Is Opposing Donald Trump’s Economic Policies Racist?

Port Townsend’s Women’s March: Bigoted or Detached from Reality?

 

[Editor’s note:  We have notified the Port Townsend Women’s March organization that we would be happy to publish their response to this commentary]

The Congressional Black Caucus is not to be trifled with. Established in 1971 to amplify the legislative agenda of African American lawmakers and their constituents, the CBC is “committed to using the full Constitutional power, statutory authority, and financial resources of the federal government to ensure that African Americans and other marginalized communities in the United States have the opportunity to achieve the American Dream.”

I’ve spent enough time on Capitol Hill to know that one gets between the CBC and its objectives at their peril. To cross the CBC in its mission to help blacks achieve the American Dream is to invite accusations of racism

It logically follows, using the CBC’s modus operandi, that opposing programs that increase jobs for blacks would be racist. Railing against policies that result in higher wages and more job opportunities for African Americans would be racist. That’s just how name-calling politics works.

If we’re going to be philosophically consistent–if not intellectually honest–it stands to reason that opposing the economic policies of President Trump makes one a racist.

The economic policies of the Trump administration have made business expansion a lot easier, meaning more blacks (and other people) are finding jobs. The June unemployment figures show a black jobless rate of 5.9%, the lowest since data on black unemployment have been collected. Unemployment is also dramatically lower for Americans of other racial and ethnic groups.
Wages for blacks and others in the workforce are finally starting to rise and data collected by the Society for Human Resource Management shows even higher wage growth through 2018 as corporations plan to further hike wages and salaries. These same companies also report plans to accelerate hiring this year.
President Trump’s policies have reduced illegal immigration to its lowest level in 17 years, which helps black Americans find and keep jobs, especially young African Americans working in low-skill or entry level positions. As explained by Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., emeritus professor of labor economics at Cornell University,  “Because most illegal immigrants overwhelmingly seek work in the low skilled labor market and because the black American labor force is so disproportionately concentrated in this same low wage sector, there is little doubt that there is significant overlap in competition for jobs in this sector of the labor market.” The president’s immigration policies, which amount to little more than enforcing existing law, are making it easier for blacks to find jobs by decreasing employment competition from illegals.
Free market economies are inherently dynamic so it’s foolish to give Trump all the credit for record low black unemployment, rising wages and more job opportunities. But he certainly deserves much credit for the results of his policies. What’s fascinating to contemplate is that if these policies emanated from the Congressional Black Caucus rather than the Trump White House, anyone who opposed them would be branded a bigot and a racist.
Taking this in context, I recalled a January, 2018 news photo of an essentially all-white crowd of thousands on Water Street in Port Townsend.  They excoriated the president for being a racist, among other sins. Those whose efforts improve the lives of blacks are not ordinarily described as racists. Their charges of racism against President Trump are an indicator of just how detached from reality so much of Port Townsend can be.
This name-calling is not reserved for the president. I have been called a racist, a homophobe and a xenophobe by virtue of my five-month association with the Trump campaign between July and November, 2016. It’s weird because none of my black friends think I’m a racist, none of my gay friends think I’m homophobic and none of my Muslim, Hispanic and Asian friends think I’m xenophobic or a religious bigot. But that’s just how name-calling politics works.
Are Port Townsend liberals and progressives who oppose the economic policies of President Trump racists? Personally, I am loathe to use such incendiary language over simple policy disagreements. But one must wonder about the motivation of those who fight relentlessly against policies that are demonstrably improving the lives of millions of African Americans.

Responses to Scott’s columns of no more than 700 words may be sent to ptfreepress@gmail.com.  The author’s full name, address and telephone number must be included.

CANDIDATE FORUM LONG ON GRIPES, SHORT ON ANSWERS

CANDIDATE FORUM LONG ON GRIPES, SHORT ON ANSWERS

The big thing that emerged from Sunday’s Honesty Forum in Port Ludlow, where all four candidates for the open seat on the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners appeared on the same stage, was that most of them are better at griping about problems than solving them.

Shared concerns are invaluable in connecting politicians with voters. But most people already know what the problems are. We don’t need to be told that jobs, growing the tax base, and housing are problems. What voters want are concrete solutions, which were in short supply Sunday.

Greg Brotherton (D) said he wants to “make it easier to build houses and businesses.” But he then confessed, “I don’t want to be a disruptor” on the Board of County Commissioners. How does one go about transforming an arcane system of regulations, ordinances, codes and other impediments to growth without being disruptive? A prerequisite for reversing an entrenched bureaucracy is being disruptive, which Brotherton wishes not to be.

