Raed Nerian - Items filtered by date: March 2019
Wednesday, 20 March 2019 15:18

Bringing Ragnarok Dev Diary 13

Wow, how is it late March already?

That's time, I suppose. Unless you are a Time Lord, of course.

I have to admit to being a bit behind where I wanted to be on Book 3 of Bringing Ragnarok. Part 1 is written and going through the re-write phase (me going line-by-line on the digital manuscript to make it sound like I wanted it to in the first place), but I had hoped to be through Part 2 by the end of March.

So I expect to publish in July, possibly late July - but I have a good reason for the delay!

I don't generally talk about details of the home life, because I'm a rather private person when it comes to anything but my ideas. But suffice to say, my spouse has been going through a difficult medical condition, called trigeminal neuralgia, for most of the past year. It's a nasty, terribly painful condition, but we're exceptionally lucky in that we live about an hour away from a hospital that employs one of the world leaders in treating it, and there's hope for relief in sight - albeit, after a major operation and a lengthy period of convalescence at home.

So writing has been a bit interrupted, both by my obsessive need to care for anything sick in my household, as well bringing my academic career to a conclusion.

On that - if you've dared to read through any of my other (too-long) thinkpieces on this site, you can probably guess that I spend a lot of time reading dense academic literature. This is because for most of the last eight years, I have been working towards a doctorate in the social sciences.

Since my undergraduate days at Berkeley, I've had an autistic-obsession with understanding how the world works. Not just the physical world, but the human world as well. So after moving to Oregon - a terrible mistake in terms of building a viable academic career, for reasons I'll go into on another post, sometime - I took the opportunity to go to grad school. There I took classes in almost every discipline you can imagine (and some you probably haven't) and learned every method I could, eventually earning a spot in a doctoral program.

But I never was, or wanted to be, a traditional academic. And the longer I stayed in the Ivory Tower, the more I hated it, because the contemporary American university is not about education, but about learning how to become a proper white suburbanite.

Make no mistake - American academia has baked-in racism, sexism, and elitism, that make it exceptionally difficult for anyone who doesn't look or sound like the established tenured academic's idea of a colleague to build a career. If you are not a white, middle-class, neurotypical and able-bodied American male, you will experience exclusion and discrimination at some level.

Many people rise above, and do great things, and more power to them! I have personally known quite a few brilliant, capable scientists dedicated to improving understanding. But unfortunately, they're the minority. Most faculty are tenured or tenure-track white men desperate to fit in, because that's how you get employment-for-life, regardless of your actual skills. A great gig, if you can get it - and ultimately, all else gets submerged in the dismal political-economy of tenure.

Me, I have learned throughout my life, working in a bunch of different industries, that sucking up and fitting in is only ever a short-term solution. I had hoped academia would be something of a meritocracy, as it is billed, but my own experiences of actually doing meritorious stuff proved that standing out in any way not explicitly approved by your department is exceptionally dangerous, whether you get published in a top journal early in your career or mix hard science methods with critical theory and send a proposal to the National Science Foundation.

Anyway, long story short, in the past year medical crisis and family losses convinced me it is time to leave academia - at least, American academia. So the past few months, I've been wrapping up my academic projects, while working as a research assistant for a professor in the area. I've also been trying to build up my savings a bit, to make sure I have plenty of capital to invest in taking Bringing Ragnarok to the next level.

I've at least obliquely mentioned in past Dev Diaries that I've been learning how to do marketing and advertising as I go, and been generating some interesting results. Having pretty much zero experience in this world, save as an extension of theory and methods I've learned over the years, it has been a definite learning experience.

But about nine months in, I've paid for enough clicks and examined the results in enough depth to get a sense of how Bringing Ragnarok is being received. Here are some takeaways:

  • Genre is a tricky thing. I don't think or write in terms of genre, I just like particular kinds of stories - historical, character-driven, philosophical - written by people with something interesting to say. I incorporate themes and tropes from Fantasy, Science Fiction, War Literature, and Norse Mythology. All of which makes marketing difficult in an industry where genre provides the structure allowing people to find books they like.

    Genre-ing Bringing Ragnarok has been difficult. And rather than decide the genre before hand, I've chosen to use the data to tell me where it fits. This strategy has had downsides - there is a subset of readers (mostly male) who guard the boundaries of their favorite genre. Bringing Ragnarok contains elements of litRPG, gamelit, alternate history or alternative history, and technothriller, but it isn't any of those things exclusively. Most of my poor ratings have come from genre-readers who didn't even get through half of Book 1 - or Nazi sympathizing white supremacists.

