Get Ready: "So What" is coming.

Since I was born just a few months after Highlander debuted, I'm not aware of a time in which it was possible for people to change their minds when it came to their politics. Being honest, I'm not even certain that time ever existed.  When you're talking about your political beliefs, you aren't just talking about the policies you think would most benefit the region you reside in.  You're also talking about the policies that you'd like everyone in that region abide by.

Especially in the United States, because here, our politics are more precious to us than our sports teams. Compounding the problem of identity politics is the fact that this is such a big country that any policy change on a level above the local (and most times not even then) isn't transformative enough to have any measurable effect within months, if not years. Even Obamacare, the disappointing child of progressives and alleged bane of conservatives, is just now starting to show any sort of remedial effect almost six years after it was signed into law.  People are actually losing and gaining money, and yet the vast majority of Americans don't feel any different about it.

It's symptomatic of the inherent bureaucracy of modern day political legislation: People who wanted more from the Affordable Care Act bemoan its lack of teeth, and people who wanted it to die in a fire bemoan its overwhelming power to compel the public to comply. In other words, despite the fact that the effects are more or less actually affecting real human beings, it hasn't really changed anyone's opinion. If one of the most publicly cited pieces of legislation is actually showing real effects and nobody thinks any different of it, then what does that say about the culture we live in?

Here's the truth: the only way to shift the tectonic plates of public opinion, especially in politics, is shame. You're not going to change any one person's mind through a thousand arguments, but through generations, young people grow to sympathize with the victims of stupid laws. Enough people grew up around black people, gay people, and marijuana users, and now those people are on board with laws addressing desegregation, marriage equality, and, now, the legality of marijuana. It ain't perfect, but its the best we got.

In the short term, to the end result of somewhere between no change and almost no change, people use empathy as a shortcut through reason. Take the issue of Black Lives Matter. Any traction the BLM movement gained has come from convincing people to imagine they're in somebody else's shoes, and from there, they compare points of view and (gasp) even change their minds a little.

Sure, we could try and go the long way around, and talk about how fucking over an entire segment of the population is going to drive down part of the economy, inevitably taking money out of all of our pockets, which in turn draws the conclusion that the racism is literally not worth the effort, but my guess is that you've probably stopped reading this sentence.

The point is that it's a lot easier to suggest to somebody that, if they were part of that segment of the population, they certainly wouldn't be OK with what was happening.

In the best possible cases, you could reasonably explain why most laws exist- the reason you aren't allowed murder people in traffic is because society couldn't really function if every single day was like The Purge, but it's mostly because enough people have been to a funeral and seen what somebody's death can do to the ones left behind.

Cognitively speaking, this could be considered laziness, but really, but it's laziness on both parts. Considering the consequences of policy on a societal level is a lot more intellectually taxing than considering it on the individual level.

It's the only way in which the electorate has slowly shifted its opinion on any scale, and therefore, it's the only way to get lawmakers to do anything. Politicians don't need to change their minds to stay in office, per se, but they do have to answer to a specific voting block, and if they want to remain in charge of anything, they need that voting block to continue to check the box next to their name when November rolls around.

It's the sport of politics in a nutshell- the gameplan is to influence just enough voters to force a politicians hand. It can take years, decades even- but get it done, and you've done something remarkable.

But just like any sport, every offense creates a defense, and there's finally an answer to the people's utilization of shaming politicians- having no shame whatsoever. It's how we got from 18,000 GOP candidates to just one and a half. By refusing to acknowledge any reality except his own, Trump has become the GOP's Expecto Patronum. He's no longer bound to the limits of what's really true, just what he wants to be true, and his supporters, the ones who say he “tells it like it is” or “speaks his mind,” don't have to do expend any more mental effort on considering arguments from any other side, let alone understanding them. (I'm not sure if this is intentional on Trump's part.)

That's how you get debates where the front-runner can advertise the size of his dick- it's the only issue that people aren't already sure about.

This sucks by itself, but it's going to get worse. Before any of us are ready for it, there's going to be a clash between two different world-views (although, maybe not so different) on the most elevated political stage in the country, and that's when reality actually begins to matter. And here's where I'm worried that things will go horribly, horribly wrong for anyone who isn't on board with a fictitious (but gorgeous!) 300 foot wall separating the United States from other countries. 

I can sum the incoming menace up in two words- “So what?”

