It started out as a bit of wishful thinking, and a thought experiment of sorts: What would happen if a political comedian challenged Trump in the presidential race – and did it for real? The goal would not be to win of course, but just to use his comedic skills to trump Trump, in a sense, by doing to him what Trump has done throughout his life – belittle, berate and verbally beat to a pulp anyone who gets in his way.

And it might even work politically, I thought, given that a comedic attack might be the only way to effectively neutralize Trump’s attack mode barbs – his one rhetorical tool and his one real advantage over the politicians he’s faced.

But after thinking about it for a few days, and asking anyone who would listen, “Why doesn’t somebody actually do this,” I suddenly thought to myself, “Wait a minute, why shouldn’t I do it – not for real of course, but in a novel.” And long story short, a few weeks later I began to write.

But before long I started to see obstacles to my plan. The first was the realization that I could not actually use Trump as an on-screen (so to speak) character, or even use his name. Well duhhh, who would have thought?

But oddly enough, that did not turn out to be nearly the obstacle I anticipated. In fact I think it may have been one of the prime reasons my story worked as well as it did.

I see it as similar to what happened with the movie Jaws. Many critics believe one of the reasons that movie turned out to be so frightening, was that the mechanical shark did not work very well, and couldn’t be used in most of the scenes. So we were left with only that chilling dunt-duh music to warn us that the hungry beast was on the prowl.

… the things he says and does, makes him seem more ridiculous, even to the point of appearing comical at times.

But in the case of The Contrarian Candidate, rather than making Trump seem scarier, I think the fact that we only hear about the things he says and does, makes him seem more ridiculous, even to the point of appearing comical at times. And perhaps more importantly, it allows us to look at the forces that surround him, in a deeper, more objective way – because our thoughts and feelings about Trump the man, are not as likely to get in the way.

I’m not sure what that says about Trump, or the book I wrote about him. But either way, that was just the start of what I learned from writing my novel and telling that story.

I also learned what we have all been learning during the current political season, that there is no point in arguing the facts with Trump, or getting into any kind of logical, rational debate on the issues. It just doesn’t work with him. And there is no way to use that approach to gain a real advantage. To me debating him in that way, is akin to trying to discuss astrophysics with at two year old. In the end it inevitably degenerates into a frustrating pile of nonsense.

But perhaps the most important and enduring lesson I learned from writing the book, resulted from the evolution of the contrarian candidate himself, Charlie Wyatt. In the beginning I thought of him much the way I think of reformed smokers, or new adherents to an important cause. They are generally much more strident in their views on the subject, than those who have been with it for awhile.

So that is how Charlie started out in my mind, with my thinking going something like this, “He’s a Republican. So he voted for Trump, but quickly saw the error of his ways, therefore becoming stridently anti-Trump in his comedy and in his life.”

But along the way I began to see the limits to that characterization, as well as its downside. After all, the purpose of the book was not just to take my pound of flesh for what Trump has done to our world over the past four years. 

What the book ultimately had to be about, was finding a way to get safely past Trump and the whole sorry mess he’s created. 

Which meant the book couldn’t just be about belittling him in every possible way – as much fun as that was to do. No. There had to be much more to the book than that. In fact what it ultimately had to be about, was getting through a truly horrible episode in the country’s history, by finding a way to get safely past Trump and the whole sorry mess he’s created. And ridicule didn’t really seem to do that very effectively, certainly not on its own. 

And the more I thought about that, the more I began to realize that piling on the way Charlie was prone to do, had in fact been part of the reason for Trump’s electoral success. Which made me realize that if I was going to break through the clutter and get to the real issues at hand, I was going to need to stop being so antagonistic in how I saw him – or at least his supporters. Because that narrow, partisan view I’d been holding of them hadn’t gotten me anywhere, in part because it didn’t really help explain anything about what had happened to the country. So I realized I needed to see Trump’s supporters in a different, less partisan light. Or better still, see them in a non-partisan light if possible. And I found I was able to do that through the character of Charlie Wyatt himself.

Because as it turns out, Charlie was born and raised in a small mill town in the heart of Trump country. And as such, his story took me on a journey from his small town roots, to voting for Trump, to waking up with a massive hangover the day after the 2016 election. And I soon realized that it was his finding out that Trump had actually won, that in a sense scared Charlie straight. That is what led him to not only reject Trump, but to straightening out his life as a whole.

The political elite did nothing to change Charlie’s view of Trump. In fact in the end, they practically forced him and those like him, into voting for the man.

And it was only after finding my way to the heart of Charlie’s story, that I gained some understanding of where his vote had come from. And in the process, I began to see how the political elite and others in positions of power, including the media, had done nothing to change Charlie’s view of Trump. In fact in the end, they had practically forced him and those like him, into voting for the man.

And by the end of the book, Charlie had shown me that the best, and perhaps only way to reverse that trend and defeat Trump, was for those like me to quit seeing him in such a partisan light, in fact quit seeing the world as a whole in such partisan terms. And while that may not seem very appealing to those of us who look upon our partisanship as an important form of self-expression, and look at politics in general as a form of entertainment, it is absolutely critical in seeing our way through to a post-Trump world.

And there again, Charlie was able to help me. Because he sees our ability to end hyper-partisanship, in much the way he sees recovery from addiction. In part that’s because that is what he’s been dealing with over the previous three years – all thanks to that massive hangover the morning after the election.

… hyper-partisanship as a powerful addiction, one that forces us to see everything through a partisan lens.

So like his struggle with drugs, Charlie sees our hyper-partisanship as a powerful addiction, one that forces us to see everything through a partisan lens. And as a result, it forces us to demonize everyone who is on the other side, and in some cases even those who are on our side, but are not seen as being partisan enough for us.

