Rand Still Stands

Originally published September 3, 2015 in the Hillsdale Collegian

Rand Paul, the self-described “libertarian-ish” Senator from Kentucky, is not the pres­i­dential fron­trunner — he’s even fallen in recent polls. He is not the most heavily-covered in the news. Some pundits proclaim his pres­i­dential campaign is already over, despite Time magazine’s description as “the most inter­esting man in politics” (‘The Rein­ventions of Rand Paul,’ Oct. 16, 2014).

Ulti­mately, this is just another symptom of primary politics. Rand Paul has been prominent on the national stage for years. Candidates like Carly Fiorina or John Kasich are relative newcomers to most Americans. It’s natural for the elec­torate to fixate on the shiny and the new, for a while, but that doesn’t amount to substance.

Despite recent poll data from Public Policy Polling showing Paul at 1 percent among Republican candidates, he has staying power. The rumors of his political death are being grossly exag­gerated. His strong grassroots support, unique policy positions, and his wide cross-party appeal means he will stick around to the bitter end.

Ulti­mately, Paul provides a rallying point for the growing liberty movement: polit­ically active and rabidly passionate, the small movement could well tip the election. Samuel Adams is thought to have said, “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

His falling numbers are caused by the sheer size of the Republican field. While he has a small, dedicated liber­tarian core, other candidates are chipping away at more main­stream support — Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, even Donald Trump.

In order to survive in a pres­i­dential primary, a candidate needs either vast sums of money or strong grassroots support. While Paul has low fundraising totals, roughly seven million in the second quarter of 2015, half of that was in small contri­butions. That means that he’s attracting a core group of supporters who passionately support him. Passion is key in primaries, and Paul supporters have a lot of it.

He has focused primarily on nurturing and growing this grassroots support, much in the vein of his father Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 pres­i­dential bids. In addition, the Paul campaign has showed the most social media savvy, and with some of the most ardent supporters. Social media is quickly becoming one of the most important campaign tools, and a solid strategy is a great aid to a campaign.

Pres­i­dential primaries are highly unstable, espe­cially early on. Few voters have made up their minds, vacil­lating from one candidate to the next depending on media coverage, name recog­nition, and noise. Most voters have yet to settle on the boring policy proposals and budget plans. They determine their support by weighing rhetoric and stump speeches.

At this stage in the primary, polls are unre­liable, volatile, and heavily skewed. The first chance to win delegates is at the Iowa Caucuses, Feb. 1, 2016. That’s five months away. Polls five months out are a poor gauge of what the field will look like at caucus time. This time in 2011, Rick Perry was leading by double digits. Six weeks later, it was Herman Cain. A month after that, Newt Gingrich. The polls reflected their perceived electoral strength at the time, but not in reality.

Many candidates will drop out by Iowa, and their supporters will flock to the remaining candidates. Rand Paul stands to benefit from that, because he provides a legitimate and viable alter­native to the status quo.

Rand Paul is running a campaign of ideas, not one of noise and blind rhetoric. His strength is in his indi­vid­uality and uniqueness. On foreign policy, civil liberties, and genuine budget reform, he stands alone. The challenge for Paul is to convince voters to support his “libertarian-ish” alternative.

Carly Fiorina - All Flash, No Substance

Carly Fiorina began her Presidential campaign as relatively unknown. The one-time Senate candidate and former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, she was easily lost in the crowd. Fiorina's performed with the most polish and charisma at the August 6th bush-league debate, and it almost singlehandedly shot her up in the polls. She went from a margin of error away from nonexistence to the top five.

Fiorina's rise, and her campaign thus far, has been built on the narrative she's constructed of her previous business experience. A quick glance at her campaign website reveals no substantive policy ideas, instead showing glowing statements about her background.

In many cases, Presidential campaigns are built around a figure and an image, rather than ideas. Fiorina is no exception. She frequently cites her rise from secretary to CEO, portraying herself as a self-made success. She also remains one of the best speakers in the field.

Fiorina's speaking skills, and her ability to craft a narrative around her life, explain her recent rise. At this point, most voters favor candidates based on presentation and style rather than substance. Fiorina is not reaping the benefits alone. Other candidates, like Ben Carson, employ the same strategy.

Both Fiorina and Carson are running as political outsiders, with neither holding public office prior to their campaigns. Fiorina bills this as a positive, claiming the "political class" is responsible for all the nation's woes.

Fiorina's campaign fits her message. Her campaign speeches are all carefully engineered to preserve her "political outsider" identity, and any steps towards actually discussing public policy would chip away at that. Carly Fiorina can't start talking about ideas, or her image would collapse. Right now, Fiorina is all flash, no substance. Unless her campaign evolves, her rise in the polls will be just a blip in the books.

The Multiplicity of Nations

Competition drives progress. Competition forces providers of goods and services to increase the quality of their products. For example, a car company might make a car with better fuel mileage to undercut a competing car company. In the process, cars get better, and consumers of cars benefit.

The same principle applies to nations. The roughly 200 sovereign states on Earth vary wildly in forms of government, legal institutions, and cultural traditions. There is a somewhat free flow of labor and citizens among these nations, though restrictions persist in much of the world.

In an ideal world, there ought to be as many possible legal jurisdictions and civil societies as there can be. Not only would this mean that individuals would be free to settle into whatever state that best fits their preferences, but also this would yield competition among states for labor, capital, and people.

Some competition between nationstates already exists. For example, the Export-Import Bank of the United States ostensibly exists to provide "financing tools" to companies exporting goods, with the intention of keeping the companies in the United States. Other countries, such as Singapore, instead rely on institutional incentives. They make it easier and less costly to operate a business in their country, whether that's through regulatory reform or other institutional processes. So, some competition indeed exists. But is it enough?

In any market, it is to the firm's advantage to raise barriers to entry, or drive their opponents out of business, if at all possible. This is why states tend to engage in empire building and conquest. The victor benefits from more customers (taxpayers), more market power, and less competition.

This also explains why most states stubbornly oppose secession. Secession creates a new competitor which automatically takes away a chunk of their business. Secession is to the detriment of the state, but not always to the individual. More states means a greater variety of laws and institutions to choose from. More states yields greater competition, which forces states to develop incentives for people to stay such as tax cuts.

States have a tendency to bitterly cling to every square inch of land they can. Secession movements, such as the recent Scottish Referendum, are becoming more frequent with limited success. Other alternatives include seasteading, the practice of creating micronations in international waters unclaimed by any nation.

