New book on the Osage murders featured on Fresh Air


Ernest and Mollie Burkhart married in 1917. Unbeknownst to Mollie, a member of the Osage tribe, the marriage was part of a larger plot to steal her family’s oil wealth.

In the 1920s, as many as 60 Osage, made wealthy by oil, were murdered one at a time in a complicated conspiracy to steal their money. Many were killed by their white husbands or relatives, who married them deliberately to kill them.  Eventually, once white allies were killed, the FBI investigated; it was one of their first murder cases.

A new book is out on the subject, Killers of the Flower Moon, by David Grann.  His interview on NPR’s Fresh Air outlines the story.


Posted in news | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Two Spirits and LGBTQ, similarities and differences

Here is a nice piece from Indian County Today discussing this topic.





Posted in reblogs | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s doppelganger from colonial New Mexico bodes difficult decades ahead for US


Don Juan de Onate, who invaded Pueblo country in 1598 and established Spanish rule.

If Trump had a doppelganger in history, it was probably Don Diego de Peñalosa, Governor of colonial New Mexico from 1661 to 1664.  If history repeats itself, we may be able to learn something about our future.


Colonial New Mexico

By 1661, most of New Mexico had been under Spanish rule for several generations. The society was feudal, consisting of dozens of Pueblo communities representing the serf class, wealthy Spanish landlords, and the Spanish authorities, which included political rulers, a small army, and Catholic priests.

The narcissist

When Peñalosa was appointed Governor by the authorities in Mexico City, he was obsessed with his inauguration.  As he journeyed north to Santa Fe, he expected nearby colonists to accompany him in a grand procession.  In pueblo after pueblo, he demanded expensive receptions.  When a priest failed to come out and greet him six miles from a town, Peñalosa was livid. Once in power, he demanded indigenous musicians, one from each pueblo rotating each week, to play for him while he dined.

Violating political norms and conflicts with the judiciary

His rule began with provocative executive orders and political appointments that pushed the bounds of established protocol. Checks and balances in colonial New Mexico mostly involved two branches of power: church and state. Peñalosa was in constant conflict with the priests, usually fighting over the use and taxation of Native labor. Each side wanted to exploit them. When a priest sought to re-build a church in Taos, Peñalosa appointed a Pueblo man that had murdered the previous priest as the new mayor and forbade construction of the church. When the clergy protested, he threatened them, saying he had secret authorization to kill them, though his claim was certainly false.

Early removal from power

Peñalosa’s turbulent reign came to an end over the issue of sanctuary. When he sent troops into a church to arrest a fugitive, the colony’s head priest threatened Peñalosa with ex-communication.  Peñalosa responded by throwing this head priest in jail, an act unprecedented in New Mexico history. This would be akin to jailing the head of the Supreme Court. In this case, authorities in Mexico City intervened, Peñalosa was forced to resign, and was subject to a lengthy investigation that lasted years.  The final verdict was all too poetic.  Peñalosa was made to “walk bareheaded and barefooted through the streets of Mexico City carrying a lighted green candle as a symbol of repentance” (R. Silverberg, 1970, The Pueblo Revolt). He was then banished from the colonies and sent back to Spain. Demonstrating that he valued himself over his country, he offered his services to Spain’s enemies, England and France, to help them take over New Mexico and reinstall him as governor. He characterized the venture as a business partnership, with potential earnings based upon his own false report that continues to fool scholars even today. Neither England nor France were fooled, however, and both declined the offer.

Legacy of division and ultimate dissolution of the nation

Perhaps more troubling than Peñalosa’s reign is what happened in its wake. The colony fell apart. Peñalosa had so torn the fabric of political stability and accepted behavior that, among the Pueblo masses, acceptance of Spanish rule devolved into a total lack of trust. Sixteen years later the unthinkable happened. In one of the most complete and thorough revolutions ever seen in the New World (rivaled only by the Haitian slave revolution), the alienated Pueblo revolted. Literally every Spaniard was either killed or fled south of the Rio Grande.

Will the States still be united twenty years after Trump?