In the end Charlie and the rest of the characters in the story are able to show how badly that is working for us. In fact they show us that little by little it is destroying us all, destroying our institutions and our faith in them, destroying our country and our relationships with other countries in the world. In short, it is destroying everything we see around us.

But all is not lost, as you will hopefully see as we explore the other lessons learned while writing this book, along with many other aspects of the coming election. And in the process, hopefully we can have a little fun along the way – at Trump’s expense of course – if only as a way of getting through the weeks and months that lie ahead. 

Next: Part II – Trump is just a sideshow

The second aspect of Trump and his politics which I came to accept while writing a novel about him, is that the Trump phenomenon is not about Trump – not really. It’s much bigger than that. Because the way I see it, Trump is more a symptom than a cause.

In fact the forces that put him into office have been with us for decades, and during that time have been steadily building towards his presidency. He just happened to be in a perfect position and had the perfect attitude and constitution to take advantage of those forces. That is one reason his election did not take any particular skill on his part. He did not have to learn how to read the tea leaves and adjust his style accordingly. Trump was already everything he needed to be, coming to the process fully formed and ready to take the reigns of a world that had fallen so badly into dysfunction, disrepair and disarray.

Can anyone really make the argument that anything but a completely dysfunctional political system would allow someone like Trump to triumph the way he did in 2016?

I suppose there are some who think “dysfunction” might be too strong a word to describe the political world we now live in. But can anyone really make the argument that anything but a completely dysfunctional political system would allow someone like Donald J. Trump to triumph the way he did in 2016 and then continue to dominate the scene in the years since? I think not.

So how did we get here? What are the forces that led us to the point where a man like Trump was able to assume the highest elective office in the land and the most powerful position on the planet? And perhaps more importantly, after more than three years, why do we not know the answer to that question, or even where to go to find it?

I think Tony Everton, the head of security for The Contrarian Candidate, sums it up best:

“In the past, Tony knew, [that Americans] might have looked to their political parties, or the companies that put food on their tables, or the churches, synagogues and other houses of worship that provided their spiritual sustenance [for answers to those questions]. But over the previous few decades those institutions had been steadily losing power – certainly in terms of their ability to influence public opinion.

Political parties had lost that power because of the public’s newly acquired awareness of the sausage making process, often having access to as much information as those in power. Corporations had lost their power because of the way they had come to treat their employees – no longer promising a job for life, one with healthy working conditions, to go with a healthy salary and benefits. As a result, those corporations no longer enjoyed the kind of loyalty they’d once had – and with it, the power to be arbiters of public opinion. Loyalty was, after all, a two way street.

So where else could individuals go for guidance? Most were left with only their houses of worship. Which was perhaps why the religious right had become such a powerful political force in the country. But Tony knew as well as anyone, that for most Americans faith in God and church had waned, especially over the previous few decades. And to Tony that seemed to indicate how, once again, a glut of knowledge and information could lead to unforeseen circumstances.

Having access to all that information meant that many of us now saw too much and knew too much about our place in the universe, to believe in the kind of god our forbearers once worshiped. Which meant that, in a sense, science had “cured” us of our faith in those ancient beliefs and institutions.

We lost our faith in religious institutions in much the same way we had lost our faith in other institutions, and for the same reasons. We just knew too much – and so in a sense had become too smart for our own good.

All of which told Tony we had lost our faith in religious institutions in much the same way we had lost our faith in other institutions, and for the same reasons. We just knew too much – and so in a sense had become too smart for our own good.

Science had become the new religion. And it did not believe in anything – except science. As a result, we were no longer allowed to believe in anything that could not be stuffed into a scientific formula. Which left compassion, morality, higher purpose, and other foundations of the human spirit completely out of the equation.

And that left many of us feeling like homeless children, wandering the streets, starving for food, shelter, and most of all, a sense of belonging; looking for anyone who could make us feel empowered, and in the process make us feel a part of something bigger than ourselves. So we surfed the Internet looking for someone who could show us the way, someone who would help guide us through such incredibly difficult and confusing times – perhaps the most difficult times of our lives, and of our country.

Tony knew that as humans we needed that sense of belonging, that sense of believing in something, anything that could help make sense of an ever more confusing world. But instead, all we wandering urchins found were thieves and gangsters who used us in any way they could, and always for their own ends. And why wouldn’t they? After all, they didn’t believe in anything either.

What made them seem strong, was that they had a stronger belief in themselves than did those around them. And that seemed to be the only belief worth having in the world of today, the only belief that seemed worthy of respect in such complex and chaotic times. And that in turn made it seem as though those self-serving demagogues had something to offer, something to believe in, something for others to follow. Which was why so many of our fellow citizens were willing to fall in line.”

That last paragraph may describe Trump. But as the rest of the passage shows, he is not the central problem. He is just the filler for the void that lives deep inside many of us, one that stretches all the way down to the darkest reaches of our souls. 

For his supporters, he is the place to park their anxieties and fears. They tell themselves, “With him at the helm I have little to be afraid of, because all my fears are being addressed. If anyone can do what needs to be done to overcome the problems of the country – the ones that I fear are taking it in the wrong direction and away from me and the ones I love – it has to be him.

“He is the one who can protect me from all those malevolent forces that are ready to swallow up my world – along with everything I know and love. Not only that, but Trump is the only one who seems to know how to identify those forces, and identify the harm they’re bringing to us all. So who better to understand what needs to be done? Who better to have my back in combating those destructive forces of hate?”