First, one more time for posterity, watch this quote:

Look at this response from Trump to Hillary's accusations of racism:

“Failing candidate Hillary Clinton, who is desperately trying to hold on to her lead in the democratic primary against Bernie Sanders, is knowingly putting out lies about my stance on illegal immigration. I said “Mexico is sending”— I’m not knocking immigration or immigrants, but rather am very critical of the country of Mexico for sending us people that they don’t want. Likewise I am very critical of illegal immigration and the tremendous problems including crime, which it causes.

“She is desperate, she is sad, and she is obviously very nervous when she has to revert to issues that have already been settled given the absolute accuracy of my statement. She speaks about “my tone” and that’s the problem with our country’s leaders. They are more worried about tone than results! It’s not about being nice— it’s about being competent.

“Hillary should spend more time producing her illegally hidden emails and less time trying to obfuscate a statement by me that is totally clear and obviously very much accepted by the public as true. I am honored, however, that she is attacking me... The last person she wants to face is Donald Trump.”

Here's the abridged response:

Is what I said wrong? Am I lying about it now? Nobody cares. What I said was true then, and I'm saying something different, but equally true, right now. Also, the reason you're trying to attack the things I've said is because you're trying to attack me, the same way I attack others, which is the wrong thing to do. Therefore, let's talk more about your emails.

See how that works?

There is no shame, because today, shame is a liability. Shame is something that losers have. Jeb Bush had shame, and it killed his campaign- he was dead the moment he walked back the mistakes his brother made. In an ideal world, that would make him a better candidate, but in this world, it makes him weak. Dammit, denial in the face of overwhelming evidence takes gusto! Who wants politicians who break every time somebody brings up pesky data that interfere with their momentum?

Now, to be fair, the right is certainly not the only group to use this tactic. Remember when Bill Clinton committed perjury and nobody gave a shit? It's because there was no shame involved. It's a step beyond “out of sight, out of mind.” It's kind of like the opposite of the Emperor's New Clothes, in which enough people are naked that it doesn't particularly matter what anyone else says. You could have legions of screaming people in robes. But who cares? Enough people think it's true to prevent any further discussion on the matter. And besides that, so what? I think you're naked, and reason can't stop me. What now?

It's why Trump's going to win the nomination, and why it's more and more likely he's going to win the presidency. Throw whatever you want at him- shame, facts, logic, history, personal attacks- it doesn't matter. He doesn't care. If he's wrong, so what? Who says the truth is the truth, anyway?

Sam Wellborn lives in Austin, TX, and is genuinely excited to write about something other than Donald Fucking Trump.  Follow him on twitter!  Want him to write about something?  Email him at swellbo@gmail.com.

If Trump wins, everyone loses.

When talking about Trump the politician, even if you're a fan of the guy, you have to admit that a gigantic part as to why he's a viable candidate is because he's a massive celebrity. I'm not saying that's the only reason, although I personally believe that the same people who vote for Trump would vote for Honey Boo Boo if hers was the only name they recognized on a ballot. I'm just saying that him being a household name hasn't hurt him. Actually, he's turned out to be pretty damn good at using his celebrity status- he makes enough headlines to stoke the disenfranchised portion of today's Republican party.  A little more than seven months into his campaign, and his opponents haven't gotten close to matching the hype.  (Although, to be fair, unlike another candidate, he hasn't commissioned his own rap song... yet.)

What everyone thought was a gimmick, though, has suddenly turned out to be a serious campaign. His style of blasting uncensored, balls-out bigotry has somehow stuck with enough people to not only gather attention, but significant political support. Since July 2015, Donald Trump has lead in the Republican polls in Iowa and New Hampshire (although as of now, Cruz is beginning to close the gap in Iowa.)  When he makes fun of a reporter with a disability, he does so in front of tens of thousands of people. 

Actors, musicians, politicians, celebrities, and whatever occupation describes Sarah Palin have actually gone in front of television cameras-that they knew were recording-and said that they endorse Donald Trump.  Holy shit, it's becoming abundantly clear- some people want Donald Trump to win the primary!

Republican primary campaigns, at least within the last two decades, have been races to the middle- contests to see who can smile, nod and quip their way to the largest demographics, while winking and nodding to the uber-active, guaranteed-to-vote extremists.  Here is where the Donald should have faltered- he's currently catching a ton of criticism for his recent stump speech at Liberty University, in which he confirmed suspicions that he doesn't actually know fuck-all about Christianity.  His tax plan increases taxes on the wealthy. Actually, if you want to see the departure from the right-wing norm, ask him how he feels about universal health care- and he's still crushing the primary.