While there are plenty of differences between colonial New Mexico and the US in the 21st century, the stability of any societies depends on trust in political norms and practices, ranging from etiquette to respect for the rule of law. As a friend of mine likes to say, the US is a myth we all believe in simultaneously. It’s not a physical thing; it’s a social construct that depends on our faith and our participation in it.

As Trump tears at the fabric of trust and breaks political norms, all those things that rely on goodwill, rather than law or threat of force, become vulnerable. It began with impolitic and outrageous statements that slandered political opponents (e.g. Obama’s birth certificate or wire-tapping), offended our sensibilities (e.g. lampooning the disabled or bragging about sexual assault), and demonized minority groups (e.g. Mexicans and Muslims).  Conventional wisdom was that he was unelectable. Trump’s administration has promoted previously unthinkable policies (e.g. banning thousands of foreign professionals and university students from certain Muslim countries, and defunding the National Endowments for the Arts and other valued institutions) and the rejections of past political agreements (e.g. Obama’s executive order on Environmental Justice to protect minority communities).  While they are unprecedented, Trump can do many of these things legally.

Only two months into his administration, one wonders how much he will push the envelope of the rule of law. Will the checks and balances hold, or will the dam break? Trump’s self-identification with Andrew Jackson and the latter’s refusal to abide by Supreme Court rulings (specifically when it came to racial issues and ethnic cleansing) suggests the dam will be under pressure. Looking at a red/blue county map of the United States, those blue dots in the middle of the country that represent African-American communities in Kansas City and St. Louis (one of the key birthplaces of Black Lives Matter) and Indian reservations (that voted 90% Democratic and fought an oil pipeline) look like targets.  The reservations are protected by treaties and law, but are certainly dependent on the continued goodwill of the federal government to sustain them. Will Trump, or a future Trump, make moves to abrogate the treaties, abolish Native sovereignty, and privatize the lands (thus replicating the Allotment Act of 1887)? Twenty years from now, in the face of unrelenting police brutality, continued shocking incarceration rates, unacceptable health care and public schools, and crushing debtor’s prisons, will there be another “great migration” of African-Americans from urban areas of red states to urban areas of blue states?  Will Americans physically move north, south, east, and west to divide themselves into more red and more blue areas?


2016 presidential election results by county.  Those blue counties on the Great Plains are either Indian reservations or urban areas.

The 2016 election and voting trends suggest that, in future elections, debate over the issues will matter little.  It’s already clear which districts are red and which are blue (over 90% of America’s counties were decided by double-digit percentage differences); the battle is simply over voter turnout.

The implications of this are severe. With each ensuing election, each side can put up extremist candidates and be assured of their party’s votes. Thanks to gerrymandering, the partisan rift has been widening at the legislative level for several decades. The nomination of Trump is merely the first obvious example of an extremist candidate at the presidential level.  Trump is thus not just a cause of division, but a symptom. In future elections, losing counties and states may wonder why they participate or why they should accept the results. While such a crisis would not likely lead to a massive Pueblo-style revolution, the red/blue divide could lead to disrupted or utterly unaccepted elections, political crises, or the secession of states. If the history of Peñalosa repeats itself, twenty years from now the rise and (presumably) fall of Trump could be merely the first chapter in the dissolution of the United States.

Posted in my own thoughts, news | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Yurok set to restore condors in California

A great example (and there are many) of a tribe restoring our natural world.


California Condors Could Soon Soar Above the Redwoods Again Thanks to One Local Tribe

For more than a decade the Yurok Tribe has been pushing to reintroduce the culturally significant bird to Northern California. Now, supported by scientific research and a host of agencies and organizations, a plan is taking shape.




Posted in news | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Standing Rock: In the Courts of the Conqueror (and my comments on the EIS)

courtsThe title of this blog post comes from Walter Echo-Hawk’s book, In the Courts of the Conqueror: The 10 Worst Indian Law Cases Ever Decided.  Echo-Hawk (Pawnee) is an attorney and his book is a tour de force of US law vis-a-vis Native Americans, from the past to the present.