It is just as straight forward for Trump’s opponents as it is for his supporters, because for them no other enemy need apply. Get rid of him and everything will be good again.

And for those who oppose him, Trump is an obvious and convenient target. And for them too, he is a depository for their anxieties and fears. Only for them, he is the subject of those fears, and therefore the object of their hate. It is just as straight forward for them as it is for Trump’s supporters. Because for his opponents no other enemy need apply. Their fear and hatred and anxiety are all wrapped up in him.

And as a result, he gives them an easy out, a simple way to explain away their fear and misunderstanding of the world, and the fact that they have no idea where to turn for answers and no idea what needs to be done.

Get rid of Trump. That’s the answer and the only answer that is needed. Get rid of him and everything will be good again, and back to where it was.

But where does that really leave us?

It leaves us surfing the Internet and television airwaves like Tony’s wandering urchins, searching for the answers – with no idea where to even begin to look. And while those answers may not be on offer in this hyper-partisan election season, at some point we are going to have to come to terms with it all. At some point we are going to have to come to some kind of real understanding of who we are and where we stand in the world around us.

That’s a big question, and perhaps the big question of our day. And given that we spend so much of our lives and so much of our world just floating out there in cyberspace, that is not terribly surprising – just as is not all that surprising that we should cling to our politics in such a desperate way.

In the end our political affiliation provides us with no real answers. Or maybe it’s just that the answers it does provide, are not really answers at all.

After all, our political affiliation does give us something to cling to, some way of identifying who and where we are within the vastness of what we see around us. But in the end, that affiliation provides us with no real answers. Or maybe it’s just that the answers it does provide, are so superficial and the solutions so toxic, that the answers are not really answers at all.

Either way, what the writing of this novel taught me, is that this mess in which we now find ourselves, is not all about Trump. It’s much bigger than that, much bigger than him. Which may bring comfort to some, and anxiety to others. But that is the reality of where we now find ourselves – as we wander the Internet searching for answers.

And while this blog and The Contrarian Candidate itself may not provide those answers, it will hopefully give us some idea of where we can begin to find them.

Next: Part III – Forget the evil genius thing

In the two plus years since I began writing The Contrarian Candidate, it has become increasingly clear through tell all-books and other reporting, that Trump is not the genius he was once believed to be.

After reading that last sentence, I’m sure some may be thinking, “Trump a genius, who the hell ever thought that?” The answer to that question, is a lot of people actually, a lot of very smart and politically savvy people, a lot of people who are supposedly in the know as to what is really going on in the country. In fact it seemed that the more savvy and connected an individual was, the more they were inclined toward seeing Trump’s genius.

And that belief about Trump began to develop the moment he rode down that escalator, and gave his now infamous speech about all those horrible Mexicans flooding across the border, and taking advantage of poor defenseless little USA. And as his numbers began to rise, that sense of Trump’s political prowess escalated, even as most pundits dismissed those numbers as somehow not reflective of the voting public. But as those numbers continued to rise, the talk of Trump’s particular brand of genius began to grow.

“How could he be doing this?” they asked. “How could a man like him be at the top of the polls? How could he defeat all those experienced, connected and well-funded Republican politicians. And how could he be doing so well in the general polls?”

It had to be some kind of genius – or as Charlie Wyatt’s girlfriend Laura, and former Clinton 2016 operative, explains:

It was all way beyond our grasp, how a guy like Trump could be having so much success. So we punted on thinking about it rationally, and just chalked it up to genius.

“That was the way we started thinking of him, about how brilliant he was. And that was because we didn’t understand it… what he was doing and how he was doing it. Because it was all way beyond our grasp, how a guy like him could be having so much success. And we needed some way to come to terms with it all. So we punted on thinking about it rationally, and just chalked it up to genius; that the guy had some kind of magical talent that was way above our heads, way above our level of understanding.

“And that was when we started to look at every one of his stupid moves, every off the cuff comment, every ridiculous thing he did or said, as though it was another stroke of genius, and part of some massive strategy.”

And that is the way most of the media and the political elite continued to think of him throughout the campaign and even into the first years of his presidency – as having some kind of magical skill, some kind of political genius that was way beyond their ken. And it was only over the last couple of years, and coincidentally during the writing of my book, that that bubble of competence has (hopefully) forever been pierced.

But what of the evil part? What about the perception of Trump as an evil genius? That is the part that persists to this day, and as a result, is the aspect of our view of Trump that to me is most problematic.

The problem with seeing Trump as evil, is that it does nothing to bring us to a better understanding of the man and his followers.

The problem with seeing him as evil, is that it does nothing to bring us to a better understanding of the man and his followers. In fact it most certainly gets in the way.

For one, seeing him as evil gives us an excuse to reject everything he does as being motivated by some kind of evil intent, and some effort to harm the country – which in turn suggests his supporters must be evil as well. And as a result we become preoccupied with believing that that is what he and his supporters are trying to do, destroy the country, that that is what he is about and has been from the start, that he has some evil plan for destroying the nation and everything it stands for.

Now I will grant you that many, if not most of the things he does, may impact the country in that way, or at least have the ability to do so. But that is not why he does them. He doesn’t do all those crazy things because they’re bad for the country. He does them because they’re good for him. And if they’re good for him alone, well that’s fine with him and his narcissistic view of the world.

Admittedly this view of him has often been expressed, in one form or another, and is still being repeated today. But those who say those kinds of things, don’t necessarily seem to believe them. And if they do, they do not act as though they do, certainly when considering Trump’s opponents.