Ryan McAllister (D) opined, “our biggest export is young people,” after explaining that he opposes the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort because it, “does not reflect the character of our rural county.” I do not know why young people are leaving Jefferson County but it’s probably not because of plans to build a resort in Brinnon. A big box store like Home Depot or WalMart may not reflect the character of the county but it would offer young people good paying jobs and opportunities for career advancement.

The rub, according to McAllister, is that “you have the people that grew up here, lifelong Jefferson County residents, who want to get out of the county,” competing with the interests of, “people like me, who moved here when I was a teenager with my wife.” Perhaps that’s true, but it raises the question whether we want to run the county in the interests of aging transplants rather than native residents.

Craig Durgan (D) did a better job of speaking in a straight line, focusing much of his remarks on how we, “desperately need to bring businesses to Jefferson County,” particularly around Port Hadlock. He offered some solutions. Unfortunately, Durgan has branding and credibility problems. After several unsuccessful campaigns in recent years, first as a Republican and later as an Independent, Durgan told me he became a Democrat on May 19.

He said after the forum that he’s preparing to reach out to organized labor to help fund his campaign. He mentioned the Olympic Peninsula Building Trades Council as a potential donor.  Durgan told me this after declaring during the forum that he supports getting outside-money out of politics. When I asked how one squares opposition to outside money in politics with asking unions for campaign cash, Durgan was succinct. “It’s the reality,” he said.

Jon Cooke (R) managed to make his points in a linear fashion and to good effect. His positions are simple; he wants to grow the county’s tax base through business expansion by relaxing codes and regulations. Cooke described himself as a man who, “works better with people than deciding what size rock to use for a road.” In that statement, Cooke offered his vision of governing. He knows that focusing on the minutiae of bureaucracy is a fool’s errand and he won’t sweat the small stuff.

As a political newcomer, Cooke lacks the polish of his competitors.  What he lacks in slickness he makes up for in command of the issues, clearly articulating a solution for the major obstacle to growth. “The biggest area would be in the Hadlock area, getting the sewer in, and then building up around that,” Cooke said.

Compare this patently un-sexy issue with the Internet. McAllister and Brotherton are making high-speed Internet a core issue in their campaigns, which aligns with the strategy of congressional Democrats who want to use Internet de-regulation as a wedge issue in the midterm elections. McAllister lists high speed Internet as one of his three main objectives, while Brotherton claimed, “rural Internet creates jobs.”

But which is a higher priority, Internet or sewers? “I wouldn’t label one or the other more important,” said Brotherton after the forum. Fast Internet is a wonderful thing,but Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs probably puts a higher premium on a place to go to the bathroom and somewhere to flush it than streaming Netflix without buffering. I’d be curious to see who volunteers to pitch a new business to locate in Jefferson County by explaining, “You have to use composting toilets because we can’t get a sewer project through.  But we have Internet!”

Politicians know they must defend everything they say so it’s unsurprising most aren’tyet offering concrete solutions. They’re not likely to take that step unless forced into it. Only when Jefferson County voters demand more than talking points will we begin to get sensible answers to problems facing the county.

(Editor’s note:  Scott Hogenson has a long list of accomplishments and affiliations. We are honored to have him as a contributor. In the interest of disclosure, we provide this partial bio:  Scott Hogenson is president of Hogenson Communications, LLC, a public relations consultancy. He moved to Jefferson County in 2017 after 25 years in Washington, DC, where he worked on four presidential campaigns as a senior member of the Republican National Committee Press Office. He is also a contributor to the Jodi Wilke for State Representative campaign.  He has been a member of the academic staff at the University of Wisconsin-Madison where he lectured in the School of Journalism and served as managing editor for the Wisconsin Public Radio News Network. Scott has also been a contributing editor for National Public Radio in Washington, D.C., a broadcast editor for United Press International, and a news director for radio stations in Virginia and Texas.  The photo used above appeared on the McAllister campaign Facebook page.)

The Bernie Problem

I like Bernie Sanders. He’s something of an anomaly in American politics because he’s one of the most honest politicians on the scene, not just today but going back decades. It took a lot of courage for Sanders to declare himself a Socialist when running for mayor of Burlington, Vermont in 1981.  He went on to win four terms in that office. By the time I moved to Vermont in 1989, Sanders was already a political legend in the state because with Bernie Sanders, what you see is what you get.
I respect that.

But Bernie Sanders is making things uncomfortable for Jefferson County Democrats. Like many of their fellow believers nationally, they belong to a party in search of an identity and message.  The local political landscape makes that exponentially more difficult.