The key to progress is allowing competition to fluorish. Dynamic markets are constantly in flux, which is necessary for growth and advancement to take place. Increasing competition through the mulitplicity of nations may not be the most stable solution, but it would ultimately result in more choices and more prosperity for the people of the world. 

The Changing Fortunes of Chris Christie

Two years ago, Chris Christie topped a Rasmussen survey of likely Presidential candidates at 21%  (with Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Rand Paul close behind.) Bush, Rubio, and Paul remain well positioned, but Christie's star has fallen. A recent poll shows him tied in New Hampshire -- for tenth place.

Christie was once a Republican star on the rise. After sitting out in 2012, he was widely considered a potential frontrunner in 2016. Though it's far too early to say anything for sure, Christie's slide in the polls does not bode well. Originally rising to prominence from boisterous town hall videos filmed during his successful campaign for Governor of New Jersey, Christie was billed as a hardline conservative and a party outsider. Since then, Christie has since fallen squarely in the establishment camp.

The cracks in his conservative facade began to show as early as 2011, when he endorsed Mitt Romney before the primary season began. Romney was widely perceived as too moderate for many Republicans, and his primary opponents all scrambled to get to the right of him. Christie's early and strong support for Romney confirmed which team he was truly on. Later scandals, like the imfamous Bridgegate, led many former supporters of Christie to seek greener pastures. 

In the first debate, Christie laid out the case for his candidacy based on his "proven record" as governor, a fairly safe and reasonable strategy. So safe and reasonable that Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Scott Walker, and Mike Huckabee all said the same thing. Failing to distinguish himself from the pack with his record, Christie has resorted to blind attacks to keep his name in the news, like his fierce condemnation of Rand Paul and the Fourth Amendment.

Christie used to be seen as the straight-talking "take action" Governor who wasn't afraid to speak his mind. Regardless of how accurate that perception was, he's now seen as a duplicitous, corrupt political insider, who will say whatever he thinks will get him elected. That said, Christie retains support from some big donors, and may stick around despite his sliding numbers. For now, he's merely down, and not out.

Regardless, a slip from first to tenth is far from insignificant. Christie has a lot of ground to cover, and a lot of voters to convince, if he wants to stand a chance at the nomination.

The Left's War with Uber

Uber is a fast-growing company that serves as a unique alternative to traditional taxi service. Rather than try to hail a cab, one can simply request a ride through the Uber app. Independent Uber drivers then see the request, and come pick you up. The process is safe, easy, and often cheaper than a taxi.

Uber is a remarkable new innovation that improves the lives of many Americans. Despite that, Democratic Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders recently come out against it. Clinton starts off with paying lip service to the innovation that companies like Uber bring to the economy, but quickly switches to condemnation for their employment strategies.

Essentially, Uber treats all of their drivers as what they are: independent contractors. They are simply individuals willing to use give rides to others using Uber in exchange for money (which Uber takes a cut of), all done through the app. At no point in the process does Uber actually direct the drivers in any way. They are free to work as much or as little as they please, and take whatever jobs they see fit. If the drivers don't like it, they're free to quit at any time.

Hillary Clinton sees this arrangement, but ignores the mutual benefits between Uber, the drivers, and the passengers. Instead, she decries the lack of benefits and security that drivers have. She is correct that Uber doesn't offer maternity leave, but why should they have to? The vast majority of Uber drivers are happy to work under the conditions they are offered, so why should regulators have to step in to fix a perceived problem?

Clinton is not alone. Senator Bernie Sanders agrees, citing serious problems with Uber due to a "lack of regulation". Both Sanders and Clinton profess to want more jobs and more economic growth in America. Uber is a quintessential American innovation, using technological advances to offer a superior product. Their opposition to this speaks volumes to their economic ignorance.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio recently tried to cap the number of Uber drivers in New York City, citing similar fears to Clinton and Sanders. He dropped the plan after a the public outcry against the proposed scheme, which was widely perceived to benefit only the city-licensed cab drivers, and not the people of New York City.

Many politicians on the left who attack Uber miss the point. Uber provides quick, quality service that benefits both the driver and the passenger. It is a perfect example of a market innovation that improves the lives of people across the nation. Clinton should be praising Uber, not attacking them.

The market created Uber, and politicians are trying to destroy it.

Freedom of Contract and Self Interest

Freedom of contract is the principle that two parties can voluntarily enter into an economic agreement that they both deem mutually beneficial. In other words, people are free to make agreements regarding working conditions that all parties find acceptable.

Freedom of contract hardly exists today. For example, OSHA currently mandates such specific requirements like mandatory minimum lighting requirements. One of the most wide reaching set of regulations is the Fair Labor Standards Act, which mandates the now commonplace overtime pay requirements, child labor laws, and more.

These regulations were ostensibly enacted to ensure "fair" labor conditions (according to the arbitrary standard set by the bureaucrats, of course), and protect workers. There's nothing inherently wrong with the standards themselves. The real harm comes with the one-size-fits-all mandate.

Suppose there's a seventeen year old looking for work. He happens to be an expert in meat processing, and interviews for a job in the meat department at a grocery store. He is shocked when he's told that it's illegal for him to operate any meat processing machines at work, because it's unsafe. He leaves dejected and unemployed.

In this scenario, the grocery store loses a skilled and willing worker, and the young man loses a job. Neither party used force against the other. The beauty of freedom of contract is that it requires voluntary action from everyone involved before anything actually happens.

Labor regulations impose an arbitrary standard of fairness on millions of people with different wants, needs, and standards. What's fair to one worker may not be to another, and with the freedom of contract, that's okay. Every worker can seek a job where the standards and conditions fit with what they personally are looking for.

There's a common fear that if these standards were removed, some companies would take advantage of their newfound freedom and abuse workers with deplorable conditions, hours, and pay. This fear ignores the crucial motivator; self-interest. Henry Ford famously payed his employees the (at the time) exorbitant wage of $5 a day, far more than anyone else was offering. His reasoning was simple. The more he pays, the more likely he is to both attract and maintain the highest skilled workers for his factories.

Nobody forced Ford to pay a higher wage. He benefitted, and so did his workers. Self interest motivates businesses to keep working conditions at a place their employees want. If they start to fall, the workers will seek employment elsewhere. Even if they would rather cut corners on safety and wages, their own desire to stay in business and make a profit forces them to keep things at an acceptable level.

Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations that "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest." He demonstrates with this example that self interest is an incredibly powerful guiding force that ultimately tends to yield socially beneficial outcomes. This is why freedom of contract works. Regulations simply get in the way.