Should he win the primary, he'll switch gears.  He'll probably start listening to the Christian advisers he hired in September (worst The Apprentice ever) and immediately veer towards the center, to grab as wide of an audience as he can against Bernie or Hillary, but for now, and until it actually seems to slow his campaign down, you can still expect more of the same vile, ignorant shit that comes out of this mans mouth.  Why should he stop, when he's the only one saying what his base is thinking?

While other candidates roll out slogans like “Unleash the American Dream” and “A New American Century” (or... just their not actual first name with an exclamation point?) Donald Trump fires off “Let's Make America Great Again.”  I'm no expert in linguistics, but doesn't supporting this man mean endorsing the idea that America isn't great? I'm not sure, but I would suggest that the majority of the conservative populace wouldn't wear a hat that says “America isn't great anymore” to the Republican National Convention. Doesn't matter.  Not even implying the ultimate GOP heresy is enough to derail the Trump train.

Despite what should be a classic tale of how to piss off voters until you're cast into political oblivion, he has legions of people who want him to win the Presidency.  According to some polls, his approval ratings are rising.  But putting his name on general election ballots certainly wouldn't help Republicans. By every possible indication, Donald Trump would get curb-stomped by any Democrat in a general election.

If you're a Republican, this has three major consequences:  The first is that your political arguments will be represented on a national stage by somebody who is absolutely terrible at articulating them. Unless the average voters political views boil down to “Fuck veterans, Mexico, Islam, and women" between now and November, or Trump walks his clown-shit crazy comments back far enough (something I don't believe he's capable of), he will lose.

The second is that you're losing at least another four years of the presidency.  The Republican Congress under Obama openly stated that they wanted to "ensure he was a one-term President." Which probably won't work here, because of reason number three:  When Trump gets destroyed in the general election, his stink will carry over to every single Republican candidacy for at least the foreseeable future. 

Every single Republican will have to distance themselves from Donald in ways I can't even try to predict.  Right now, Donald Trump is polling heavy with the average, middle of the road conservatives.  That will stop when he loses in the general election, and then there needs to be a massive change in the message of the GOP.  Like Jeb Lund said, "the difference between Trumpism and the rest of the Republican party is basically ten beers."  How do you possibly separate yourself from the central emotional base of your ideals? This is important- Trump is running with the Republican Cliffs-notes, and when you lose the nuances that normally buffer the nasty parts away from the public eye, you lose the entire argument.  And if there's one thing that Donald (and America) hates, it's a loser.

However, at this point, maybe only losing the general election is the best thing the GOP can hope for. Trump has said repeatedly that he would run as an independent if he wasn't given the nomination, which would turn any 2016 Republican candidates' brutal uphill battle into an even more hilarious impossibility. Even then, the fracturing of the party between the Trumps and non-Trumps would be the point in time where we'd see the full separation between the people who endorse the honest, outspoken craziness as opposed to the subtle hidden craziness. After that, you might as well ask the Castro brothers what color they'd like for the carpet in the Oval Office in eight years or so.

So unless you're one of the people who genuinely believes that, in spite of reason, data, and common sense, Donald Trump can win the presidency- who really wants him to win the primary?

Democrats might; for no other reason that it's a lay-up.  However, I don't think anyone has enough confidence that the people who'd vote so that Trump doesn't get into office outnumber the people who would vote to put him there.

Additionally, this isn't just any position the man is running for- this is the Presidential nominee of a major American political party, and that means something. That's symbolically important, not just for one party, but for the entire country. Letting this person win the nomination means sending a God-awful message to the rest of the world. Our arguably staunches ally is having debates as to whether or not they'll let the man into their country. Do we really want him to be the voice of a faction, just for the sake of a political victory? Even with a win, we implicitly acknowledging that a great number of us support the kind of bigotry our own Constitution insists we abhor.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe Trump actually does have a reasonable plan to fix flaws in the government, and is just taking a crazy route to get there. Or, maybe I'm in the minority, and most people are aligned with the character he's portraying- an unhinged, unholy blend of Ted Nugent and orange soda that's playing this game out of genuine interest, and not complete boredom. Perhaps we'll just get lucky, and he'll decide he's over it and wants to go back to making millions by going bankrupt.

Nobody wins if Trump does.

Sam lives and works in Austin, TX, and is a little sad that 1/4 of these articles have been about an asshole with a combover.  Follow him on twitter, or give him better article ideas at swellbo@gmail.com

Trump is What The Media Deserve

So this is no longer a controversial opinion: Donald Trump is horrifying.

Everything he represents, everything he says, and everything he does is awful. When people need inspirations for their super-villians, they overtly bite off Donald Trump. He's defrauded people of billions of dollars. He's grievously injured and insulted billions of people. His terrible rhetoric is used as justification for hate crimes across the country. This shouldn't be news to any person who would describe themselves as “informed” or “alive.”