Perhaps a new chapter will be written on Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (SRST) v US Army Corp of Engineers (2017).  Here’s the current status:

  • The Army Corp, in obedience with Trump’s memo, have withdrawn the Notice of Intent regarding the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).  At the same time, they have granted all easements and permission for Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) to complete the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL).
  • ETP has starting drilling under Lake Oahe.  In fact, they say it is going faster than expected and they may be done in early March.
  • SRST filed in a Washington, D.C. court for an emergency stop and a hearing.
  • The judge denied the emergency stop, saying nothing was urgent as long as there was no oil in the pipeline, and has set the hearing for February 27.
  • As of now, the official permitting document for the Lake Oahe crossing is the Environmental Assessment (EA).  This is a deeply flawed document (pathetic, actually) put together after a deeply-flawed process.  I know.  I have done many EA’s as part of my work to implement ecologically-beneficial restoration projects.  And, let me tell you, we have to jump thru far higher hoops (to do good things) than ETP and the Army Corp have had to in order to lay a large oil pipeline across four states. If my legal counsel reviewed an EA like that, they’d send us back to the drawing board and tell me we were legally way out of compliance.

I could go into great detail on the deeply-flawed EA and deeply-flawed process, but most of that is covered in these two posts:

Standing Rock: Understanding the EIS Process

Dakota Access’s Trail of Broken Laws


Below are my comments on the EIS.  Although the process is closed, it was supposed to be open until Feb 20.  And even though the website it down, they can still be emailed to:

Mr. Gib Owen ( ), Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 108 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0108

I focused my comments on a couple topics I thought might not be mentioned by others:  new information on pipeline risk and economic factors.  Here they are:

To:  Mr. Gib Owen ( )

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works

108 Army Pentagon

Washington, DC 20310-0108

From:  Dr. Stephen C. Hampton

Date: February 15, 2017

Subject:  NOI Comments, Dakota Access Pipeline Crossing

Despite the withdrawal of the NOI on the EIS by the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), I submit these comments in the hope that a judge will require them to be considered.

The NOI describes several areas of inquiry for the EIS.  These include (1) Alternative locations for the pipeline crossing the Missouri River; (2) Potential risks and impacts of an oil spill, and potential impacts to Lake Oahe, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s water intakes, and the Tribe’s water, treaty fishing, and hunting rights; and (3) Information on the extent and location of the Tribe’s treaty rights in Lake Oahe.  The NOI also states the “range of issues, alternatives, and potential impacts may be expanded based on comments received in response to this notice.”

The list above seems to address the perceived gross injustices associated with the EA—that 1) route alternatives were considered and a preferred alternative chosen before the affected tribes were consulted; and 2) that no formal tribal consultation between the USACE and affected tribes occurred, and certainly none prior to the consideration of route alternatives.

I have one comment on the current list of issues, and further make one recommendation to expand the list of issues.


An analysis of the risk of oil spill from a pipeline should include an examination of recent pipeline spills, some since the EA was conducted.  At a minimum, these should include:

  1. January 25, 2017, Worth County, Iowa, pipeline break, 138,000 gallons spilled
  2. December 5, 2016, near Belfield, North Dakota, pipeline break into Ash Coulee Creek (tributary of Missouri River), 200,000 gallons spilled
  3. May 19, 2015, Plains All-American pipeline break near Refugio State Beach, California where external corrosion was a factor.
  4. January 18, 2015, near Glendive, Montana, pipeline break into Yellowstone River (largest tributary of Missouri River), 50,000 gallons spilled
  5. July 1, 2011, near Laurel, Montana, pipeline break into Yellowstone River, 63,000 gallons spilled.

The pipeline risk analysis should also consider the report authored by Richard B. Kuprewicz, which is available here:

and this paper:

Brody, Thomas M., P. Di Blanca, J. Krysa. 2012. Analysis of inland crude oil spill threats, vulnerabilities, and emergency response in the Midwest United States.  Risk Analysis, Vol. 32, No. 10: 1741-1749.