The First to Go: Five Republicans Who Won't Make it to 2016

There are currently seventeen people vying for the Republican Presidential nomination. That may not seem like much, but compared to the five Democrats, it appears chaotic. Chances are good that many will drop out before ever seeing a primary. Of course, it's too early to say anything for sure. A lot can change in the six months before the elections actually start. That said, here are five candidates whose campaigns likely won't see 2016.

Rick Santorum is the poor man's Mike Huckabee, with half the likeability, a quarter of the charisma, and a tenth of the charm. His brief rise in 2012 was a combination of shrewd delegate strategy and being the most widely palatable "Not-Romney" still standing and was not indicative of any strength in his candidacy. After a dismal performance in the JV debates, and a sputtering campaign that's losing the evangelicals to Huckabee, Santorum won't be around much longer.

I legitimately had no idea who Jim Gilmore was until the day of the first debate, and I follow politics pretty closely. The former governor of Virginia who also apparently ran in 2008, Gilmore has possibly the lowest name ID of anyone running. Though that can change overnight (as Carly Fiorina's recent rise demonstrates), there's nothing that stands out about Gilmore to warrant his continued presence in the field.

Lindsey Graham is distinguished only by his single-minded and rabid war hawk stance, and is probably only running to try to drag foreign policy to the most invasive and militaristic place he can. Well, that and his seething hatred for fellow Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, whom he has clashed with frequently over the past several years. Most Republicans, in the primary season at least, are happy enough to beat the war drum on their own without Graham's urging. 

George Pataki, the former governor of New York, is essentially the same as Jim Gilmore, except he feels justified in swinging around 9/11 whenever he wants. In the same sense that Santorum is a poor man's Huckabee, Pataki is just the slightly slimmer version of Chris Christie. Like Gilmore, he brings nothing new to the table, and lacks the requisite charm and charisma to stick it out for another six months.

Rick Perry, another failed candidate from the last round famous for his live implosion on-air, is back again for some inexplicable reason. Perhaps buying into the belief that it's easier to get the nomination the second time around (just look at John McCain and Mitt Romney), he's back again, changing absolutely nothing from four years ago. He may be one of the first to go, as he's already stopped paying his staff in the early primary state of South Carolina.

To survive in this early primary season, candidates need money, strong grassroots support, or both. These five men have neither. 

Bernie Sanders' Agenda for America: 12 Steps Backwards Part 2

Senator Bernie Sanders' policy proposal, the "Agenda for America", is billed as 12 Steps Forward. In it, he details his proposed economic reforms. The proposal covers the standard run of social democrat talking points: more government growth, more intrusion into markets, and more onerous regulations.

This is a continuation of an item-by-item rebuttal of the Agenda for America (You can find Part 1 here)

7. Trade Policies that Benefit American Workers

Sanders continues his assault on the free market by attacking various free (or at least free-ish) trade policies such as NAFTA, which he dubs "disastrous". He is more explicit in his condemnation of free trade policies here. For Sanders, the issue is simple. American manufacturing jobs are "moving overseas" and this must be stopped at all costs.

Again, Sanders falls prey to yet another economic fallacy: economic nationalism (or, at the very least, an anti-foreign bias). Sanders cites the 4.9 million manufacturing jobs lost with the growth of more manufacturing overseas, but he fails to note all the other jobs that were created in the same timeframe. Sanders is not alone in his constant reiteration that America, for some reason, NEEDS manufacturing jobs.

The reason that there are greater numbers of factories located outside of America is simple: they're cheaper. The cheaper it is to produce a good, the cheaper that good can be sold for. Sanders is in effect advocating for higher prices nationwide (which isn't ideal for the American working class he claims to represent). The whole point serves as a convenient condemnation of two of Sanders' greatest foes: corporations and foreigners.

8. Making College Affordable for All

Though this is nominally about higher education, Sanders elaborates that he thinks America needs a complete educational overhaul. He believes that not only college, but also "quality child care" should be made "affordable" for all. Presumably, he means to lower the direct cost to the consumer through heavy subsidies.

Forbes has an excellent write-up that details how subsidies actually raise the price of college. Sanders' proposal would be at best counterproductive, and at worse, a major contribution to the mountains of debt that many students already find themselves under. Even pushing that aside, to subsidize education on this scale would necessitate a tremendous amount of increased government spending, complicated tax incentives, and likely increased taxation.

But hey, it sounds nice, doesn't it? And isn't that what really counts?

9. Taking on Wall Street

By this, Sanders means to "break up" large financial institutions, as they are "too powerful" to be reformed. He blames them solely for the Great Recession, and implies that their power and lack of regulation is a danger to us all.

The second point is laughable. The financial sector of the economy is among the most highly regulated in the nation, subject to the jurisdiction of a plethora of financial regulators (at both the state and the federal level). I applaud Sanders for attempting to address cronyism, but he misses the mark here.

Moreover, Sanders fears these financial institutions for their size alone. Even if he didn't blame them for the financial crisis, he'd still want to break them up and regulate them purely for being too big for his liking. Never mind the fact that these large financial institutions behave in such a risky manner because they've been trained to. By that I mean, there is the expectation that the government will always step in to bail them out if things go too far. This creates a moral hazard problem, where the risk is decreased because it is being borne by an outside party (the government), so banks feel free to risk as much as they want.

As always, Sanders only sees one side of the issue, and ignores the federal government's role in the problems he crusades so strongly against.

10. Health Care as a Right for All

Rand Paul said this better than I ever will. Sanders believes that there ought to be rights that obligate people to receive certain things at the behest of the federal government, rather than the understanding that rights exist to restrict what the government can do against the individual.

11. Protecting the Most Vulnerable Americans

America is in debt. Trillions and trillions of dollars worth of debt. Unfunded mandates are programs the federal government is obligated to pay for (such as Social Security or Medicaid), but lacks the money in the coffers to address it. These unfunded mandates measure in the hundreds of trillions of dollars, far in excess of the already massive federal debt.

Sanders doesn't care about the looming debt crisis. Instead, he calls for massive expansions to these programs. The cost is irrelevant to him. He believes that the key to alleviating poverty is through the hands of the federal government.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson began the "War on Poverty", a series of legislative actions and social programs designed the end poverty in the United States. Fifty-one years later, poverty is still here. The only difference is the trillions of dollars spent trying to get rid of it. Poverty is not something that the federal government can ultimately vanquish.

An end to poverty comes from the millions of Americans working every day to create businesses, to expand wealth, and to invent new labor-saving technology. The market has freed more people from poverty than the government ever will.