It seems as thought that evil genius meme is baked into our mediated view of him, no matter how incompetent he appears, and no matter how scatter-shot his policies seem. And I think my candidate Charlie Wyatt explains it best when he talks about the link between his supposed genius and his evil intent. So I’ll end with that.

“The president of the United States is not an evil genius. He’s just a narcissistic asshole – of the kind you find in every bar and boardroom, and every country club and fast food joint in this country.”

“So we need to make this as clear we can. The president of the United States is not an evil genius. He’s just a narcissistic asshole – of the kind you find in every bar and boardroom, and every country club and fast food joint in this country. He’s a garden variety asshole, nothing more, nothing less.

“Most of the things his opponents claim to be evil are just him doing whatever he figures he needs to do to stay in power. And for the most part that means doing whatever it takes to change the subject whenever he gets himself into trouble.

“And yes, there’s plenty of sick stuff going on around him… from the Neo Nazis and the KKK and the like. And yes, he certainly does use them to some extent, mainly as a diversion. But for the most part it’s a matter of them using him, by using the stupid and hateful things he says to justify their actions.

“In fact they use him in much the same way, or at least for much the same reasons, dictators and other bad actors around the world use him.

“Just look at the rich Russian oligarchs who purchase his condos as an example. I’m talking about the ones suspected of buying his properties, solely as a way to launder their money. Of course they would never tell him that. Instead they slather him with praise, telling the president the reason they buy so many of his condos is because of how much they love his properties and the prestige that comes with them. And he’s just dumb enough and self-centered enough to believe that.

If even if Trump is innocent of money laundering, the fact is they’re using him. They’re using his greed and his narcissism. But most of all, they’re using his stupidity.

“But if those allegations of money laundering are true, and if he truly is innocent – then the fact is, they’re just using him. They’re using his greed and his narcissism. But most of all, they’re using his stupidity.”

I’ve been dying to use that title. In fact at one time I wanted to use it for the title of my book. But everyone else thought it was just a cheap pun that would lower the image of the book. Personally I didn’t care what people thought of the title as long as they remembered it, and as long as it told them something intriguing about the book. To me that’s the point of a title. And it seems to me President Trumped does that. In part that’s because it says the book is about someone who uses Trump’s own tactics to defeat him – as is the case with my main character, comedian Charlie Wyatt.

I was eventually talked out of that title by people who seemed to know what they were talking about when it came to promoting books. And I do love the real title, The Contrarian Candidate. And by the way, the similarity to Richard Condon’s famous novel The Manchurian Candidate comes mainly from the fact that, like The Manchurian Candidate, The Contrarian Candidate is a political thriller, which is to some extent concerned with conspiracy theories. But in the Contrarian’s case, it’s about debunking those theories and showing how dangerous they can be in the current political climate.

Also, that is not the central focus of my book. What the book really sets out to do is tell the story of would happen if a standup comic challenged Trump in the Republican primary, but not necessarily to win. Instead he does it just so he can beat him at his own game – belittle, berate and verbally beat him to a pulp every chance he gets and in every possible way – all in order to become Trump’s worst nightmare and the troll from hell.

But enough about my book. What I really wanted to talk about here is what it’s been like these past few weeks as my book is about to be unleashed upon the world. In a word, it has been hell. And it isn’t just disagreements about titles and other creative and business issues. It’s been everything to do with the process. And that’s not entirely because of the process itself. In fact it’s more because of what it means for me in terms of having my book out there – or for that matter, for me to be out there in any way.

So for example, Bartholomew St. James is not my real name. And there are a lot of reasons I decided to use a pen name, and they don’t have anything to do with the controversial subject matter of my book. It’s more about how I see authors in general, at least in terms of my own reading experience.

Obviously I like having my words and ideas out there. Which is the reason I wrote the book and am writing this blog. Nothing new there, especially for a writer. But at the same time, I see no point in readers knowing me personally, certainly in terms of my physical attributes, like what I look like and the sound of my voice. In fact to me as a reader, those things are nothing but a distraction.

When I read a book, the last thing I want to hear is the author’s speaking voice. What I want to hear is his writing voice and the voices of his characters. And maybe that’s just me.

But the fact is, it is me. And so that is how I want my book to be seen and heard – as a statement of who I am on the inside. Which is one reason I like the title The Contrarian Candidate so much. Because that title itself is a statement of who I am – though not the candidate part of course.

What I’m talking about is the “contrarian” part. Because that is who I am, the ultimate contrarian. And that stems primarily from the fact that I do not feel any real connection to the world – at least not in the way most people do. And not only does that give me a picture perspective, that sense of unattachment gives me freedom from the need to feel affiliated with any one paradigm or view of the world – especially when it comes to politics. All of which allows me to see the world in my own unique and objective way.

That tends to put me on the progressive side of things, and therefore, in my view, on the right side of history. But that does not mean I buy into the totality of the progressive agenda or its institutions, especially in terms of their ability to carry out their goals. In fact I see them as being particularly ineffective in that regard. And to a large extent, that is what this blog is going to be about – as opposed to being purely about Trump and what’s he’s doing to the world.

There may be a fire hose of source material coming from the man in the form of one stupid statement and idiotic move after another. But how many creative ways are there to respond to all that nonsense – especially if you want to do it in a way that expresses the enormity of it all. And that is what I am interested in, the enormity of it, the big picture, the thirty thousand foot view. That’s what interests me. And that is what this blog and The Contrarian Candidate are really all about.

1,200 books have been written about Trump and his presidency, but none with the depth and honesty of fiction.

