump earned more votes than Harris, but fewer votes than the number of non-voters in another 15 states. He collected 34.2% of the total here compared with 41.6% for the non-participants. Harris was far behind at just 23.3%. These states accounted for 26.2% of the total eligible voters.
Trump finished second to Harris and ahead of non-voters in 5 states, receiving 33.1% of the possible votes. Harris won 37.9%. The non-voter share was 27.3%. These 5 states accounted for just 7.2% of the grand total.
Trump finished in third place in 15 states, earning only 25.4% of the eligible vote. Harris won 36.2%, a shade behind the non-voters at 36.8%. This group of states had 33.8% of the eligible voters.
The US political system does not require or encourage voting. The electoral college system’s “winner takes all” approach discourages voting in states that have historical leaned one way or the other. The non-voters might split the same as the voters, be more favorable to the winner or less favorable to the winner.
In total, Trump won 32.0% of the eligible votes, typically 33-40% in the states that he won and 25-33% in the states that he lost to Harris. More than two-thirds of eligible voters did not vote for him, ranging from 60-75% in different states. Trump clearly won the electoral college, improving on his results in 2016 and 2020 on most demographic slices. His win is not clearly a mandate for assuming extraordinary executive authority.