12. Real Tax Reform

This is the crux of the matter. Sanders has so far outlined a massive spending program the likes have which have never been seen before in America. Trillions of dollars spent attempting to alleviate every perceived social ill that he can imagine, without a word of how to pay for it. Until now.

Sanders' idea of real tax reform toes his own party line: tax "the rich". As much as possible. Increase taxes on corporations, increase taxes on the wealthy, increase taxes all across the board.

Taxation has a negative effect on the creation of wealth. A progressive tax rate effectively punishes success. The more value you create, the more people you help, the better you do for your fellow man in an economy (as measured by your own wealth), the more the government takes away from you. Under this plan, enterprising young workers would pour out of the country. Businesses would flee to less restrictive regimes. Unemployment would rise. Growth would fall.

For Sanders, this would be justification of his whole plan. The corporations would be at fault, the foreign governments that offer less financially oppressive regimes would be at fault. Certainly not the federal government! All Sanders wants to do is help the people out.

Sanders may have the best of intentions with his ambitious "Agenda for America", but he would ultimately hurt workers, the economy, and the country more than he would help.

Bernie Sanders' Agenda for America: 12 Steps Backwards (Part 1)

Senator Bernie Sanders' policy proposal, the "Agenda for America", is billed as 12 Steps Forward. In it, he details his proposed economic reforms. The proposal covers the standard run of social democrat talking points: more government growth, more intrusion into markets, and more onerous regulations.

In going through each item individually, it's clear to see that the agenda is truly 12 steps backwards. Away from a free market, and away from the institutional foundation that is key to prosperity in America.

1. Rebuilding Our Crumbling Infrastructure

In Sanders' first proposal, his goal is twofold. First, to artificially create 13 million "decent paying" jobs, to be accomplished by the second goal of $1 trillion "investment" in infrastructure. To start out with, that is a staggering amount of taxpayer money to be spending on anything. Moreover, his use of the catch-all term "infrastucture" is dubious, as it includes not only roads and bridges, but also schools and waste water plants.

While infrastructure repair may be necessary for the future, Sanders' proposed spending levels are outrageous. Moreover, part of the justification for this massive sum is to "create jobs". One of the most enduring economic fallacies in America today is that the government can, in fact, create jobs. The workers in this proposed infrastructure plan would be paid by the federal government, which in turn can only get funds through taxation or borrowing.

Either way, that money has to be diverted from other uses in order to be used by the government. While it is true that these 13 million people would have jobs (however temporarily), it's also true that those trillion dollars could have been used to potentially create more or better jobs, groundbreaking technological advancements, or a whole host of other things. None of that will come to fruition, however, because the money was taxed away to be spent on something else.

2. Reversing Climate Change

Next, Sanders proposes sweeping subsides to "sustainable energies" among other environmental pet projects. The entire project reeks of cronyism (which Sanders purports to be against) by picking winners and losers in the energy market.

Alternative energies are famously expensive and comparatively inefficient. Diverting more tax dollars in the form of subsidies would indeed "create good paying jobs", as Sanders claims, but only for those in the alternative energy space. What about the lost jobs in coal and oil? What about the more expensive power and heat for Americans across the country? Sanders is silent on this, but these concerns are likely beneath his lofty goal of an American-led climate change reversal.

3. Creating Worker Co-ops

This marks the first appearance of Sanders' economic nationalism, where he proposes "new economic models", such as a co-operative, in order to counter corporations who "send jobs to China". I actually agree with part of his outrage (over the massive targeted tax breaks given to said corporations), but  Sanders doesn't seem to oppose cronyism in general, just for the stuff he doesn't like.

His solution is to "provide assistance" from the government in order to restructure business as worker owned co-operatives, wherein workers invest in and own the business, and collectively make democratic business decisions. Can you imagine the chaos of just a mid-sized company making every decision democratically? There would be an immense time cost in just the administration of such an affair, and it would result in more time bogged down in democratic meetings and less time actually working. Far from increasing job creation and productivity, the plan would easily flounder in a loss of productivity.

There are indeed situations where worker owned co-ops may make economic sense, but pushing for it at a national level would be a failure.

4. Growing the Trade Union Movement

Currently, union membership in the United States is at 11.1%, a .2% fall from the year prior. Sanders believes that it is only through collective bargaining and union membership that workers will be able to get higher wages and benefits. While it is true that union members, on average, have higher wage increases than non-union workers, there's more to the story. To begin, the more expensive it is to employ a worker, the less workers will be employed. In other words, unions can often lead to less jobs, not more.

Unions are in general a benefit to workers in them, but not necessarily always. In many workplaces (particularly, in states without a Right to Work law), workers are compelled to pay union dues (even if they deny association with the union). A portion of these dues are channeled into the political arm of these unions, who in turn funnel to the money to politicians like...Bernie Sanders.

Indeed, in many states, union membership is a condition of employment, regardless of what the individual worker wants. Though Sanders does not target Right to Work laws (at least, not here), it's clear that he remains on the side of Big Labor.

5. Raising the Minimum Wage

In one of his more widely accepted proposals, Sanders calls for an increased minimum wage. Though not cited here, he supports a $15 per hour national minimum wage. Approximately 3.3 million Americans (roughly 1% of the nation) currently earn at or below the minimum wage. And roughly 42% of American workers earn under his proposed minimum of $15 per hour. Isn't this a good thing? Shouldn't we want people to make mroe money?

The push for a higher minimum wage (for the benefit of workers) is largely counterproductive. The recent strikes specifically from fast-food workers to earn $15 per hour have led to increased automation in fast-food restaurants, again resulting in less employment, not more. It's economic lunacy to assume that you can double the cost of labor with no negative consequences on employment. Businesses don't have a massive store of money with which they can fund such huge increases in labor costs. The best solution, then, is to eliminate the need for labor as much as possible with greater capital investment.

Even if it weren't for that, businesses simply can't afford to continue employing the same amount of people at a doubled wage. There would be lay-offs and even greater unemployment as a result.

Sanders focuses on the fact that most can't survive on a minimum wage job alone. Jobs that pay the minimum wage are primarily for unskilled workers, who are happy to have a job at all. Raising the minimum wage essentially builds a massive barrier to entry for these unskilled workers into the labor market, where it simply isn't worth it to hire them.

While Sanders pushes this plan so that nobody who works full time "should live in poverty", it will simply make even more people live in poverty with greater unemployment.

6. Pay Equity for Women Workers

Continuing his pandering to his base, Sanders next proposes complete pay equity, that is, "equal pay for equal work". He's addressing the alleged wage gap that exists between perfectly equal men and women working the same job, and cites that women only earn 78% of what men earn.