    Ultimately, the best fit as these things go appears to be cyberpunk science fiction and a mish-mash of epic and historical fantasy, with Norse mythology providing the connecting tissue, so to speak, and war fiction providing the action. So, I am narrowing my marketing and advertising to target these categories - and seeing results.

  • Women like my work more than men. Now that I've hit two dozen independent ratings on Goodreads and Amazon, I'm able to apply some actual (very basic, given the small n) statistical analysis. Women, on average, rate Bringing Ragnarok a half to a full star higher than men - and I'm pretty sure I know why.

    There is a strong subset of white males who react negatively to any inclusion of women or people of color in what they see as their fiction - science fiction and fantasy. I knew going in that I would run into these twits, and because Amazon and Goodreads let me see what sorts of books people rating Bringing Ragnarok like, I have a decent sense of why certain people (a subset of males) don't like it.

    I'm writing not only sci-fi/fantasy, but war fiction. I send six characters to war in three different centuries as a way to explore war in a comparative sense - a technique drawn from my academic studies. There is a great deal of parallelism that should become apparent as a reader gets deeper into the story. And war fiction (and video games), sadly, remain largely the province of males who want to read about tough men having adventures.

    This is silly, because women have always read in this genre, and there are hundreds of thousands of female veterans across the world who have known war, and waged it. I'm content to write for these readers - and I'm starting to get evidence that they're finding Bringing Ragnarok and enjoying it. Unfortunately, I don't know how to reach them, while filtering out the sexist and racist males. But I'll keep trying to figure that out!

  • Norse Mythology has a white supremacy problem. As in any other sort of fiction where males have traditionally dominated the authorship, Norse/Germanic Mythology (really, a deliberate mis-reading of it) attracts a small subset of Nazi types - as it always has.

    The problem, however, isn't the mythology itself - read the Eddas, and women are present throughout, despite the writers of most myths probably being male - hence, why you have probably heard of Odin and Thor, but not Freyja, Frygga, or Idunn. As with most history we have, males did the writing, and all too often failed to include the female perspective.

    Neil Gaiman has done much the same thing, while also making the mythology a set of campfire tales, diminishing them in favor of his colonial, neoliberal narrative about "new gods" displacing "old gods" as people's belief changes. I want to offer an alternative to this, and reclaim my Anglo-Saxon heritage from white supremacists and American colonialists of all stripes - hence, why many of my "Norse" gods aren't white.

    Tolkien's work too has suffered (presently suffers) from the same kind of whitewashing. Note how almost all the main characters in the televised versions of Lord of the Rings are white - despite this being patently ridiculous. Tolkien wrote Middle-Earth as as "real" version of Earth some ten thousand or so years ago. People migrated across the face of Middle-Earth, and the Numenoreans lived for generations on an island at the equator. Aragorn, the people of Bree, much of southern Gondor - they should actually be played by people from the Middle East and India, with the Riders of Rohan representing the primary intrusion of a "white" culture, derived from Tolkien's study of the old Anglo-Saxons.


    Ultimately, one of my long-term objectives is to decolonize Tolkien, and save it from white people - same as my goal with Norse Mythology. Of course, this is guaranteed to provoke the wrath of alt-right and white supremacist types, who I am now certain comprise the bulk of my one and two star reviews.

  • And finally - praise the gods! - a growing number of people are actually loving my work. My Kindle page reads go up and up, and oddly enough raising my price to $4.99 increased sales. I'm not exactly breaking into bestselling categories yet, but I'm getting there slowly but surely - and getting Books 3 and 4 out this year should secure the series.

    If you're reading this far, I expect you are actually someone who did enjoy Book 1 (and, I hope, Book 2 as well) and is looking forward to Book 3. Hello! And thanks much! Now, if you have a moment, would you mind clicking over to Amazon or Goodreads and leave a rating? The vast majority of ratings are 4-star and 5-star, and I'm not one of those people with a big social network, so almost all ratings are organic, from readers who discovered the book on their own.

    Once I break down the 24 total ratings across the two sites, and subtract out the four 1-star and 2-star reviews from people who apparently didn't read the whole book (mentioned by two of them), that leaves 9 5-star, 9 4-star, and 2 3-star reviews as of present counting. That's a 4.35 star (out of 5) rating among those who actually wanted to read the book in the first place, and a 3.91 star rating including the poorer reviews.