It’s no stretch to call today’s Jefferson County Democrat Party the party of Bernie. In the county’s 2016 presidential primary, Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton, 54% to 45%, a hair’s breadth from a landslide.

So where is the county’s favorite son on the big issues? We got glimpse on June 13, when Sanders addressed a gathering of progressives in Washington, D.C.  He proudly proclaimed, “A few years ago, just a few years ago, and I want you to think about it, many of the ideas that we talked about were thought to be fringe ideas, radical ideas, extremist ideas. Well, you know what? Because of your efforts those ideas are now mainstream American ideas.”

It was a pretty stunning statement. He may be correct that his radical, extremist, fringe ideas are becoming mainstream. There are certainly many enclaves of Bernie supporters across the country in which this is true but Jefferson County is not one of them. If anything, the people who live here are moving away from Sanders’ political vision.

We saw this in November, 2017, when voters overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 1, the proposal to further tax home owners to fund a plan promising to pay for affordable housing. Unlike the Sanders-Clinton primary of 2016, the Proposition 1 vote one year later was a landslide of epic proportions, with the measure going down to defeat with a68.2% “no” vote. The result was more than a profound embarrassment for Jefferson County Democrats; it entirely disrupted the political calculus of party stalwarts.

Recognition of some of this anti-Big Government, low-tax sentiment is reflected by all three Democrats running for the open seat on the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners. All have rejected, to varying degrees, the manifesto of Bernie Sanders and the local Democrat Party through their criticism of onerous land use regulations and restrictions.  They are all calling for increased freedom for local property owners and developers. I’m not privy to discussions among local Democrat bigwigs but it’s a good bet that shrinking government is not part of their platform.

So which Democrat Party will emerge in Jefferson County this election? It could be a party that heeds the sentiments of people who want to keep more of what they earn through their labor and live on their land without the heavy hand of government intruding at every turn. It could also be the party of Bernie in which government foists a central command and control structure on taxpayers, taking from those who produce and giving it to those who do not.

More to the point, will Democrats be responsive to the more than 2/3 of voters who rejected another hike in their property taxes last year or the 54% of party loyalists who voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential primary and supported his, “fringe ideas, radical ideas, extremist ideas”?

Many of our friends and neighbors are coming to the same conclusion as former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who observed, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”  We just won’t know how many agree with Thatcher until the votes are counted.

Jefferson County’s Conflicted Democrat Party

Being relatively new to the Olympic Peninsula, I confess that my institutional knowledge of local politics is not terribly comprehensive. But I think it fair to observe that we owe a modicum of credit to the all-Democrat County Board of Commissioners for bringing Republicans and Democrats together, and spurring conflict among local Democrats.
You can see this phenomenon in the race for District 3 County Commissioner, in which four candidates are vying for Kathleen Kler’s open seat. The unity among these candidates, three Democrats and one Republican, centers on Jefferson County’s Deep State, the big local government apparatus that does its level best to strangle economic growth in the region.

Democrats Ryan McAllister and Greg Brotherton have both lamented how government regulations are creating unnecessary hurdles for businesses and families in Jefferson County. According to McAllister, government should, “make it easier for companies to do business in Jefferson County by easing regulations.” Brotherton echoes that sentiment, saying he believes the county’s permit process, “is a problem we can fix,” and opining how complaining about the system, “is how we bond with people.”

Republican Jon Cooke goes beyond talking points on the issue, calling for improving Port Hadlock’s sewage system, which has been an impediment to growth for years. Cooke also recognizes the need to broaden the tax base, “to relieve the taxpayers and encourage people to spend their money in Jefferson County, not Clallam and Kitsap counties.”

Perhaps the most specific proposals at this stage of the campaign come from Democrat Craig Durgan, who wants to bring sewer systems to Port Hadlock, Quilcene and Brinnon, establish a Major Industrial Development  (MID) in the Four Corners area and, “designate land banks for Master Planned Locations.” Durgan’s proposals would be geared toward attracting and retaining retail businesses while also accommodating light industry within the MID, leading to more higher paying jobs.