The EA seems to make the assumption that no other pipelines exist to carry Bakken production out of North Dakota and that, should the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) not be constructed, all 570,000 bpd of its capacity would be transported by rail, at risk to minority and low-income communities along rail corridors, and at the cost of displacing the transport of agricultural products by rail.

Specifically, the EA states: “There is the potential for daily production in excess of 570,000 barrels per day in the Bakken and Three Forks production area, but there is no existing pipeline infrastructure sufficient to transport that volume of crude oil from North Dakota to the refineries.”

This is false on all counts.  Bakken production is about 900,000 barrels per day (bdp); it was over 1 million bpd when the EA was written. There are six pre-existing pipelines transporting oil out of North Dakota, with a total capacity of 767,000 bpd.  Add to that two local refineries with a total capacity of 88,000 bpd, and there is a total “take-away capacity” to handle 855,000 bpd of Bakken production, which is just shy of current production, which is declining.  See figure below.


This data suggests that 1) the economic premise behind many of the rationale in the EA are not true now, and some never were; 2) DAPL is essentially not needed, as nearly all existing production fits within current pre-existing pipelines; 3) DAPL may simply steal market share from these pre-existing pipelines, causing adverse economic impacts in some areas and possibly consolidate market power in ways that violate anti-trust laws. Given US government projections that the price of oil will remain low thru 2025, this economic situation is likely to persist.  These economic impacts should be further evaluated in an EIS.




Posted in news, Standing Rock | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Standing Rock: Understanding the EIS Process

It’s time to comment on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL).  The deadline is February 20.  Here’s what you need to know.

First, Trump’s “executive order” did not automatically approve the pipeline (and it’s actually just a memo to the Army).  More on that below.  First and foremost, the EIS process is still alive.

The EIS Process

The EIS process is a long one, taking many months (and often years).  This is just the first public comment opportunity, focusing on what issues should be studied. Here is how it is supposed to work:


The EIS is done by the permitting agency, in this case the US Army Corp of Engineers. Here’s what’s involved with each step:

  • Notice of Intent (NOI)
    • This is the initial announcement, essentially informing the public that they are going to do an EIS. They are asking the public for suggestions about what issues they should consider.
    • The official title of it is Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in Connection With Dakota Access, LLC’s Request for an Easement To Cross Lake Oahe, North Dakota. This tells us they are focusing only on the crossing of the Missouri River; they are not asking for our opinions on the pipeline as a whole.  (An EIS should have been done years ago before they selected a route. See this post for more on DAPL’s “trail of broken laws”.)
    • The NOI is short, but here’s the key text:

This notice opens the public scoping phase and invites interested parties to identify potential issues, concerns, and reasonable alternatives that should be considered in an EIS.

Consistent with CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, an EIS will analyze, at a minimum:

(1) Alternative locations for the pipeline crossing the Missouri River;

(2) Potential risks and impacts of an oil spill, and potential impacts to Lake Oahe, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s water intakes, and the Tribe’s water, treaty fishing, and hunting rights; and

(3) Information on the extent and location of the Tribe’s treaty rights in Lake Oahe.

The range of issues, alternatives, and potential impacts may be expanded based on comments received in response to this notice and at public scoping meetings.

    • This is interesting because they are starting with three issues already, but they are asking us for more information on those, plus any additional issues that we (the public) might raise.
    • See below for suggestions on how to comment on this; I now return to the EIS overview.
  • Draft EIS
    • After the Army Corp receives the public comments on the scope of the EIS (i.e. our comments on the NOI above), they commence the study in earnest, examining all the issues. They will examine “all reasonable alternatives”, but they may or may not present their “preferred alternative”. Here is what is supposed to happen: “The draft EIS provides a detailed description of the proposal, the purpose and need, reasonable alternatives, the affected environment, and presents analysis of the anticipated beneficial and adverse environmental effects of the alternatives.” They also must include a “no action” alternative.
    • In this case, the alternatives will probably be various locations where DAPL can cross the Missouri River (nearly all of which are upstream of the reservation). I assume the “no action” alternative would be no crossing at all, so no pipeline. The section on environmental consequences must include potential mitigation measures to lessen the impacts of any alternative, such as automatic shut-off valves, regular pipeline inspections, and spill response preparedness.
  • Final EIS
    • This takes into account the public comments, makes revisions to the Draft EIS, specifies a “preferred alternative”, and is the final decision.
  • ROD
    • This is just the final paperwork, coming 30 days after the release of the Final EIS.