Yes, there has certainly been a lot written about Donald Trump over the last four years. And some of it has been very revealing, offering up valuable glimpses of Trump’s presidency, as well as of his past. Yet somehow those offerings never really seem to get to the heart of the man and his impact on the country.And perhaps that’s because Trump is the ultimate shiny object. That is why, for the most part, those books tend to focus on the superficial aspects of him – what he says and does, his dysfunction or his brilliance, his incompetence or corruption, his skill, or lack of it, as a business man, or whatever aspect of him any one author has the time, experience and skill to explore. But that sort of approach always seems to fall short, in terms of understanding the man and the forces that propelled him to the highest elective office on the planet.

Perhaps one reason non-fiction fails to give us a deeper and broader understanding, comes from the fact that what is happening in the world today is so much bigger than Trump. Sure he’s at the center of much of it, or so it seems. And of course that is where he wants to be. And pro or con that is wherewe want him to be as well, certainly to some extent – if only because we can’t seem to avoid him and his influence on the world. But in order to really understand where we are today, we need to be able to see beyond him. We need to take a broader look at what is going on around the country and around the world. And we need to see that world from a variety of depths and perspectives.

That is difficult to do with non-fiction, because it’s a form of writing that generally forces the author to take a stand. As a result, it most often takes the form of, “This is the way I believe the world works today. But this is the way I think it shouldwork, and more importantly the only way it could work, if we are going to fix that world in the way I think it should be fixed.” What that often means is that the author is generally reluctant to express, or even objectively consider, alternate points of view.

Perhaps that is because in this social-mediated world of ours, that is the only way for anyone to keep their sanity, the only way to keep from taking shots from all sides. As a result non-fiction, in the vast majority of cases, is restricted to a single point of view. And that view is often presented in subjective, if not partisan terms. Even the quintessentially neutral Bob Woodward ended his second Trump-centered book Rage, by stating that Trump was unfit for office.

But coming at a subject from a single perspective doesn’t just invite partisanship, in a sense it requires it. And coming at it from a single angle often means limiting the depth with which the subject can be addressed. And by that I do not mean that the author can not go deeply enough into a subject – far from it. What I mean is that it tends to force the author to maintain a single depth and distance from the subject being considered.

Fiction allows the author to come at things from multiple angles

But fiction changes all that. It allows the author to come at things from multiple angles, and from a variety of depths and perspectives, and even a range of subject matter. And that may be the only way to come to any real understand of our massively complex, over mediated, hyper-partisan world. That seems especially true when trying to understand its dysfunction – certainly when it comes to politics.

Fictional writing allows the writer to look at that world through a vast array of characters coming from all sides of the divide, as well as from a variety of depths and perceptions.

And in the case of my novel The Contrarian Candidate, that starts with Charlie Wyatt the candidate at the center of the story. He is a Republican who voted for Trump, but quickly realized his mistake. That forced some serious introspection on his part, which led him to turn his life around. And that, in turn, led him to change the focus of his comedy, and finally challenge Trump for the Republican nomination – all of which makes him unique among the characters, and gives him a variety of perspectives all his own.

And to Charlie can be added the perspectives of his girlfriend, Laura, a former Clinton 2016 operative; Lenny, an economist and Charlie’s assistant campaign manager; a pair of college students who run CharlieTV out of the family basement; Arthur, a professor and guest analyst on their show; and Janet a high school student and fanatic Charlie supporter. And then of course there are the Trump supporters, Barry, a conspiracy theorist and janitor of the hall where that night’s debate is taking place, and Teddy Tuff, “car salesman extraordinaire” and conservative talk show host.

vastly varying points of view, levels of sophistication, knowledge, perspective and understanding

This diverse array of characters allowed for vastly varying points of view and levels of sophistication, which in turn allows for a wide variety of knowledge, perspective and understanding. For example, Janet’s high school-level fanaticism, is contrasted with the much more in-depth, nuanced and objective views of poly sci professor Arthur. This allows us to see Charlie’s support in context, and in relation to the world as a whole. It also allows for a discussion of the political climate through a broad range of subject matter – from assault weapons, to social media, to the impact of China’s ascendancy.

This allows us to see America and its politics in a much more unique and holistic way, which in turn allows for the possibility of a more accurate picture of what is truly going on. That is true, in part, because it also gives us a view of what is happening just below the surface, in the minds and hearts of those throughout the country who are struggling to understand our times, our world and their place within it.

And it seems to me that is what all forms of art, including fiction, are really about. They are about giving us a chance to see and understand ourselves and our world in the deepest and most prophetic of ways. Because they are about understanding the world we live in, along with our feelings about that world, in ways that come from the depths of who we are.

And in such chaotic, confusing and disruptive times, that may be the only way to come to any real understanding of who we are and where we stand, in the largely inexplicable world in which we now find ourselves.

Where to start…

It’s hard to know where to start, because there really is no beginning to the story of this blog. In fact it’s the kind of story that seems to be happening in all directions and across all dimensions at the same time.

It’s the story about a man (who I call The Contrarian Candidate.) It’s a story about a president (you know the one.) It’s a story about an election, it’s a story about how we got here, and how we might find a way out of this mess we’ve gotten ourselves into.

All of which is a roundabout way of saying this is not a political blog… at least not exactly. On the other hand, it is, in a sense, a very political blog – though not in the way most blogs are political. And by that I mean it isn’t about any particular issue. Nor is it about viewing the world from one particular vantage point or seat on the political spectrum.

Don’t take that to mean it isn’t partisan and critical at times, certainly when it comes to Trump. You only have to read the first couple of pages of The Contrarian Candidate to know where I’m coming from on that

A search for answers

But the main focus of this blog, and of my book, is a search for answers, answers to the many questions we have been asking over the last four, ten, forty years – about where we are as individuals and where we are as a world.