At face value, this assertion already shouldn't hold much water. To begin, businesses could save a tremendous amount of money by solely employing women (which doesn't happen). The wage gap exists for many reasons, but blind discrimination isn't one of them.

First off, there's the problem of aggregation. To compile this statistic, the Census Bureau just compares male annual earnings to female, again, in aggregate. This ignores the fact that men and women tend to make different choices in the field of work they go into. In general, more men than women go into high-earning jobs, and vice versa. This is not an issue of mass societal discrimination, it's simply a matter of choice.

Another key cause of the gap is that women, moreso than men, tend to leave the workforce to raise children or after marriage. Men also tend to work in more higher-risk jobs (like fishing and logging), which again means more pay.

Apparently for Sanders, none of that matters, and he feels free to continue propogating the myth of the discrimination wage gap.

(You can find Part 2 here)

Donald Trump

Donald Trump's campaign matters. Not because he has a serious or credible candidacy, not because he's even remotely qualified to be President, and not because he has the slightest idea of what he's doing. Trump's campaign matters because of what it means for the Republican Party as a whole.

At first glance, his popular support is staggering. It becomes easier to understand once you take a look at his campaign strategy, which stands in stark contrast to the rest of the field. Simply put, Trump relies on saying as many outlandish things as he can (which he all but confirmed with his rant against political correctness at the recent debate) to get as much media buzz as possible.

That said, there's a method to his madness. A lot of his polling strength is from name recognition and his constant presence in the media, but not all of it. Donald Trump's outbursts, rants, and diatribes are all engineered perfectly to appeal to the extremes of the Republican Party.

Trump represents the crackpot Republicans. He was one of the loudest voices in the "birther" controversy several years back (which he's still sticking to), and is undoubtedly coming out strongest on immigration policy. There are some Republicans upset with the attempts by the party to pivot to a more palatable policy, and Donald Trump is the most boisterous opponent to these attempts.

Donald Trump is the worst parts of the Republican Party rolled into one person, and mulitplied tenfold. He is loud, wholly uncompromising, and unwilling to reason or change in any way. His debate performance was half incoherent ramblings, and half mindless pandering rhetoric. When asked about his past disparaging comments towards women by Megyn Kelly, he dodged the question and turned into a cheap shot at Rosie O'Donnell and was rewarded with wild laughter and applause.

Trump isn't winning right now because of his ideas. He's not winning because of what he believes, what he plans to do, or who he is. He's winning because his bombastic rhetoric is connecting with voters in a way that nobody else's is. Trump doesn't play safe. He barrels forward with no regard to the future. He's riding his wave of popularity and hoping it doesn't crest too soon.

Most voters will move on from Trump eventually. Republican Presidential Primaries have a long history of flavor-of-the-month candidates rising for a short time, confusing it for long-lasting support, and bowing out before they ever really started. This year will be no different.

Grassroots

Conventional wisdom holds that in order to win an election, you need money. A lot of money. In 2012, it cost an average of $1.6 million to get elected to the House of Representatives, and over $10 million to take a Senate seat. The amount of fundraising that has to be done in politics is mind-blowing.

There are two main sources of funding for political campaigns. The first is the easiest: self-funding. Candidates seeking office can simply loan as much of their own money as they like to their campaign committee. The second is campaign contributions from individuals, corporations, or political action committees (PACs).

In 2014, the Republican establishment relied heavily on money to win their targeted elections. In many cases, their strategy proved successful. There were a few instances, however, where it failed. The money was still there. The support structure from the establishment and the Chamber of Commerce was still there. What was different?

Grassroots support was the key factor to victory in elections where the favored (and heavily backed) candidate lost. One such victory was Congressman Justin Amash's victory over Chamber backed primary challenger Brian Ellis, whose campaign cited "overwhelming grassroots support" as the prime mover in victory.

It's a mistake to assume that enough money can guarantee a victory, even in a Presidential election. There has been much snickering over Rand Paul's low fundraising totals (he raised $7 million in the second quarter), especially compared to some of his more well-funded opponents. Paul may not have as much money, but he does have massive grassroots support.

Polls don't mean everything, especially this far away from the actual election. Rand Paul is building the slow burn of a Presidential campaign, deliberately but surely. He has rabidly enthusiastic support among many young liberty-minded Republicans (especially online), and has packed campaign events across the country. Voter turnout matters, and Paul's partisans will definitely show up on election day. Compared to some candidates like Rick Santorum, whose Iowa campaign stop in July had just one voter, Paul is in a very good position. People want to hear what he has to say, and they like it.

PACs may have the money, but they don't vote.

The First GOP Debate: Thoughts and Analysis

The first debate was pretty much what it was expected to be. Ten men fought over the same three identities: the outsider and or rebel (Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Ben Carson), the smiling governor who vomits out statistics to "prove their record" (Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker, John Kasich), and whatever Marco Rubio was trying to do.

The same ten men also fought over three policy positions: the same nebulous "true Reagan conservative" that Republicans have been ardently pursuing for the past thirty years, Rand Paul's libertarian-ish alternative (which shone especially bright on privacy, civil liberties, and foreign policy), and the absolute insanity of Donald Trump.

Considering most of the people on stage were pushing the same message, the talking times for the debate were unfairly distributed. Rand Paul, the most unique voice on stage, got the least speaking time. He arguably had the best exchange of the night with Chris Christie over metadata collection, privacy, and national security. While Christie trotted out the party line (citing 9/11 to justify ignoring the Bill of Rights fourteen years after the fact), Paul presented a fiery and passionate defense of the Fourth Amendment, which Christie called "a ridiculous answer".

Rand Paul performed admirably given the time constraints he faced. I imagine he will get a slight bump in the polls.

Ted Cruz remains the most polished rhetorician on stage, and had more charisma than half of the field put together. He continually tried to bridge the gap between his perceived "rebel" image and his actual campaign platform (a whole lotta war), and will probably get a slight bump in the polls.

My feelings on Ted Cruz in a nutshell.

John Kasich was bland, at best. I imagine the stadium was packed with whatever local supporters his campaign could trot out, explaining his few and minor cheeers (largely for talking about how cool Ohio is). He will probably fall in the polls.

Marco Rubio occupied a unique point in the debate, which worked to his advantage. Unlike fellow Senators Cruz and Paul, he's not trying to portray himself as a rebel. He's more of a moderate, bland but somewhat engaging to the point that people will at least pay attention. He also avoided the over-use of numbers and statistics (unlike the governors), which played to his advantage. He will probably get a slight bump.