And I sincerely hope this next part isn't a spoiler for anyone, because I never want to have to break any news this bad to anybody: He is a more-than-viable candidate for his party's nomination for President of the United States of America.

It's painful to say. It's like saying “this sentence is false.” It's like being sentenced to tell everyone you meet that Creed is your favorite band. It's like using a saw in your right hand to saw off your right arm. If I think about it too hard, I literally get nauseous.

You almost have to stand in awe that in this wonderful golden age of never-ending information and freedom of the press, something this bat-shit crazy could even happen. Perhaps, like me, you take a shot of whiskey, read a few different headlines, sadly realize this is actually happening and that you aren't in some kind of Matrix-gone-wrong, take a second, larger shot of whiskey, and then wonder:

How did this happen? Who can we blame?

I don't mean who's responsible- we already know the players. There's Trump, but you can't really blame him for doing what he's doing- that would be like blaming shit for smelling terrible. That's just what it does. Following that same logic, you can't really blame his supporters, either- they're either gullible or equally terrible, and based on the lovely discussions I've had with some of them, not the type of people who can be convinced. In fact, there probably aren't that many of them who sincerely believe what Trump believes. Most people who support the guy understand that as awful as he is, he's the man who's most able to operate in this political climate, and therefore the man most able to represent at least some of their political interests should he be elected.

The reason that Trump has momentum is because there is no serious entity left to challenge him. Trevor Noah can poke fun, but can't say he's wrong. Same with The Onion, or any other satirical medium. His Republican opponents can't stop him, because he's simply executing the play book better than they are. His Democratic opponents, should he make it out of the primaries, are going to destroy him, but that's not for months. There's no stopping this train wreck until then.

There certainly used to be. The media greats who worked tirelessly to deliver facts- your Pulitzer's, your Koppel's, your Cronkite's- could be depended on for objectivity and fairness. Had Trump tried this in the fifties, Edward R. Murrow would have metaphorically kicked his teeth in, and that would be the last we'd hear. But they're gone, and in their place is a hallow shell of what journalism used to be.

It took Trump less than 20 seconds to prove the inefficacy of even the most serious news outlets. This is George Stephanopoulos countering the claim Trump made that Muslims were cheering the collapse of the World Trade Center towers:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Police say it didn’t happen.

TRUMP: There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down. I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it, but there were people cheering as that building came down – as those buildings came down. And that tells you something. It was well covered at the time, George. Now, I know they don’t like to talk about it, but it was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good.

STEPHANOPOULOS: As I said, the police have said it didn’t happen.

That should have been it. But when Trump says “It was well covered at the time, George,” enough people can bring up a memory Rolodex of some of the things that happens on Fox News to realize that Trump has as much authority over what's true as the journalists do. I hate to be the one to tell this people in the news business, but unless you have the credibility and public trust to assert facts, people can say whatever the hell they want to you, and get off unpunished in the court of public opinion.

This, unfortunately, is catharsis. Since the creation of the 24 hour news cycle, the most popular outfits in news (mostly television, but by no means exclusively) have had a problem: “How can we find faster and better ways to sacrifice our ethics, obfuscate reality, and sensationalize meaninglessness? Fuck real news, we need to appeal to the masses for larger profit margins and market shares!”

They've gotten so good at fucking up what should be somewhat straightforward jobs that there are Emmy-winning shows that exists solely to make fun of them.

And the end result is delusion and disagreements- when information should be the most accessible it's ever been, it's also become the most obscured, because news outlets traded reporting the news for 

broadcasting bullshit and lost their credibility in the process.

Now they're forced to cover Trump- the monkey at the other side of the equals sign, the result of what happens when you refuse, for decades, to uphold journalistic responsibility in exchange for profit. They have to continue to give air time and column inches to the guy who brazenly shits in the graves of the journalists who worked to ensure this could never happen. And they have to smile while they do it, because that's what the shareholders demand.

So, media- congratulations. You've lost the trust of the nation you're in charge of educating and defending, and the prize is that you get to watch an attention-whoring gorilla throw his shit at you until his momentum finally runs out and his supporters begrudgingly abandon him. Have fun with that.

If you're lucky, you might not be remembered as the people who gave him all of the fuel he needed to embarrass you.

But again- you sure as hell deserve to be.

Sam Wellborn lives in Austin, waits tables, and enjoy s long walks on the beach.  Email him or follow him on Twitter.