Because it seems to me a broad approach of that kind is the only way to come to terms with where we stand today, and in a way that will give us any chance of finding useful answers to the kinds of questions we have been asking. So I guess I would say that if you are not looking for answers, if you have no doubts about the world you live in and where you stand in that world, then this is not the blog for you.

But if you do have doubts and questions, as I think most of us believe we do, then this might be a place where we can start to find some of those answers.

I’m not saying I have them. In fact what might come across as solutions as presented in my book, are as much about asking questions as anything. And that is one reason, in fact probably the main reason the subject matter of The Contrarian Candidate could only be contained within in a book of fiction. And the reason I feel that way, is because it seems to me there are no clear answers to the burning questions of our day – about how we got here, and how we have arrived at a point where a man like Trump now occupies the most powerful position on the planet.

How did we let that happen? What was our role in allowing that to happen? What does all of this say about our world and each of our places within it?

These are some of the most important questions of our day – to which there are no easy answers. If there were, we would have found them by now. And those who say there are easy answers, are generally among those who are living farthest from the truth. Exhibit A: Donald J. Trump.

So let’s not go there ourselves. That is the big trap, the one we have fallen into with Trump. And that trap exists, in part, because of the nature of world we now live in. That trap is there because our world has become too complex for any one individual, or any group of individuals to truly understand – no matter how smart or well educated they may be. And of all the failings of our world, that is the one flaw Trump has been most able to turn to his advantage.

And that is because in a world of such complexity there are no easy answers, no single fifteen second sound bite that is going to provide real answers to any of the problems we face. But in a sound bite world, that is often all the time you have to make your point. And that is where Trump comes in. Because only someone with such a simple-minded understanding of the world, is going to be able to seemingly fill that fifteen second, 256 character void – in a way that sounds anything like a real answer.

That is the reason for his success, and may tell us all we need to know about how the global intelligentsia has failed us – by creating a world that has gotten too complex for even them to understand.

Enter the Trumps of the world, enter the conspiracy theories, enter the hyper-partisanship, enter the political dysfunction – with each side pointing to the other as the reason for all our problems.

But why are the answers so hard to find? And why do we not even know where to find them?

I think one of my characters sums it up best with his thoughts on the matter:

In the past, Tony knew, [Americans] might have looked to their political parties, or the companies that put food on their tables, or the churches, synagogues and other houses of worship that provided their spiritual sustenance. But over the previous few decades those institutions had been steadily losing power – certainly in terms of their ability to influence public opinion.

Political parties had lost that power because of the public’s newly acquired awareness of the sausage making process, often having access to as much information as those in power. Corporations had lost their power because of the way they had come to treat their employees – no longer promising a job for life, one with healthy working conditions, to go with a healthy salary and benefits. As a result, those corporations no longer enjoyed the kind of loyalty they’d once had – and with it, the power to be arbiters of public opinion. Loyalty was, after all, a two way street.

So where else could individuals go for guidance? Most were left only with their houses of worship. Which was perhaps why the religious right had become such a powerful political force in the country. But Tony knew as well as anyone, that for most Americans faith in God and church had waned, especially over the previous few decades. And to Tony that seemed to indicate how, once again, a glut of knowledge and information could lead to unforeseen circumstances.

Having access to all that information meant that many of us now saw too much and knew too much about our place in the universe, to believe in the kind of god our forbearers once worshiped. Which meant that, in a sense, science had “cured” us of our faith in those ancient beliefs and institutions.

All of which told Tony we had lost our faith in religious institutions in much the same way we had lost our faith in other institutions, and for the same reasons. We just knew too much – and so in a sense had become too smart for our own good.

Which I guess tells us all we need to know, about our need to look to new sources for guidance, while discovering new ways of finding answers to our most difficult and pressing questions. And that is what this blog is all about.

As the election nears, the reaction from Democrats and the media to Trump’s admittedly outrageous actions and words, seems to be coming to a boil. And this is not good. Because if the Democrats and the media continue to react in a knee jerk, visceral way, Trump might just ride that wave all the way to the victory. Every over-the-top reaction by any member of the “deep state” is going to be played ad infinitum on YouTube and Fox News and all the Trump-aligned media outlets. Because it’s manna for his supporters.

It just confirms in their minds what they already believe about the world beyond their media bubble, that those in the Democratic Party and the media and Hollywood and Wall Street, all hate Trump just because he’s going after them. To his supporters, the ferocity of the reactions are solely a result of Trump getting back at those members of the elite, for all they’ve done over the decades, to them, his supporters.

And when seeing the exorbitant reaction of his opponents, anyone who supported Trump in 2016, but are having second thoughts about voting for him again because of his tone, may say to themselves,

“Well are those guys any better? I voted for Trump because of the way he stood up to those people. And now just because he does that in an unorthodox way, by saying and doing over-the-top-things, those enemies of his, who I have always seen as enemies of mine, are now doing much the same thing in the way they react to him.”

Don’t blow a gasket with every one of Trump’s tweets

So in the coming days, it almost doesn’t matter what the response is. What is important is not to blow a gasket with every one of Trump’s tweets.

And what is really important, is that it is a response and not a reaction. What is important is that the reply, if there is one, is given as a result of careful thought, by responding to what is said or done, and not in a way that goes beyond the actual words of his message. And what is perhaps most important, is not to suggest things about what he says that would reflect badly on his supporters. Because remember, many of those supporters are likely trending towards being former supporters.