Important DAPL Documents

Here are documents that everyone should be aware of:

  • Energy Transfer Partner’s Route Permit Application to the State of North Dakota (December 2014)
    • This was prepared just for North Dakota, but it’s noteworthy because it contains the map of the old route near Bismarck, as well as the new route near Standing Rock (on page 22 of the document). Each route is dated (May 29, 2014, and September 29, 2014, respectively), proving that the pipeline route was changed before there was any EA or EIS or Tribal Consultation.  The company contacted the Tribe a few days after changing the route.  At that time, the Army Corp had not contacted the Tribe at all.
    • The Route Permit listed these justifications for the pipeline:
      1. It will improve overall safety to the public and environment because it provides an alternative to shipping crude by rail.
      2. It will play a role in increasing America’s energy independence.
      3. It will create another reliable transportation route for crude oil from the Bakken.
      4. It will ease transportation constraints for agricultural products (again, because it frees up rail).

Note that all of these arguments are now irrelevant because Bakken production has declined to the point where nearly all production fits inside pre-existing pipelines.  The price of oil is expected to stay low thru 2024. In the meantime, production from West Texas is flooding world markets and lowering the price of oil.

  • US Army Corp’s original Environmental Assessment (EA)– and resulting Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (July 25, 2016)
    • This is basically the little brother of an EIS, done when environmental impacts are unlikely, so this is what the Army Corp did before they realized the degree of objection from the Tribe.
    • The EA looked at a number of alternatives: various routes, moving the oil by trucks or rail, etc. but spent most of its time comparing the “North Bismarck” route to the “Lake Oahe” route.  It states on page 8, due to the proximity to Bismarck, the North Bismarck route alternative crossed through or in close proximity to several wellhead source water protection areas that are identified and avoided in order to protect areas that contribute water to municipal water supply wells.”  After rejecting the North Bismarck route, the EA’s “preferred alternative” is the Lake Oahe route, which is “approximately 0.55 mile north of the northern boundary of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.”  Despite this, in their review of Environmental Justice requirements (page 84), the EA makes no mention of the reservation at all.  Instead, it argues that minority and low income communities along rail lines would suffer if the pipeline is not built, because they live along rail lines, and would be subject to crude-by-rail rolling past their homes.  Thus, the pipeline would spare them this fate. This, of course, is not true.  In light of declining Bakken production and pre-existing pipelines, rail is not needed as a replacement for DAPL.
    • The EA made several other surprising statements:
      • There is the potential for daily production in excess of 570,000 barrels per day in the Bakken and Three Forks production area, but there is no existing pipeline infrastructure sufficient to transport that volume of crude oil from North Dakota to the refineries. This is false on all counts.  Bakken production is about 900,000 barrels per day (bdp); it was over 1 million bpd when this was written. There are six pre-existing pipelines transporting oil out of North Dakota, with a total capacity of 767,000 bpd.  Add to that two local refineries with a total capacity of 88,000 bpd, and there is a total “take-away capacity” to handle 855,000 bpd of Bakken production, which is just shy of current production, which is declining.
      • The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (SRST) and other tribal governments object to the pipeline and its alignment because the proposed route crosses under Lake Oahe a few miles upstream of the SRST water intakes. Tribes are concerned that a leak or rupture would contaminate the river, including the SRST’s drinking The tribes argue the District did not adequately consult on the DAPL pipeline alignment. The EA establishes that the District made a good faith effort to consult with the tribes and that it considered all tribal comments.” In short, the Army Corp completely dismisses SRST.  In fact, tribal consultation did not begin until after final route selection, which was after the route was moved away from Bismarck.  When the Tribe objected, the consultation quickly ended.
      • “Tribes are also concerned that the installation of the pipeline and a potential leak or rupture could damage or destroy cultural and sacred resources in the area… The Corps conducted formal government-to-government consultation with tribal representatives via meetings; site visits; distribution of pertinent information; conference calls, and emails in order to inform tribal governments and private members, and to better understand their concerns… Ultimately, the District made a “No Historic Properties Affected” determination.” In fact, the SRST made it clear back in 2014 that they would need to be closely consulted about sacred sites, because the relevant databases were incomplete.  This never occurred. When the pipeline route was being excavated, the SRST informed a judge of the sacred sites, providing lat-long coordinates. These were passed on to DAPL, who deliberately plowed the sites the following day. This led to the incident with the security dogs attacking the protesters.
    • The EA does not mention climate change, even in the “cumulative effects” section, as it assumes the Bakken production will be produced and transported to market with or without the pipeline.
  • Trump’s Presidential Memorandum on the pipeline (January 24, 2017)
    • The memo is to the Secretary of the Army, who oversees the US Army Corp of Engineers, who is overseeing the EIS process. It orders the following:
      • Review and approve DAPL “in an expedited manner”;
      • Consider whether to withdraw the NOI for the EIS;
      • Consider the EA as having satisfied the law;
      • Issue the needed easements immediately.
    • One interesting aspect of the memo is that it says, for each directive, “to the extent permitted by law and as warranted.” That’s because, with an active EIS process underway, scientific study is supposed to guide the decision-making. The memo is “pre-decisional”—it’s telling the Army Corp what alternative to choose before the EIS has been completed. This is illegal. Should the Army Corp go ahead and chose the crossing at Lake Oahe, as ordered by Trump in the memo, and as we all fully expect them to do, they will be subject to legal challenge.
    • Like many of Trump’s “executive orders”, this was more of an extra-legal publicity stunt, creating notoriety for him and chaos for us.