I honestly forgot that Mike Huckabee was running until tonight, but the crowd seemed to like him well enough. He'll play the role of Santorum in 2012 (ultimately doomed evangelical). Based on the debate, I think he ran solely to blather on about the Fair Tax for the next five months. He'll probably slightly drop and hold fairly steady.

Scott Walker held himself decently, but didn't really differentiate himself on policy. He reminds me a lot of Tim Pawlenty in 2011, the "aw-shucks" Midwestern governor who is crushingly normal, which Walker kept insisting he was. He'll probably hold steady.

Jeb Bush was surprisingly solid. Granted, he was lying through his teeth about his record and his stance on issues such as Common Core, but his remarks were clearly well-rehearsed. He'll probably get a slight bump.

Chris Christie's campaign imploded on stage. He insisted on clinging to citing innumerable facts and figures about his record in New Jersey, to his own detriment. His heated exchange with Rand Paul made him come off as a reactionary fool, still using 9/11 as political fuel to advance whatever he thinks will "protect" America. I expect him to drop out of the top ten within a few weeks.

Ben Carson has the most roundabout way of speaking of anybody I've ever seen on a debate stage. He seems to have a tenuous (at best) grasp on most issues, and toes the party line. However, he toes the line in the most rambling way possible, so I couldn't really tell where he was going with anything he was saying. He also insists on introducing his "proportional" tax plan with a lengthy justification as it being "God's tax plan", which I still don't fully understand. Somehow, the crowd liked him. He'll probably hold steady.

Donald Trump, the current frontrunner, was like a drunken conductor driving a train off of a bridge. I couldn't look away. This is the first time I've ever really seen him talk for an extended period of time, and he was either insane or moderately drunk while on stage. He starts off by already threatening a third-party run (and is called out immediately by Paul), and then cites word of mouth from a border agent as proof for his outrageous claim that the Mexican government is deliberately sending criminals to America.

Everything Trump said was incomprehensible, at best, and crazy at worst. The crowd was fairly divided between constantly appluading and constantly booing him every time he spoke. I'd be shocked if he didn't fall in the next round of polling.

And we have to sit through ten more of these things.

First (Real) GOP Debate LIVE

Some slightly more in-depth than Twitter thoughts during the debate.

• Donald Trump has continued his long-standing tradition of outlandish and insane statements. The crowd was strongly divided between constantly booing and applauding. 
• Chris Christie's strategy seems to be vomiting up as many statistics as possibly and hoping they sound impressive.
• I'm actually impressed so far with the quality of the questions coming from the moderators. Theyr'e fairly hard hitting. More so than I thought they would be, at least.
• So far, Rand Paul has only spoken twice. Coincidence? I think not. 
• Marco Rubio so far has made the most coherent statement about the problems of immigration policy, but like everybody else doesn't actually detail any reforms. 
• Ted Cruz desperately trying to bridge the gap between his "rebel" image and his "reasonable conservative" image, like some kind of weird hybrid between Scott Walker and Rand Paul. 
• The exchange between Christie and Paul lit the stage on fire. Christie relied almost entirely on emotional arguments (based on 9/11) to try to justify violating the Fourth Amendment, while Paul set up a fiery defense of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
• Everyone is jumping over themselves to change the subject to whatever quip they thought of the day before (looking at you, Scott Walker). 
• Jeb Bush can't seem to get out of the shadow of Common Core, no matter how much he tries to slip out of it. 
• Ben Carson continues to push a flat tax, but spends 45 seconds introducing it under the pretext of it being "God's tax plan" for some mysterious reason. 
• It genuinely frightens me that everyone cheering for Donald Trump can vote. 
• I wonder if fifty years from now Republicans will still blindly cite Ronald Reagan as a justification for anything they do. 
• This stage needs about five less people on it. 
• Ben Carson has the most long-winded answers of any person I've ever seen in a debate.
  

I give up. I'll summarize something later. 

The Economic Illiteracy of Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders, the feisty Independent Senator from Vermont, is challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Originally seen as little more than a token resistance, Sanders has continually drawn crowds numbering in the thousands, and his fair share of media attention. 

A Monmouth University Poll (August 5) shows that he is still well behind the frontrunner, Clinton, but comfortably ahead of the rest of the meager Democratic field.

Sanders is tapping into the anti-establishment sentiment sweeping across the nation, blaming "establishment politics" for the woes of the country. This outsider spirit, youth appeal, and distrust towards the status quo have caused some to dub him "the Ron Paul of the left". Indeed, many young left-libertarians are applauding his stances on money in politics and crony capitalism, and deservedly so. However, this only captures a small part of his campaign platform.

From the beginning, Bernie Sanders' campaign has been about economic issues. He favors economic reforms such as a $15 per hour national minimum wage, an end to all free trade agreements, and economic redistribution (calling our current system "rigged"). For every one thing he gets right (such as his opposition to the Export-Import Bank), he gets five things dead wrong.

Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist, and his campaign rhetoric revolves around not only the political establishment, but what he calls the oligarchy. The oligarchy is the power structure of big business and government that allegedly colludes to conspire against the average American. To an extent, he's right about the disease. Crony capitalism, government-private partnerships, or whatever other intrusions of the state into economic affairs there may be are indeed one of the biggest problems facing America today.

However, his cure is worse than the ailment. Sanders consistently advocates for MORE government intrusion into the market, not less. He wants more regulation, less freedom of trade, and less freedom of labor. While some of his proposed reforms may indeed weaken big business, he completely misses the point.

Commerical interests have a tendency to use the coercive apparatus of the government to restrict competition, increase their own market share, and lobby for regulations that benefit their own specific niche in the economy, rather than the market as a whole. Sanders sees this and decries big business. He glosses over the fact that the only reason business interests are able to do this is through the coercive apparatus of the government! The centralized, bureaurcratic, constantly growing government is the source of the problem.

In his quest to purge the country of inequality, Sanders also chooses the most ridiculous topics to attack. He has claimed that we have too many choices of deodorant and sneakers while children go hungry. He advocates for a minimum wage of $15 per hour while simultaneously pushing for full employment, and pays his interns less than his lofty minimum wage.

Bernie Sanders has consistently displayed a massive economic illiteracy. Even with the few things he gets right, his abysmal economic policy prescriptions make him the absolute wrong choice for President. 

A Culture of Escapism

"Sex sells".

Sure, but that's only part of the story. Sex does sell, but it's not in the way you might think.