There also needs to be an eye on the days after the election, even in the event the polls continue to point to a blow out for Biden. Because there is likely to be a very dangerous period in the aftermath of this election. Almost no matter the margin of victory, Trump is not going to let the presidency go without a fight. There is going to be no humbling congratulatory phone call to Biden the night of the election, or likely ever for that matter.

And the more the media, in particular, is seen as piling on the criticism of Trump, the more resentment is likely to be felt by his supporters in the wake of his “apparent” defeat.

So the Dems and the media need to be cognizant of being too quick to condemn Trump’s words and actions. Which means caution is the best guide. If there is little to be gained by reacting to what he says, then given the potential downside, consideration should be given to not reacting at all.

It has become a programming staple, especially on cable news – invite Trump apologists and other supporters onto a panel discussion or one on one interview, with the sole purpose of trashing their idiocy, hypocrisy and lies. In fact that seems to be the only reason to have them on.

And it’s pretty much pre-scripted, or at least predictable. The interviewer knows what these Trumpites are going to say, because they have heard it many times before. And the interviewer knows the surrogate is going to try to filibuster and maintain control of the floor. All of which is made all the easier with the Trumpite being beamed into the studio on a not-entirely-reliable, heavily-delayed, streaming feed.

But the host knows all this going into the interview. So why not have logical and obvious responses at the ready? To see a prime example of how that can be done, look at Chris Wallace’s now famous handling of the president, from his July 19th Sunday morning show on Fox.

Wallace knew what Trump was going to say before he even said it, and as a result was able to tear the man to pieces right before our eyes. Now, I know Wallace has a huge advantage over other TV hosts, in that by appearing on FOX he has no need to bend over backwards so as not to appear anti-Trump. And he certainly knows how to play that to his advantage. That is why most of the best interviews of Trump administration officials have been conducted by him. And they were often as devastating as his take down of Trump himself.

the easy route is just dismissing Trump surrogates’ assertions

So I can see how hosts on other networks find themselves in a difficult position. But that does not excuse their insistence on taking the easy route and just dismissing Trump surrogates’ assertions out of hand, often talking over them in the process. 

But what is most troubling or at least surprising and confounding, is that they often do not have much factual evidence at their immediate disposal – evidence that will back up such an offhanded dismissal, and do it in a way that shows the Trump talking point to be completely without merit.

And what makes that fact somewhat alarming, is that there seems to be more than laziness and time pressure at play here. Because it seems that often one goal, if not the goal, on the part of the interviewer in that type of situation, is to try to prove to their audience that they are on the right side of the issue. And that generally means being on the other side of whatever issue Trump’s minions are spouting that particular day. And that is dangerous.

Because it seems to me the role of the journalist in that situation is to speak truth to power on behalf of the viewer, on behalf of us all. And that was what Wallace was doing with Trump on FOX.

But dismissing the comments of Trump supporters in that way on other networks, is not speaking truth to power. It is pandering to their audience, pandering to their base. It is a wink to their audience saying, “Do not fear, I am one of you.” It is saying, “I get it, I am woke to your feelings about Trump and this supporter of his.” And that is not speaking truth to power, not in that instance, not when it comes to interviews on networks other than FOX News.

Speaking truth to power in that circumstance would be to tell their audience what they do not want to hear, or let one of the opposition voices tell them what they do not want to hear – and let them do that in a way that might even be convincing. 

But instead the host insists on break in, seemingly to be sure that the Trumpite doesn’t get to make any cogent points. And at times it seems they do that because they do not want their audience to have to think for themselves, or worse, make the audience think the interviewer was complicit in giving this counter-view air time. Because that would look bad for the host. That would mean possibly looking like an apologist for Trump propaganda. And TV hosts do not want there to ever be a whiff of that. They don’t want to sit there and listen, because that might make them seem complicit in the exercise of letting Trump’s views be known.

If Trump’s views are so outlandish, which they usually are, why not just let them spout. Because cutting off his surrogates just gives them added credibility. It makes it seem like the host has something to hide, that there is something they don’t want the public to hear, because it might make Trump’s case. 

I’m not saying that Trump’s views should be voiced unopposed. I’m saying interviewers need to be ready with their facts, and in a way that makes them visible to the viewer, actual transcripts of what was said, actual slides or video, whatever it is that can back up the rebuttal.

Now I realize this is not easy for a daily show. Wallace and his team likely spent many days preparing for his Trump interview. And it showed.

But just breaking in and dismissing Trump’s “facts” by shouting over them with your own, only makes the host look like he is offering alternative facts, and that he may not even be listening to what is being said. Or at least that is what it looks like to Trump supporters, including those who are on the fence. “You have your facts, and they have theirs. So who knows what is true?” is what they are likely to be thinking. And to them it looks like the host is just the one who’s being a dick about it. And you can bet whatever encounter results, is going to run on a video loop on FOX News and on social media. So why go there?

So my advice is this: If you are going to have Trump surrogates on, be sure you are prepared. If not, then just listen and afterwards make your point. Also, if you can’t stop them from filibustering then don’t have them on. Because you know that is what they are going to try to do. And in the end, your interruptions just makes them look better, and you look bad – except to your own audience of course. In which case you have once again confirmed your standing within the community, and proven you are on the right side of the issues and a loyal soldier to the cause. Congratulations! You just solidified your base, and at the same time solidified Trump’s.

Biden making his campaign largely about COVID may seem like a promising, even obvious, strategy. But to me it’s a strategy whose ship has sailed.

There is no doubt that Trump’s handling of the pandemic contributed mightily to the health crisis the country is now facing. His failure to recognize it as a problem, his dismissal of the science, his failure to implement social measures, his failure to ramp up testing, his failure to even come to grips with reality… the list is almost endless.