    Not bad for a first book by an indie author (not actually my first book, but the first presently available). Not bad at all. And given that I get a sale or lend on Kindle Unlimited every day (2-3 towards the middle or end of the month) I'm slowly accumulating a readership sufficient to make this author thing a paying career.

So that's it for another long update! Happy reading, and stay safe out there in this mad world.

Also, go pet some cats. It makes everything better.

Published in Blog

So let me preface this essay and strategy thinkpiece with a bit of a (long) disclaimer.

I am not a Democrat. I am an American citizen, but I prefer to identify as a Cascadian of Anglo-Saxon descent, because heritage and local biome matter far more than a bit of dyed cloth ever could. It is my firm belief that the United States should and most likely will break up (in some form) in my lifetime, because its governing architecture has been captured by a privileged elite that has turned its laws and institutions against its people, which is simply not sustainable.

Further, the United States' endless wars represent a series of mounting atrocities that have stained the nation's honor beyond repair and made itself - and the wider world - systematically less safe. Where just twenty years ago the world was at the "End of History" and Great Power struggles were a thing of the past, now talk of a New Cold War and nuclear confrontations is once again the order of the day.

Americans never wanted any of this. The divisions tearing at the fabric of American society are a result of a generation of failed policies in DC. America must reform, must seek renewal, or it won't last for much longer.

But to be absolutely clear: I no longer believe it likely that any power can stop the coming unraveling. I think the USA is already across the cliff-edge, and Trump's people will manufacture "emergencies" while right-wing proxy groups terrorize neighborhoods in an attempt to suppress the vote.

Whether American democracy can withstand this is uncertain - it has never been tested in this way. And even if it does, the media normalization of Trump and Trumpism over the past four years has made it inevitable that other right-wing candidates will emerge to maintain his coalition after he is gone.

It is absolutely essential to combat this likely scenario starting now, before attempts to do so become overtly politicized. And because the Democrats really are the only established game in town (this is part of the broader problem in America, but you wage political war with assets you have available) the best chance of stopping Trumpism lies with the Democrats running someone in 2020 capable of turning out enough votes in the right states.

But here's the rub - anyone who has followed American politics since the 1990s knows that the Democratic Party has been colonized by a "Moderate" (Neoliberal) wing, mostly comprised of former moderate republicans who became disenchanted with the GOP. This tribe absolutely loathes identity politics, because it is disproportionately comprised of older and whiter members of the population, and works very hard to control the party' agenda and strategy both behind the scenes and in the major media outlets like the New York Times and The Atlantic. It is a tribe dedicated to maintaining the status-quo in America, largely because it is the tribe whose constituents (again, older and white than the average member of the population) happen to have the most (and deepest entrenched) power in elite circles.

This is Joe Biden's tribe, Hillary Clinton's tribe, and John Kerry's and Al Gore's. It is a tribe that consistently loses crucial elections to weak GOP candidates that worked as hard as it could to prevent Barack Obama from winning the nomination in 2008, just as it did Sanders in 2016. (And woe unto us all that they eventually captured his administration).

It is also the tribe most responsible for continuing America's wars abroad, against the will of the majority of the American people. It is this tribe in particular that is smearing Tulsi Gabbard, the one democrat willing to stand strong against their failed regime change wars.

They are also smearing her because many of America's liberals can't stand the idea of a veteran who does more than serve as a prop for photo ops, but again, that's for another essay.

This is why I support Tulsi Gabbard, and why I am taking the time to write out the strategy thinkpiece below. Because she is a veteran who chose to enlist during a time of war and volunteered for service abroad. She understands honor, duty, and sacrifice, which is what America must have right now if it is to take one of its last remaining chances to avert a Soviet-style systemic collapse.

And even better, she understands what it is like to hold political positions based on mistaken beliefs inherited from her childhood, then revise those beliefs once she has learned there are other options.

As someone who also grew up in an extremely conservative (especially by California standards) and religious household, I too once held bigoted views. And then I went to university at UC Berkeley. And then I enlisted in the Army, serving a year in the U.S. South before being selected to go officer (an ambition cut short by injury, though that kept me out of Iraq, so I'm not complaining). And I learned that many of my adolescent views were simply wrong.

So me, I'm very much for politicians who change their mind, so long as they have a good reason for it. And Tulsi Gabbard, if I'm reading her bio correctly, certainly did.

I don't have much hope left for American politics, and honestly believe that long-term we'll be better off if we break the country into six or so autonomous federal regions, so federal policy can be set and implemented more effectively to suit the needs of local Americans, however they determine them.

But I also don't like to ignore any opportunity (even miniscule) to make a difference, and if Gabbard runs a very smart campaign (and has more than a little luck) there is a chance that something amazing could happen in 2020, and a true uniter emerges capable of articulating a comprehensive vision for renewing America.

And unlike most commentators, I believe I can envision a novel, yet viable strategy for making this happen.

So with all this in mind, I'll move past the disclaimer and to the meat of the piece - a basic outline of what I believe Tulsi Gabbard's ideal strategic platform and message is, and why.

I write this in hopes that the Gabbard campaign will see it, read it, and seriously consider my suggestions. They are rooted in a systems-based analytical framework developed during my time in academia, which were to constitute the basis for my doctoral dissertation, had I decided that was worth the time and effort (academia is a very niche audience... also, still mostly comprised old white men who worship Socrates).

Which is really just to say that I'm not a total wackjob, and what follows is a set of progressive policy recommendations tailored to my assessment of the harsh realities of contemporary American political geography.

Note 1: I intend to update portions of this as I have time, adding data to back up my argument, links, other web goodness.

Note 2: "Strategy" here is meant to mean an integrated vision of the best set of policies and mode of rhetoric needed to do what Obama did in 2008 and Trump did in 2016 - mobilize voters who previously felt no candidate cared about their concerns. It is not "swing" voters who matter, but disaffected voters in swing states.

And if you'd like to get in touch, there's a contact page lurking on the site somewhere :)

So without further ado:

 

Gabbard Strategy for 2020 - Comprehensive platform intertwined with lessons learned from personal journey

(See Appendix section for details on the logic behind Note 2 above, and the myth of the swing voter. Was here previously, but on second edit it is just too much before the important bits, the actual 4 Pillars. Wonks will know to check the Appendix.)

Pillar 1: An Honorable Foreign Policy

(Note: All flows from this. This roots Gabbard's entire explanation for why America is headed in the wrong direction, as most Americans believe.)

Problem

America's honor has been tarnished and the sacrifices of our forebears have been betrayed. The Forever Wars have consumed thousands of America's finest, indebted us by trillions, and have made all Americans fundamentally less safe. Gabbard has seen the cost of war first hand, and knows that there is no more pressing moral cause than to end the era of interventions, securing a peace dividend that can be invested to secure America's future.

Solutions

1. Cease all active military operations taking place without direct Congressional oversight and restore the Legislative Branch's Constitutional authority over the Executive Branch. Simultaneously, begin bilateral and multilateral negotiations with any party to a conflict where the United States or its allies have a clear stake, seeking a just resolution that ends the violence.

2. Commit to a 50% reduction from the proposed 2020 Budget of $750 Billion ($2,300 per American!) over ten years. This allows time for a drawdown of forces actively deployed abroad, coordination with allies, and planning for force reductions. Final reductions will be made contingent on the outcome of bilateral arms control talks to be held with leading powers like Russia and China, requiring their committment to spending limits and transparency.

3. Reform the forces to take advantage of America's core strengths - intelligence, electronic warfare, rapid deployment, logistics, command and control, and training - producing a smaller, leaner, elite force capable of meeting 21st-century security challenges. End wasteful Cold-War era procurement programs like the F-35 and Ford-class carrier, and focus on developing the next generation of military technologies.

4. Expand the Army and Air National Guard to absorb their Active-duty counterparts, and guarantee that all currently-serving Active-duty personnel can continue their career. In addition, we will create a two-tier service system, guaranteeing local service for those who cannot or choose not to deploy, preventing the possibility of another stealth draft like that experienced by many service members during the Iraq War.

The crux of Pillar 1 is making the case that Gabbard has personally experienced war, knows that there is a growing danger of another great power conflict in the near future, and is committed to protecting Americans from any more geopolitical tragedies sought by the scions of empire in New York and DC. Honor demands that the US seek peace, and return to a principles-based foreign policy that ties aid and support to observing shared norms of universal human rights.

 

Pillar 2: Restoring America's Dream

Problem

Inequality is tearing at the fabric of American society. Too many live on the edge of poverty, while a few live in ridiculous luxury, and everyone else is caught in the middle - what middle is left. While DC has played imperial games abroad, it has neglected to support basic infrastructure development at home. America has become socialism for the rich and savage capitalism for the rest, and Gabbard will fight this assault on the American Dream by investing $1,000 per-American per-year, $325 billion in total annually.

Solutions

1. Rural communities will receive block grants, matching loans, and entrepreneurship support designed to build new green industries in America's heartland. In the West, the forests will be managed to reduce fire risk while providing carbon-neutral biofuels to heat area communities. In the Midwest, farmers will receive incentives to grow new and more environmentally sustainable crops, including next-generation biofuels.

2. Urban neighborhoods will receive similar block grants, loans, business startup support, and other proven community-oriented development programs. Renters who have demonstrated a committment to a community will be eligible for subsidized mortgages meant to help them purchase their own home, and those who sell to renters will receive benefits to encourage rent-to-own contracts, which give all residents of a community a stake in its future.

3. Every American will be guaranteed a free two-year degree through a community college, and anyone willing to sign a two-year service committment with their local National Guard or other qualifying public service organization will be granted a four-year expenses-paid scholarship to a public university of their choice. This will democratize access to higher education across the board, while instilling a committment to community service in a generation of Americans.

4. A new national health insurance plan will be offered to all Americans, free to anyone lacking insurance through their employer or another federal benefit. Healthcare is a basic human right and must be guaranteed to all, but we should remain flexibile when it comes to how best to achieve it. Further, medical and nursing school loans will become forgiveable after five years of licensed practice, encouraging more students to study and practice in that field, alleviating America's shortage of qualified medical professionals.

The basic idea behind Pillar 2 is to articulate what we can accomplish if Pillar 1 happens. The goal is to take many of the great progressive ideas out there, and match them up with some common business/operational sense. Here Gabbard can introduce something else that will distinguish herself - a hybrid progressive-libertarian approach, not hostile to capitalism but also not uncritical of it, aiming for well-regulated and truly competitive markets, not the oligarchy we have now.

 

Pillar 3: A Green New Deal to Secure Our Future

Problem

Climate change represents an existential threat to global society, and many of America's most vulnerable communities are on the front lines of what will become one of the greatest challenges in our history. Make no mistake - without radical and immediate action on a global scale, storms will get worse, the seas will rise, droughts and fires will become more intense, and millions of people will be forced to move into climate refuge zones. America must do its part to transition to a global carbon-zero economy by 2050.

Solutions

1. Offer incentives for community-based applied research projects that will identify new and innovative ways to build a green economy at the grassroots level, empowering local businesses and organizations to work together to slash carbon emissions while subsidizing the growth of new green industries across the nation, lowering energy and utility bills for Americans wherever they live.

2. Promote local-scale energy cooperatives capable of generating sufficient renewable energy and next-generation biofuels to meed local energy needs, insulating rural pruducers from rising energy prices while tying each and every American community to the green power grid. We will commit to a zero-carbon energy system by 2050, re-developing rural landscapes as green energy producers.

3. Embark on a total overhaul of America's transportation infrastructure, rebuilding bridges and roads while incorporating the latest technological innovations capable of reducing travel times and emissions, while embracing a completely hybrid and electric fleet by 2030. Further, safe and reliable autonomous vehicles will be deployed to guarantee that every community will have access to public transportation, reducing our reliance on owning our own vehicles.

4. Commit to fair international agreements that aim to reduce emission of carbon and other pollutants into the biosphere, doing our part in the global effort against both climate change and environmental degradation. Further, we will join wealthy nations like Norway and Germany in embracing international protocols allowing for the transfer of green technologies to developing nations in exchange for accelerating anti-poverty and environmental protection efforts.

 

Pillar 4: Leading With Love

Problem

Americans are being driven apart by the relentless changes now underway as a result of globalization and the internet. Hate crimes, racism, sexism, and all the other forms of violence that seem to be everywhere right now must be challenged, and veterans like Gabbard are the best for the job. Military service involves learning to work with people very different from yourself, having your ideas challenged, and growing better together as a team as a result. Veterans know that true leadership is always about love, and that a leader must be able to see the value in all perspectives, even while rejecting those that espouse hatred.

NOTE: This section offers a chance to tell Gabbard's personal story, and connect that to the deeper reasons why she should be President.