Notwithstanding other issues in the race and nuances in policy particulars, all four are campaigning, to one degree or another, against Big Government. The Democrats in the District 3 race are channeling their inner Ronald Reagan, who famously observed that, “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.”
Much credit for this goes to our Board of County Commissioners. After years of dithering on important issues and doing little to provide Jefferson County with the necessary tools for growing a tax base and attracting commerce, many Democrats have begun moving away from their own party and closer to the GOP.
This has to be frightening for establishment Democrats, progressives and other left-wing power brokers in Jefferson County. Big Government is the bedrock of the statist agenda that constitutes Democrat Party politics, yet all three of their candidates for the District 3 seat on the Board of Commissioners recognize the failures of their own party. In terms of government regulations, they sound more like Donald Trump than Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.
It also reveals the single greatest challenge for the party of liberals, locally and nationally, which is adrift in the absence of any cohesive leadership. Nobody is really sure whether today’s Democrat Party is one of traditional American liberalism or full-on Socialism and its promises of free stuff for anybody who can get themselves to the polls on Election Day.  This leadership vacuum is well illustrated by a friend of mine who asks whether the Democrat Party of 2018 is ideologically closer to John F. Kennedy or Lee Harvey Oswald. It’s a question worth answering.
It’s too soon to say whether the District 3 race represents a seismic shift in Jefferson County politics but it does show that some of those who call themselves Democrats are awakening to the destructive realities of liberal government. It takes a lot of courage to push back against one’s own party and McAllister, Brotherton and Durgan are likely to get roughed up a bit in what promises to be a rollicking primary. But make no mistake about it. These office seekers and people across Jefferson County are realizing that they have been misled by liberals and they are moving away from a splintering Democrat Party and its policies.

Moon Over Port Townsend

The Battle of the Sexes has reached new depths of confusion. Not a day passes without some person being accused by some other person of some form of unseemly behavior, invariably linked to sex or something like sex. Some cases are very serious, like the rape charges against Bill Cosby and former Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. Others may involve retaliation against an accuser, as was alleged by a staff member of California Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, who is accused of firing a male aide for refusing to play spin the bottle with her.
Most of what we read about involves people in positions of power exploiting those with no real means of fighting back. This power dynamic makes such harassment far more pernicious, but it can also distract us from other misconduct that does not involve famous, powerful people. Some complaints ring true and terrible while others suggest false outrage. In some instances, what used to be called flirting is now called harassment. What are we to think?
Some of this confusion came to Port Townsend May 11 when police responded to a report of a woman exposing her buttocks from the window of a truck. The term of art would be ‘mooning.’  According to Port Townsend Police Public Information Officer Keppie Keplinger, the 26-year-old mooner and the driver, a 42-year-old woman from Port Hadlock, were cited for not wearing seat belts. The woman exposing her rear end was also counseled against displaying her derrière from a moving vehicle. And that’s it.
One could be forgiven for wanting this woman frog-marched into the Jefferson County Courthouse, pants tightly cinched around her waist, and called to account for her behavior. I mean, we’re talking about the public display of one or more butt cheeks and God Knows What Else. If harassment is harassment no ifs, ands or buts (no pun intended), why should this woman be excused for exposing herself?
On the other hand, the response struck me as somewhat nostalgic, harkening back to a different time in America, when mooning was a prank for teenagers of all ages meriting little more than a stern finger-wagging. It turns out that exposing one’s buttocks and whatever lies between them is just fine. “It’s not a crime,” said Keplinger. Indeed, mooning has been adjudicated in numerous courts as a form of expression protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
We’re left with something of a conundrum. The Pound Me Too Movement (I refuse the made-up word ‘hashtag’) has made expressing admiration of a woman’s appearance tantamount to second-degree murder while a woman displaying her rear end at a stop light in Port Townsend gets a pass.
For those who say admiring a woman’s appearance may be uncomfortable for the recipient of the compliment, I submit that a full moon could be quite uncomfortable for its recipients, not to mention a dangerous distraction if you’re behind the wheel. But we who were not at the stop light on the corner of Haines Place and Sims Way on May 11 can never know how it felt to be on the receiving end of this display of female flesh.
Don’t get me wrong; this is not to conflate mooning with the behavior of Harvey Weinstein. There is no place for sexual harassment or assault – ever. But cultural norms and social mores are always in flux, and the very real risk to my wife and daughter and every other woman is that we’re defining deviancy down while defining the innocuous up. What once was taboo is now ordinary; what once was mundane is now criminal. It is the criminally mundane that marginalizes truly egregious conduct and the victims of it.
In the case of the Port Townsend Moon, the mundane is just that. It is no more a threat to society than winking at a member of the opposite sex across a crowded room. Rather, it is the cacophonous indignation over perceived slights and micro-aggressions that pose a greater threat to us. There’s a big difference between a moon from a passing truck, leaving one speechless, and being forced into speechlessness by the censorship that attends manufactured outrage.

Scott Hogenson is a resident of Jefferson County. His column will appear Wednesdays.  Responses, no more than 700 words, may be sent to ptfreepress@gmail.com.