And while we’re at it, why do we keep letting him get away with his one real talking point when it comes to his handling of the pandemic – his decision to cut off travel from China. Does no one see the hypocrisy at work there?

the decision to cut off travel from China…

Here’s how I imagine the decision to cut off travel from China went down. There’s a meeting in the Oval Office with all his advisors, medical and otherwise, and they’re grimly laying out his options for how to respond to the pandemic. Those on the scientific and medical side of things are telling him about logical, scientifically proven steps, such as buying more PPE and ventilators, ramping up testing, setting up more hospital beds, implementing social measures, which includes (horror of horrors) a partial shut down of his wonderful economy. In other words, they outline the steps that all other nations have taken that have shown success in battling the disease. 

So Trump sits there wallowing in the misery of these options, until suddenly someone (my guess would be economist Peter Navaro) comes up with the option of options – cutting off travel from China.

Trump’s first thought is, “You mean I can actually do that in the middle of a trade negotiation, and then blame it on the virus?” And the answer, of course, is, “Yes, that would be quite appropriate.”

Well that’s it. End of discussion. Why spend all that effort of sorting through all those difficult and painful scientific and medical steps, when all you have to do to stop the pandemic is cut off flights from China? 

It was just so perfect for him. It allowed him to avoid the responsibility, not to mention the brainwork, of having to deal with the reality of a global pandemic. And since it’s a strategy that falls in line with others he’s employed throughout his presidency, and totally in line with his public persona, it took no effort on his part to explain the decision to his base. 

He didn’t have to reach beyond himself in any way. He just continued to do what he has been doing his whole presidency, his whole life it seems, blame his problems on somebody else, anybody else but him. Case closed. Decision made.

I guess my point is that, though it was a good move, it wasn’t based on any strategy on his part, at least not a medical strategy. If it had been, he would have cut off all travel from China, and from the EU as well – or from Italy at the very least. But no, it wasn’t a strategy made with the facts of the virus on his mind. It was his own self interest that drove him to that decision. In other words, it was just him doing what he always does and always has done, and in his usual knee-jerk, narcissistic way.

But either way, my real point is that that is all in the past. We are now at the point where the virus is still at unacceptably, if not  dangerously high levels. And no amount of testing, no amount of PPE, no amount of anything short of a vaccine is going to get this thing under control. The only other measure that will have any effect, is individuals taking the steps we have all been hearing about ad infinitum for months now. And the only way for that to happen, is for the country to do what every other successful country has done – and that is to shut down the economy in a truly effective way and for a sufficiently long and painful amount of time. And that is not going to fly politically. Look what happened when Joe Biden suggested it.

So what does that leave as far as viable, palatable solutions? Nothing. That’s what it leaves.

So what’s the point of criticizing Trump for his current proposed “solutions,” when no one has solutions of their own, and least none that are widely accepted by the scientific community, and the American electorate as a whole? 

So we’re back with the same situation we faced in 2015, with Trump offering ridiculously simple solutions to difficult and complex problems, for which no one seems to have anything logical and politically palatable to offer in return. All of which leaves us with no way to rationally and effectively criticize his solutions. 

And that in turn means that yesterday’s border wall paid for by the Mexicans has, for the moment, become hydroxychloroquine, and Clorox injections.

Democrats may be losing Black men for far deeper reasons. They may be losing them because their social policies and other legislative efforts over the last few decades have done little if anything to advance the lives of Black men. So as Trump once asked, “What have you got to lose?” by voting for him. 

And perhaps the best demonstration of the ineffectiveness of majority Democratic control over much of the last few decades, comes to us from a massive study of intergenerational economic mobility published in 2018. It looked at upward mobility across the entire socio-economic spectrum from 1989 to 2015 for Blacks and whites in the United States. And what it found was that Blacks had a definite disadvantage in terms of upward mobility. 

But what was most surprising about the study’s findings was that the entire burden of that economic racial inequality fell on the shoulders of Black men. It turned out that Black women across the spectrum remained equal to, if not marginally better off than, their white counterparts – with some studies even showing Black women having the highest college graduation rate of any major demographic group. Meanwhile in that intergenerational study, Black men ended up on average 10-12% below white men in terms of income and other socio-economic factors over the period of the study.

In fact by pretty much any social measure, it is Black men who suffer the most from racial inequality. This is seen in murder rates, incarceration rates, life expectancy, education levels, income and employment levels, incidents of police violence, you name it. And the shooting of Walter Wallace Jr. on Monday, October 26 by police in Philadelphia is just the latest tragic example.

So it is obvious that social policies enacted by the Democrats over the last few decades have not helped Black men. And the 1994 crime law Joe Biden helped write, which added 60 new death penalties, 70 enhanced penalties, 100,000 cops and 125,000 new state prison cells, had a decidedly harmful effect.

Part of the reason Biden co-sponsored that bill, was that he wanted to get his pet project the Violence Against Women Act passed into law. And in order to do that, and in a sense help sweeten the overall deal for liberal Democrats, he attached the VAWA to the 1994 crime bill – effectively throwing Black men under the bus. 

Couple that the prosecutorial background of his Vice-Presidential running mate Kamala Harris, and you have a ticket that may be in a position to turn off Black men, much the way Hillary Clinton turned off white working-class men in 2016.

So those who are discounting Trump’s strategy of appealing to Black men, or just dismissing it as a play for suburban white women, better think again. Given that Democratic leadership, including at the presidential level, has done nothing to improve the lives of Black men, and given that Democratic policies have in many ways made their lives worse, it is not hard to see how Trump may be able to siphon off enough Black male voters to improve his chances on November 3.