Commenting on the NOI for the EIS

The question posed by this EIS is: Where shall it cross the river?  But the main question posed by the NOI, which we are commenting on now, is: What issues should we consider?

If you make an emotional plea against the pipeline, they will disregard your comment.  You must provide constructive suggestions for what issues they should study.  Ideally, you justify your suggestion with new data that was not available during the EA. 

They’ve already started with three issues they say are already on their list:

  1. Alternative locations for a river crossing;
  2. Oil spill risk, and especially risk to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s water intakes, and water, fishing, and hunting rights;
  3. Information on the Tribe’s rights in Lake Oahe (which presumably will be provided by the Tribe).

With respect to 1), there are obviously hundreds of places to cross the river.  The only other site under consideration, the North Bismarck route, was rejected by the EA for a variety of reasons, foremost of which was the threat to Bismarck’s water supply. Obviously, any review of alternative locations should include an evaluation of threats to all water supplies, and Environmental Justice considerations should not be ignored.

With respect to 2), new data on oil spill risk is created with each new spill.  Here are some relevant ones, large spills in the region, most of which have been along Missouri River tributaries (with links to the latest news about them):

This discussion of spill risk might also be another good starting place.

With respect to 3), I’ll defer to SRST to answer that.

Finally, they ask for additional issues or alternatives.  I’m going to raise the issue of economic impacts on the other six pre-existing pipelines and potential loss of jobs associated with those. Should DAPL be built, it could essentially steal the oil from four of the other six pipelines, resulting in job losses associated with those pipelines.  The fact is that, with Bakken production declining, DAPL is not needed.  This can only be addressed via a no-pipeline/”no action” alternative.  DAPL only creates more river-crossings and risk.  Thus, a no-pipeline/”no action” alternative should acknowledge the reality of the pre-existing pipelines.

I will post my official comments in a few days.

[Everybody check out the links in the comments section.  There’s some good stuff there.]

Finally, instructions!

You may mail or hand deliver written comments to Mr. Gib Owen, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 108 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0108. Advance arrangements will need to be made to hand deliver comments. Please include your name, return address, and “NOI Comments, Dakota Access Pipeline Crossing” on the first page of your written comments. Comments may also be submitted via email to Mr. Gib Owen, at If emailing comments, please use “NOI Comments, Dakota Access Pipeline Crossing” as the subject of your email.