The above ad isn't effective because of the airbrushed models lounging in the tub. It works because most look at this and picture themselves lounging with the model in the tub. Sex isn't the main draw. It's the fantasy that sells. Escapism sells.

Escapism springs from a dissatisfcation with one's current situation. Does this mean that most people are actually unhappy? Happiness is a difficult thing to measure. Are you happier than you were yesterday? How much happier? What about two months ago? Contentment with life varies almost imperceptibly from day to day, or even minute to minute. It's a complicated state of mind that may not be able to be perfectly expressed at all.

That said, what is the significance of a 2013 Harris Poll claiming that only one in three Americans are "very happy"? Regardless of whether or not happiness can even be measured in a survey such as this, it reveals that, at the very least, Americans widely perceive themselves to be unhappy. The survey confirms this, finding that 67% of those surveyed claiming optimism for the future, down from 75% in 2011.

This is not a solely a modern phenomenon, though. The appeal to escapism has been a part of civilization since the beginning. What makes a modern escapist culture different?

The answer is simple. The world is more connected today than it has ever been. The onset of globalization and new, faster forms of communication (such as cell phones and the internet) has made it easier than ever before to compare life experiences.

Dissatisfaction has grown precisely because we are now able to compare our lives with more people, more easily. The bodybuilder on Facebook, the jet-setting lawyer on Twitter, or the high school relationship drama that plays out daily on Instagram. We now see a constant highlight reel of the best parts of everyone's lives, and perceived inadequacy sets in.

Technological advancements also conveniently provide the solution to the problem. Modern gadgets like the Oculus Rift along with more immersive visual effects in both television and film make it easier than ever to fall into a new reality. 

More and more people are growing dissatisfied with what reality has to offer, and they're making their own instead.

Forty Years of Rainbow

On this day, forty years ago, Rainbow (then stylized as Ritchie Blackmore's Rainbow) released its first album; Ritchie Blackmore's Rainbow. Featuring a young Ronnie James Dio, recruited by Ritchie Blackmore himself, the album marked Ritchie's exit from Deep Purple, of which he was a founding member.

Blackmore began to feel dissatisfied in Deep Purple by the Stormbringer (1974) album, and conflicted with other members (notably the lead singer, David Coverdale) on musical direction. saying "Most of the band was going towards funk and shoeshine music and I wanted to get back to rock."

The catalyst for what supposed to be only be a single (which later turned into this same album) was the rejection of Blackmore's proposal to cover the Quatermaas song "Black Sheep of the Family". Fortunately, Ritchie found a like-minded singer in Ronnie James Dio. Elf, which he was fronting at the time, had toured with and opened for Deep Purple for several years. Ronnie, along with Craig Gruber (Bass), Gary Driscoll (drums), and Mickey Lee Soule (keys), from Elf teamed up with Blackmore to cover the song. The partnership that began with a simple cover soon blossomed into three albums, and helped springboard Dio to Black Sabbath, and later, Dio.

Anthropolist Sam Dunn produced an eleven part documentary series about the history and evolution of metal, dubbed "Metal Evolution". In the episode "Early Metal Part 2: UK Divison", he traces the influence of proto-metal hard rock bands Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, and Deep Purple. However, by the mid-seventies, these bands has lost some of their spark and much of their classic, heavy sound.

Enter Rainbow. Dunn credits Blackmore with "reigniting" the spirit of heavy metal at a time when it was on the decline. Not only did Blackmore's Rainbow keep metal alive, they also brought in many aspects of metal that persist today.

Ritchie, at the time, was obsessed with classical and baroque music, and sought to incorporate the themes and styles of classical music with rock. The result was the birth of a new sub-genre of metal: neoclassical, which remains to this day. In addition, the lyrics of Rainbow were filled with fantasy and medieval imagery, couresty of Ronnie James Dio, which would also stand as a lasting theme of modern metal.

The album still stands up as a masterpiece today, forty years later.

Thoughts on Voters First Presidential Forum

The first quasi-debate for the increasingly crowded Republican field was held today. Some stray thoughts.

• Many candidates struggled to differentiate themselves sufficiently from the rest of the field. Whether it was Chris Christie trying to outhawk Lindsey Graham, or every governor trying to cement themselves as THE fiscal hawk, most of the candidates blended together into a homogeneous mass. 
• Those that did manage to separate themselves in some meaningful way from the pack saw the most success of the night. Rand Paul's emphasis on privacy (and a decidedly more dove approach to foreign policy than anyone else on the stage) and Scott Walker's focus on labor reform are two examples. 
• Many in the GOP field (such as Rick Perry or Rick Santorum) remain nominally dedicated to government restraint and economic growth, but advocate policies directly opposed to these goals, such as a series of complicated economic incentives with the purpose of revitalizing American manufacturing, or dramatically expanding American military presence overseas. 
• Most of the candidates didn't have a particularly polished stage presence, but had instead focused on memorizing statistics and being able to vomit them out as quickly as possible. 
• It was interesting to see many issues that Rand Paul originally championed coming to the discussion, namely criminal justice reform and the drug war.
• Based on tonight's performance, I would rank George Pataki, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich in the bottom three. None of the three seemed to connect well with the audience and frequently got lost in the weeds of their own discussion points. 

A real debate is coming up on August 6, and is sure to be much more chaotic than tonight's relatively ordered affair. 

Voters First Presidential Forum: LIVE

It's that magical time of year again: the Presidential Primary. Where my blood pressure spikes and I love/hate my life. Today, starting at 7:00 PM, we have the first vaguely debate-like thing. The Voters First Presidential Forum. Yeehaw.

6:55 PM - This college is pretty nice.
6:56 PM - I wonder why New Hampshire doesn't move their primary to before the Iowa Caucuses, then they could get even more unwarranted attention
6:57 PM - They're really adamant about this no applause thing.
6:59 PM - Rick Perry is wearing the most garish tie I have ever seen. And he keeps licking his lips.
7:00 PM - Am I crazy or are half the candidates not there? And no, I don't mean Trump and Huckabee.
7:01 PM - I feel bad for everyone just standing there, staring at the crowd, with nothing to do.
7:02 PM - I love that Rubio, Cruz, and Paul are off in their little satellite room, like they're in a time out.
7:03 PM - Oh sure, I'm sure it was drawn "randomly". Whatever you say, buddy.
People still care about immigration? This ought to be good.
7:04 PM - Rick Perry is up first. I feel like he got a speaking coach, I can actually understand what he's saying now, unlike the last time around.
7:05 PM - I think Rick Perry just came out in support of drone-defended borders.
7:06 PM - Rick Perry comparing visas to UPS, refuses to take stance on them.
7:07 PM - How does an economy have a "2% GDP"? Somehow Rick Perry made an economic question about education reform. "Regulations that drive the income tax down?"
7:08 PM - Rick Santorum rambling about "support" versus subsidies.
7:09 PM - He has now come out in support of higher taxes than Rand Paul, for some reason.
7:11 PM - The only way to create jobs, according to Santorum, is targeted tax breaks and increased manufacturing.
7:12 PM - Rick Santorum takes a parting blow at Mitt Romney. Four years too late.
7:13 PM - John Kasich comes out softer on immigration reform than both Perry and Santorum. Not firebranding it up.
7:14 PM - Kasich comes out in favor of a balanced budget, cites role in Ohio.
7:16 PM - Oh, and he also wrote the entire budget. Six times.
7:17 PM - Graham plans to "push back" against China, unfair trade practices. Comes out EXTREMELY hawkish, no surprise there.
7:18 PM - Wants to fight radical Islam with "whatever it takes" (Including trillions of dollars?)
7:19 PM - We're still riding on Reagan, apparently.
7:20 PM - He sees threats, everywhere. Needs more troops (despite America having more than anyone else in the world.)
7:21 PM - Chris Christie has lost a lot of weight. And gained a lot of war featheres.
7:22 PM - Christie comes out in support of raising the retirement age, advocates having "a plan"
7:23 PM - I think Christie wants to end the VA.
7:24 PM - I think I just see dollar signs pouring out of Christie's mouth every time he speaks.
Sees solution to drug war as more treatment, not an end to mandatory minimums.
7:25 PM - Ben Carson is sixth. I originally said fifth, but that's only because I forgot about Kasich.
7:26 PM - He sounds like he's constantly out of breath.
7:27 PM - He's mostly telling stories without any kind of policy proposals.
7:28 PM - And mostly entirely talking about health care. First laugh of the night by calling bureaucrats stupid.
7:29 PM - Comes out against Planned Parenthood funding.
7:30 PM - Cites God in his tax plan. Jeb Bush pops up.
7:31 PM - Jeb Bush currently trying to out-hawk Lindsey Graham, says America is not safe because of "tweets". Cites support for "strategy".
7:32 PM - Jeb Bush thinks engaging with the world solely involves air and military power.
7:33 PM - 2% growth is "anemic" according to Bush. Need "secure world" to grow economy, which can obviously only be accomplished through overseas adventurism.
7:34 PM - Heh, Bush just got cut the heck off. Carly Fiorina is up, advocates preserving the "status crow"
7:36 PM - I'm pretty sure she's just copying some weird combination of Jeb Bush and Rick Perry. Advocates spending less money, than proposes spending more money.
7:38 PM - First Hillary Clinton character slam of the night. Is it sexist they waited for another woman?
7:39 PM - Bobby Jindal comes out against hyphens, credits Bernie Sanders for coming out as socialist, claims that Clinton and Obama are "just as bad".
7:40 PM - Comes out in support of "doing".
7:41 PM - Unlike some opponents, is a fan of "math".
7:42 PM - Supports arming troops as well.
7:44 PM - Scott Walker supports balanced plan between economy, environmental issues.
7:46 PM - Tax plan doesn't involve cutting taxes, but "putting them back" to the states.
7:47 PM - Focuses on his strength in education and labor reform.
7:48 PM - Seriously, does anyone else not remember who George Pataki is?
7:49 PM - Cites "Obamacare" as a federal agency.
7:50 PM - Pulls a Santorum, supports an increase in American manufacturing.
7:51 PM - Claims we have the "best workforce" in the world, which is why there are much less manufacturing jobs in the country?
7:52 PM - Hot damn, someone I care about is talking. #StandWithRand
7:53 PM - Rand Paul correctly notes you can engage with the world in a way that doesn't involve bombs.

This is exhausting. I'm going to Twitter.

https://twitter.com/TylerGroenendal

The Limits of Polling

In the latest Quinnipiac poll, Donald Trump leads by 20 points. Four years ago, Rick Perry surged ahead in the polls, and stayed there for months, until he managed to forget his own platform on the debate stage. By October, Herman Cain began his surge in the polls, followed soon after by Newt Gingrich.

Perry, Cain, and Ginrich all failed to secure the nomination, even though early polling data suggested otherwise. They did not fail due to some outrageous gaffe or scandal, but rather due to flaws in their campaign strategies, platforms, and personalities that were already there to begin with.

Sudden shifts in polling data mean little to nothing early on. Right now, the earliest chance to earn delegates is the Iowa Caucuses, which would take place at the very earliest in January 2016. Five months is a long time in a presidential primary.

The reason Trump is surging in the polls is simple. He appeals strongly to low information voters, those who like someone who "tells it like it is" or has a bombastic rhetoric that grabs attention. Get a few talking heads to drop his name and show a few clips, and you can shore up support in a matter of weeks.

A fast rising flame is the first to fall. The campaign strategy of quick and dirty surges is significantly less effective than trying to build a genuine support base, a stable fundraising infrastructure, and a cohesive long-term strategy at a national level.

Donald Trump is a man of little substance, prone to outrageous and insane statements, and will likely drop out before ever reaching a primary.

Within a few months, there will be a second Donald Trump: someone who dramatically rises in the polls due to a slight shift in public opinion. It will continue happening up until the primaries actually start, and it will be just as meaningless.

Music and Individualism

Every person that has ever lived was an individual. Everyone alive today is primarily an individual. They are themselves, and not another.

A sense of assurance in the self is crucial to the identity that individuals forge for themselves. At the same time, most seek to define themselves as individuals who are members of some group. These groups can either be a factor of one's birth (societal standing, race), or more often, some group or organization they choose to join based on their own interests.

In the modern era, musical tastes and preferences have taken on an increasing importance to individual identity. The explosion of new genres and the further splintering into increasingly specific subgenres has made identification my musical niche remarkably easy.

The truly fascinating thing is that music is used as an instrument to express individuality, even though it is by its very nature a mass experience. All artists want their work to be experienced by many, not just a lone person who "really gets" their entire catalog.

Opinions of musical aesthetics are often the most passionate and divisive of any art, precisely because many feel a strong emotional attachment to whatever their tastes are. The personal attachment derives itself from the idea that music is an expression and a component of individuality.

All artistic endeavours have a uniquely emotional effect on the human psyche, but music is the most common. Individualism can be expressed even in groups, even through self-segregation and identification.

Individualism is more complicated than a solitary man on an island, needing and seeking nobody else.