Solutions

1. Promote a culture of service in the upcoming generations by tying free public university education to a formal service committment through the revamped and appropriately funded National Guard. Restore the connection between America's citizens and civic institutions by allowing young Americans to work on service projects in their own communities in exchange for a free four-year education at a university of their choice.

2. Restore faith in American democracy by securing our elections against both foreign interference and the despicable efforts of some to prevent black and latino Americans from voting. Every electronic voting machine will produce a paper record of the voter's choice, and a dedicated task force will investigate every allegation of voter suppression to ensure that no one is able to select their electorate.

3. Reform America's criminal justice system to eliminate racial policing and the scourge of unjustified police killings. We will reverse the militarization of America's police, and require that police departments reflect the composition of the population they serve and protect, while improving police funding across the board to help end law enforcement practices that put officers at unnecessary risk.

4. Bring civility and dignity back into the White House, while working to reverse a half century of expanding executive powers, that have placed the Constitutional balance of powers in jeopardy under the Trump Administration. We will sponsor alternative social media and news services to Big Tech, while expanding regulation and anti-trust oversight of these companies to guarantee the principle of user ownership and control over their own data.

 

Conclusion

This is a long and dense document, I'm aware, and presently inadequate in terms of citation and support. This is what you get when you've got a refugee from academia trying to make it in the real world, spending spare time working on this sort of thing.

Anyone able to advance this basic concept further, please feel free! My belief is that these Pillars can represent a coherent strategy and narrative that will appeal to the right voters, in the right states, to perform in the primaries and take on Trump. I am certain that Gabbard, with the right prep, would annihilate Trump in the debates.

Winning the nomination will be difficult. The DNC's relegation of superdelegates to the 2nd round of voting in a contested convention should be examined alongside the crush of Dems running for the nomination. The DNC old guard likely expects (and wants) a long primary to demonstrate that the party is The Only Alternative to Trumpism. They'll be fine with allegations of "chaos" because when Sanders is contesting the convention with 1/4 of the delegates, Biden (or if he implodes, O'Rourke Klobuchar) has 2/5 , and Harris or Booker has 1/3, so nobody wins round 1, then the superdelegates will decide for the centrist.

And then they'll go on to lose the election, like they usually do - and are actually fine with, since that means they never have to actually govern and suffer the consequences of their unpopular policies.

But that's another essay.

Gabbard faces a daunting task. Countering the Establishment's plans will mean mobilizing enthusiastic cadres in Iowa and New Hampshire, who can vault Gabbard to 3rd or better. The centrists will do a good job of splitting up the vote, leaving room for an insurgent youth-oriented progressive to bring a chunk of independent voters into the democratic primary process and jump to a surprise 3rd place finish. At that point, the media buzz will amplify the message while trying to figure out what trope to pin on her, letting Gabbard make her case to the broader public.

I will be hard fought and difficult to predict from then on, but a realistic scenario would be a tacit Sanders-Gabbard alliance that drains attention and energy from the centrists, and ultimately makes the contested convention a 3-way contest between Sanders, Gabbard, and the Centrist wing. If this is achieved, Sanders faces a choice: team up and put Gabbard on top of the ticket (time for a changing of the guard!) to avoid the superdelegates imposing their candidate on a 2nd round vote.

Being a veteran gives Gabbard credibility, particularly on defense, that no one else can match in the primaries or general. Veterans also have a highly visible place in American society, even if politicians of both major parties typically use them as props - that's why they do it. A veteran can do it better.

Only a veteran can tell the American story of the past 20 years as one of good intentions defeated by bad strategy, planning, and execution by chickenhawks in DC and their lobbyist allies. Only a veteran can show Americans how they can still be safer than any other nation even with a military 1/2 the size. Only a veteran can get other veterans to carry the torch, to organize rallies and events, to engage in a sort of national insurgency against DC's terrible leadership.

A pragmatic progressive veteran who can articulate a left-of-center way to rebuild America from the grassroots level can disrupt the Democratic primary process, and so evade many of the criticisms routinely leveled at democrats. If anyone can take America back from the brink, it will be a veteran, who can mobilize other veterans, under a common vision of a better future.

Here's hoping, Tulsi Gabbard, that you can be that leader. You'll have my vote. Too bad Oregon votes damn near last...

 

Appendix

There is a deep truth to democracy, that most prefer not think acknowledge: People usually vote according to their sense of their own identity, and how their peers expect them to vote. That's not an opinion, that's a scientific evaluation based on a lot of academic research. Most policy preferences people express in surveys and polls are a function of their identity, not the other way around, and people's public behavior (and their votes) are heavily conditioned by whatever group they identify with.

Most conventional American political analysis pretend this isn't true in "advanced" democracies - read, white western democracies. They prefer their traditional model of the "rational voter" - the woman or man who knows what policies they value, and votes for candidates who will advance their policy interests. Identity may be relevant, but it competes with other things that are also valued, and so voters who exhibit behaviors indicating they are "Identity" voters are seen as an anomaly, people who simply value their identity above material factors.

This is the theoretical root of the myth of the "swing voter" - a hypothetical rational and moderate type who sometimes votes GOP, others DNC. While such people certainly do exist, their numbers aren't as large as you might think. The myth persists partly because it offers a conveniently simple media narrative, but also because of a bit of sleight-of-hand employed by mainstream political analysts, 538 included (especially, much of the time).

See, there actually isn't a lot of data that tracks actual voter behavior. Voting is secret, and you have to rely on exit polls and other proxy data to estimate the composition of who turned out and how they identify. This sort of work great for validating whether an election was free and fair in retrospect, but not so good at telling you what different cohorts of voters do from year to year.

When most analysts talk about "swing" voters, they're actually talking about swing electoral districts, where the actual vote count shows the district "flipping" between the parties from year to year. But what is actually happening, according to the data, is not necessarily the same group of voters going to the polls every year, and choosing the "optimal" candidate. IF you had close to 100% turnout, or at least a statistically representative sample of the population, in every election, you could impute the existence of these swing voters.

But you don't. All you have is the number of votes for each candidate, the share of eligible population voting, and some exit or post-election polls indicating (roughly) the composition of the electorate. From that, you can map out the districts by their vote count, and see which districts flipped from one party to the other. Analysts, however, knowing that the average person doesn't have the statistical training to spot the difference, have chosen to portray those district changes as indicating the existence of a group of moderate, non or bi-partisan voters.

What is actually a far simpler and more consistent explanation rooted in what the data can actually tell you, is that many voters - particularly those describing themselves as Independents -  tend to show up at the polls only to support people they feel a personal connection with. And in the age of the internet, Obama, Trump, and O'Rourke have all shown that there are large populations of people who will only turn out to vote - but who will turn out - for someone who can appeal to their tribe.

As Pew Research reports show, America is composed of many political tribes, not just conservative and liberal, Republican/GOP and Democrat/DNC. These groups turn out to vote at different rates, they consume different political media, they share their own reality when it comes to how they feel about politicians and issues. The reason why we're all trained to think that American voters are composed of three groups - right, left, and moderate/swing - is largely down to the fact that the media amplifies the voices of the two biggest tribes at the expense of all the others, making it difficult to put together an electoral coalition.

In short, American politics is afflicted by bad theory and bad analysis, because this is profitable for the players involved. But the real, true nature of the beast is that people - and especially in the age of the internet - are tribal. Trump's people appear to have either figured this out, or stumbled on the truth, and that's why his approval ratings have not dramatically changed since 2017.

For Tulsi Gabbard to win, veterans must be her tribe. She is absolutely the only candidate who can credibly claim to represent people who have seen what war does. She, therefore, is the one candidate capable of reaching out to America's twenty million veterans as one of them, and articulate the pressing (and popular!) need for reducing military over-investment in favor of increasing domestic investment in communities left behind by globalization.

The key factor in any successful Gabbard campaign will utterly rely on mobilizing large numbers of veterans who don't usually vote Democrat and convincing them to commit to participating in the Democratic caucus and primary system. Gabbard must make the Democratic party safe for veterans.

Veterans aren't usually thought of as part of the democratic party's base, but this is foolish, and down to so few democrats having had military experience, much less in a combat zone. The services are increasingly diverse, educated, and tired of military interventions conducted with no long term strategy. More and more are speaking out against the Forever Wars - mostly ignored by the mainstream media, of course - and many would consider voting for an anti-interventionist democrat, having seen firsthand the cost and waste involved in regime change wars.

So the Four Pillar Strategy (call it what you want - take any of this and use it as you please!) is rooted in Gabbard's identity as a veteran, and her ability to speak across all of the major American divides to offer a real alternative to the stale politics of the status quo on both sides of the equation.

Published in Blog