Posted in news, Standing Rock | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Red Nation, Blue Nation: Predictions for the Trump Years and Beyond

  1. redblue3

    Cross party voting in Congress, 1949-2011

    The cultural divide between Red and Blue will grow stronger and more distinct. Gerrymandering has  already polarized the political arena over the past twenty years. This has framed the public debate into two choices:  left and right. With social media, each side increasingly lives in self-defined echo chambers, with separate circles of friends, memes, videos, hashtags, and news. Even television shows cater to two different populations.  Dialogue and political compromise will decrease.  Trump, with his bombastic language and demonization of various people groups, will only exacerbate this.

  2. Likewise, racial divides will grow stronger and more distinct. This will lead to division within the Blue camp, with African Americans, Latinos, Muslim Americans, Native Americans, and other groups reacting to Trump in different ways and fighting different battles than White Liberals.  The Red camp will be remarkably more and more white.
  3. Trump will not change and become more moderate or “presidential”. If anything, he will become worse with access to power and perceived immunity. His reactions are more psychological than strategic. Expect turmoil within his cabinet. His own party may eventually turn on him, preferring a President Pence.
  4. When it comes to situations where the behavior of the president has been constrained by tradition rather than laws, Trump will ignore traditional restraint. This is most likely to be the case when it comes to financial conflicts of interest, which Trump will brazenly violate, legally.
  5. Future elections will be as bizarre as the last, with each candidate appealing only to their base, to the Red and Blue extremes. Emotion and imagery will supersede facts and discussion. Debates and fact-checking will be pointless. Celebrities will be among the most viable candidates.
  6. In 2020, about 62 million people will vote for Trump, or any other GOP nominee. This is always the case.  In the past several elections, the GOP faithful have turned out to vote for their candidate, even if he is a racist, narcissistic, sexist, draft-dodging, tax-evading, twice-divorced billionaire from New York City. redblue1
  7. redblue2Demographic shifts will increasingly turn the popular vote Blue, but this will be primarily in already-Blue states. The Democrats will get about 65 million votes, but the GOP will again benefit from the Electoral Vote system.  The primary election battleground will be in the Midwest, and it will be remarkably along racial lines.
  8. As usual, about 90 million eligible voters will not vote.  They represent a silent middle ground in the Red/Blue divide.
  9. In coming conflicts, Red supporters will be more comfortable with using violence than Blue supporters. Red supporters are already more comfortable with weapons, as they disproportionately own guns and are members of the military and law enforcement.
  10. war-zone-22

    Missile launcher and machine gun unit at Standing Rock, aimed at the Sioux reservation.  North Dakota is about to pass a law allowing drivers to run over,without liability, protesters blocking roads or highways.

    When violence is used by the Red camp, most often it will be by increasingly-militarized law enforcement (possibly including the US military). It will be primarily directed against marginalized Blue supporters (e.g. People of Color, not White Liberals).  The legal system will be one of their weapons, enabling them to act with impunity.  These will essentially be proxy wars, similar to Ferguson, Baltimore, and Standing Rock.

  11. The Blue camp will be more subject to internal strife regarding how to respond. They will be divided over the use of violence, the tone of their speech (combative vs reconciling), and political and legal strategies for defending their causes.  These internal divisions will seriously inhibit their ability to respond.
  12. Stronger and more combative responses by the Blue camp will be more successful than attempts at reconciliation. Rights will need to be asserted and seized, not passively received. The Blue Camp will be most successful in legal settings where White Liberals are willing and able to fight the battle.  Without legal support from White Liberals, People of Color will be the most vulnerable.
  13. Non-violent actions by the Blue camp will have limited success, gaining mostly negative news coverage primarily when there are violent aberrations. Non-violent actions will only be successful if they are: 1) very large, spanning multiple voter blocs or demographic groups, and 2) have economic consequences for the Red camp (e.g. a boycott of a specific business or industry).  Violent actions by Blue protesters will be easily defeated and have no success, other than to draw attention to an issue.
Posted in my own thoughts, news | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment