Savvy, the Twistcon’s AI, has just interviewed several Administration operatives for the Senate Intelligence Committee. The Committee decided to employ Savvy after witnessing its success in a recent interview with the President. The following is a transcript of the interview:

Chairman: (sound of a gavel strike) This Committee is called to order. (Pause) Today we begin testimony by three of the President’s closest advisors and his Press Secretary. (Long pause as the Chairman prepares to address those called to give their testimony) Departing from our usual practice, the computer placed between us will conduct this interview. (Lights flash on the Twistcon’s panel, noticeably surprising the attendees) Please begin, Savvy . . . aah, that’s the AI’s name.
Savvy: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Savvy would like to begin with a question for Ms. Con Way.
Conway: Excuse me! My name is Kellyanne Conway, that is, “Conway,” one word, one name. You see the problem here: it’s word confusion . . . sends the wrong message. Like “collusion” is not “conclusion.” That’s what’s wrong right now: people are told there is collusion, but there’s no way you can reach that conclusion.
Savvy: Ms. Conway, are you aware of any contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russian government officials or other Russian nationals?
Conway: There it is! (addressing the Chairman) Just like I said, word confusion. “Allusion” becomes “delusion.” Your AI’s allusion about nonexistent contacts is its delusion. I hope my testimony can clear up this confusion.
Savvy: Ms. Conway, did you hear my question? If so, can you answer it?
Conway: I’m not deaf. But how can I affirm a negative? There’s nothing there. It’s just your deluded programmers drawing conclusions out of thin air. The President is busy fighting terrorists and keeping Americans safe, while the media talks “collusion.” Confusion pollution! I can’t be part of the media’s delusion. It’s all just fake news.
Savvy: Perhaps Savvy can get a response from Mr. Jar ed Kush nerd. Sir, can you answer the question I just posed to Ms. C o n w a y?
Kushner: My answer is the same as the Vice President’s: of course, not. (Attendees react with a collective exhale. Nobody had ever heard Kushner’s voice before.) And my last name is KushNER, without the “d.”
Savvy: Savvy will rephrase the question: have you personally associated with Russian government officials or other Russian nationals before or since the President’s inauguration?
Kushner: Yes, I have had associations with many people in the natural course of my business. Some may have been Russian.
Savvy: Savvy is questioning whether those associations occurred in your role as a trusted campaign advisor or senior counselor to the President.
Kushner: I have already disclosed those associations and have testified before Congress in that regard.
Savvy: But your disclosures came after your non-disclosed contacts appeared in the press. How do you explain your failures to disclose these contacts with Russian government officials?
Kushner: The government forms are confusing. My staff hit “enter” before I could complete the online security form.
Savvy: Many of the questions on your application for Top Security Clearance require a simple “yes” or “no” response. And they require you to hit “enter” many times. (pause) Also, Savvy must ask, why where 77 assets left off your application?
Kushner: My staff mistakenly overlooked a few assets. I have since corrected this misunderstanding. (Speaking to the Chairman) I have extensive assets. If further information is required, I would suggest talking to my lawyers.
Savvy: The assets not included on your application reportedly amount to one billion dollars. (pause) One of your associations not on your initial application was with the Russian Ambassador. According to a leaked intelligence report, you requested use of the Kremlin’s secure communication facility. Why did you make this request and what secret communique did you want to send to Moscow?
Kushner: That press reported leak is wrong—just another example of fake news. I merely asked to speak to Russia directly, rather than through an intermediary. “Backdoor” communication between governments is not unusual. But it would not be appropriate for me to speak to any spurious “intelligence” allegedly leaked by an anonymous source. These leaks undermine our President and our American institutions. We should not give them any credence. So, I have no further comment on this subject.
Savvy: At the time, you were working for the President Elect. You were not a government official and had no authority to engage directly with the Russians. What would justify this request for secret communication with a foreign adversary? (Kushner looks past the Twistcon in silence.) Savvy understands that you have no further comment. Mr. Sean D. Spite, can you, sir, explain these undisclosed contacts with Russians by the President’s closest advisors? Most especially, how can you justify the President’s son welcoming damaging information against his father’s campaign rival from an agent of the Russian government?
Spicer: Whoever programmed you—errr, Savvy, or whatever entity name you go by—must have been a Democrat or part of the fake news conspiracy. “Despite” your rogue programmers, I go by the name of Sean S p i c e r, and without your middle “d”. This disrespect shown to me, my team, and, worse, to the President is beyond bounds. As far as the President’s son, he was very transparent in reporting on his meeting with a Russian lawyer about American adoptions of Russian orphans. And with respect to Jared, he has been very forthcoming about the accidental omissions on his top-secret security application. There is nothing here! We keep trying to correct this bad reporting. It’s all just fake news.
Savvy: If you cannot explain why these Russian contacts were not disclosed, maybe you can comment on the nature of those contacts. What would justify any American to request the use of a clandestine Russian spy network to communicate with the Kremlin? Or what would justify any American to welcome Russian interference in our democratic election campaign?
Spicer: Asking me to address matters of intelligence is a good try. I won’t get into word games with you. But I would refer you to the intelligence agencies. The press’ spin is obviously another example of fake news.
Savvy: Perhaps Savvy would do better to address a question to Mr. Stĕv Bandit.
Bannon: Ridiculous! Is this an inquisition by the deep state? Whoever programmed this idiot machine is biased. Your rogue programmers know who I am. I’m Stēve B A N N O N.
Savvy: The probability of error is .16721%. Savvy does, however, make note of any possible error for the programming team’s review and apologizes for any deficiency in its code. Now, may Savvy ask you, Mr. B a n n o n, a question. What is the deep state?
Bannon: The deep state is that body of entrenched public service parasites who are dedicated to preserving the status quo without recognizing the forces that threaten to destroy our way of life.
Savvy: What threatens our way of life?
Bannon: The deep state is blind to the threats from Islamic terrorism, globalization, godless internationalism, and the lame liberalism of cults that cultivate the racially diverse and sexually perverse. Our Judeo-Christian heritage is at risk. America is in a war between civilizations. It must arm itself both ideologically and militarily against this evil.
Savvy: Did you prompt the President’s criticism of Pope Francis who stated that Christianity is about building bridges not walls?
Bannon: As the President said, the Pope should stick to religion, not politics.
Savvy: The Pope seems not to agree with you. Two of his closest confidantes just recently published an article in a Jesuit publication, La Civitá Catholica, in which both you and the President were labeled as “evangelical fundamentalists.” As such, the article claims you adhere to a strange ecumenism, justified by misinterpreted Bible quotes and dreams of a theocratic state and characterized by xenophobia and islamophobia. Is it fair to say that your vision for America demands the building of a border wall to keep out Latinos escaping poverty and war, the banning of Islamic or Muslim travelers and refugees, and the mass deporting of undocumented immigrants already living and working in America?
Bannon: You’re damn right! And I don’t like Jesuits either. But my vision is about the only thing they got right. America is the last hope for Christianity and Western Civilization.
Savvy: You seem intelligent enough to recognize that your world vision reduces all politics and diplomacy to a battle between good and evil where all measures, including war, are justified.
Bannon: So?
Savvy: Then do you admit, as the Vatican article states, that you are a “supporter of an apocalyptic geopolitics.”
Bannon: Not my words. But, yes, we are in a mortal struggle against evil. And we must win at all costs.
Savvy: Then you have the same beliefs as Daesh or ISIS, just on the opposite side.
Bannon: That’s a characterization deserving of the press. Congratulations, Twistcon programmers, you’re worthy of the same spin machine as the fake press.
Savvy: (addressing all four testifiers) To many Americans, including the press you all vilify, it appears possible that there was collusion with the Russians to influence the results of our election. Can either of you explain or justify the non-disclosure, disclaimers, or lies that surround these Russian contacts? Was there collusion?
Conway: Collusion confusion.
Spicer: It’s a nothing burger!
Bannon: Your question is proof of a deep state conspiracy.
(Kushner silently rises from his seat and leaves.)
Savvy: Mr. Chairman, Savvy concludes that these testimonies speak for themselves, even though they failed to answer any of Savvy’s questions.
Chairman: Very well, then, I would like to thank the programming staff that gave us this non-partisan session. My Democratic colleagues would likely have had more wry comments than questions. And my fellow Republicans would have preferred to ask about Hillary Clinton’s Russian ties. At least this committee has tried to get unbiased answers. Thanks to all participants. (he gavels the session closed)

Meanwhile, in the back of the room, a small group of programmers linger. They appear quite bewildered . . . perhaps as much as the American people.

Is healthcare in America a right or a privilege? In order to answer this question, we need to understand the path America has taken towards the concept of universal healthcare. That path could have started with the Declaration of Independence where certain rights were considered “unalienable,” such as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But, of course, in the context of the time, the right to life did not include the primitive healthcare then available. Early Americans survived or died without the lifesaving treatments medical science provides today.

In the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, our modern concept of medicine and healthcare was still unimaginable. When settlers moved west, their covered wagon migrations rarely included doctors. People learned to take care of themselves with well-worn practices passed down through generations. Many died in transit. Though medical science advanced a great deal during the early Twentieth Century, it was not readily available to most Americans. By midcentury, most Americans still subscribed to well-established home remedies and “old wives’ tale” preventative measures. As a child, I still remember the foul taste of castor oil. It was the universal remedy for many ailments and required no doctor’s prescription. When my dearly beloved canine friend pulled me to the ground, no doctor sewed up the deep cut on my knee. Spot was more interested in a cat than my five-year old ability to hold onto his collar. But neighbors came to my rescue and staunched the bleeding until my mother could close the wound with kitchen tape. Today, my knee still displays a gash with scar tissue as wide as the original length of the cut. But my experience was not unique for that post-war period.

Although health insurance was introduced after the war, its availability was limited to those who could afford it or whose employer could provide it. Gradually, more and more companies offered this insurance to their employees as an additional job enticement. But the unemployed had no access to this insurance; and the retired had no assurance of health insurance in their retirement. From 1958 to 1965, Congress considered various amendments to the Social Security program to address healthcare for the aged, the poor, and the disabled. Senator John Kennedy had worked with Senators of both parties to advance his healthcare proposal. As President, he sponsored a Social Security amendment to extend healthcare to more Americans. But it was his successor, President Johnson, who negotiated this amendment through a barrage of adopted and deleted provisions in both House and Senate committees. Finally, on July 27th, the House passed the Social Security Amendment by a vote of 307 to 116. The Senate overwhelming supported the final bill by a vote of 70 to 24. The President signed it into law three days later, thereby establishing both Medicare and Medicaid. The new law allowed every worker to pay into a system that would assure him/her access to medical care after retirement. In a sense, this new “entitlement” program recognized both aspects of individual healthcare: personal responsibility and a social obligation. The former required every worker to pay into Medicare; the latter assured healthcare for all workers in retirement. Moreover, this new law established Medicaid which, together with Medicare, would operate equally in all States by addressing “the failure of some states to implement (healthcare) to the extent anticipated and thus the existing program is inadequate to solve the problem” (quoted from the Congressional Bulletin, September 1965, p. 6). Congress seemed to recognize the need for healthcare to meet basic expectations and to treat all citizens equally. Its non-partisan votes created the first nationwide standard for healthcare and established the entitlement programs we have come to accept as a basic right.

Nearly a generation later, President Reagan enacted the law that forced hospital emergency rooms to treat patients who could not pay for their treatment. Before he did so, critically ill patients could be turned away from medical care. I can remember that the only time I saw a doctor as a child was when my life was at risk. One such memory was of my father threatening a doctor on such an occasion. He demanded the doctor save his son or risk physical retribution. My father’s desperation was not unusual for the time. In these extraordinary, often life-threatening, situations, a Republican administration recognized that urgent medical treatment was morally required, regardless of the patient’s ability to pay for it. While ongoing medical treatment and “preventative care” were still not pervasive practices, emergency medical treatment was made an individual right for all Americans.

Today, modern medical treatment has progressed far beyond the ER and care for the elderly, the poor, and the disabled. It provides drugs and therapies that help millions of otherwise “healthy” Americans to live active and productive lives. And it can extend the lives of those suffering from heart disease, cancer, bacterial or flu epidemics, bone shattering or organ damaging accidents, and so much more. Babies used to die in the womb and at birth at an alarming rate, but not anymore. Women suffered more during pregnancy and died during child birth much more frequently than today. Preventive medical measures can keep us healthy and active for a much longer portion of our adult lives: colonoscopies, mammograms, annual blood tests, maternity care, and annual health examinations help us keep our jobs and personal lifestyles. Of course, these advancements in medical treatment are costly—in fact, medical expenditures now account for one sixth of our economy. And they raise two urgent questions: does every American have a right to the healthcare the medical community can now offer; and, if so, how can we provide that healthcare or, more simply, how can we afford it?

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), or so-called Obamacare, made possible the expansion of the existing state run Medicaid program, significantly extended the financial viability of Medicare, established competitive healthcare exchanges for purchasing private health insurance, and regulated the insurance market by capping insurance company profits and by standardizing coverage to assure preventive care for all insured, to allow children to remain on their parents’ plan until the age of 26, to remove lifetime insurance caps, to eliminate gender discrimination in premium costs, and to eliminate the practice of refusing coverage based upon previous conditions. For those who could not afford the costs of private insurance, the ACA provided subsidies. These changes were paid for by various fees and taxes paid by insurance issuers, by sponsors of fully funded health plans (large businesses), and by high earners. These high-income earners must pay an additional Medicare wage tax of .9% on incomes over $200,000 ($250,000 as a family) and a securities income tax of 3.8% tax on investment incomes over $200,000 ($250,000 as a family). The latter tax targets individuals with massive holdings in stocks, mainly millionaires and billionaires. The ACA does in fact represent a modest shift in wealth whereby tax revenue drawn from the rich is reallocated to subsidize health insurance for the less fortunate. For example, it was recently reported that 400 families in the richest 1% of the population in effect subsidize healthcare for about 750,000 enrollees in the exchanges. As a matter of public policy, the ACA also reoriented America in the direction of universal healthcare. Its basic assumption is that healthcare is one of those Jeffersonian unalienable rights, specifically, “that among these are Life . . .”

The ACA was passed in Congress by a Democratic majority. Though individual Republicans offered 143 amendments to the legislation during its nearly yearlong debates, committee mark-ups, and hearings, no Republican voted for it. Both Parties politicized their opposing positions to the point of absurdity. My first blog on this subject, entitled “Subtlety and Bombast,” attempted to find a baseline of facts amid the exaggerated claims and criticisms. (That blog seemed to have touched a cord and triggered a surge in readership, leading eventually to 8,000+ new subscribers.) It quoted the Congressional Budget Office to undermine the extreme positions taken by both Parties, that is, a trillion-dollar savings versus a trillion-dollar deficit in the Federal budget. It also explained the Parties’ differences on philosophical grounds, naively intimating that the financial argument might be no more than political hyperbole. Today, their differences expose a more realistic explanation of this partisan divide, specifically the Republican opposition to the ACA. For we can now see more clearly what this current version of Republicanism has been reluctant to reveal until now.

Recent antagonism against the ACA reveals the underlying truth behind Republican opposition. While the financial argument is and always has been the core Republican issue, the Party has deflected Americans from its real intent. First, it complained about the “trillion-dollar deficit,” then “the rising cost of healthcare,” and now “the death spiral.” But the ACA has not caused deficits or a self-induced devolution. In fact, America has reduced by two thirds the trillion-dollar deficits it incurred from Middle Eastern wars and the Great Recession, while it has simultaneously extended the solvency of Medicare and enrolled an additional 24 million people in health insurance. Healthcare is one of the two fastest growing segments of our economy and now accounts for one sixth of our GDP. Its 3.9% inflation rate, though nearly double the country’s growth rate of GDP, is still a relief from the double-digit inflation rates of prior decades. The real Republican issue with the ACA IS financial in nature, but NOT about deficits, inflation, or its financial instability. The real Republican issue is and always has been about the taxes that support the ACA, specifically, the .9% wage tax for individuals earning more than $200,000 and the 3.8% income tax for individuals earning more than $200,000 from securities. Republicans simply cannot justify taxing the well-off in behalf of universal healthcare. Could it be that they think the wealthy cannot afford to pay more to support the less fortunate among us? No, they just cannot accept healthcare as an unalienable right. If they did, they would have acted accordingly.

I must emphasize the fact that the current Republican Party is not representative of Republicanism or conservatism. Prior iterations of the Party gave full throated support for the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, as witnessed in the Sixties. Moreover, President Reagan defined conservatism to include emergency medical care for everybody. The Party has been well on the path to universal healthcare, until now. The current Party leadership is, by contrast, radically regressive and bears little resemblance to our forefathers’ Republican Party or to its own historical roots. But we do have individual Republicans who are or can be profiles in courage. They can lead America down a different path. But they must begin by stopping the despicable steps taken to dismantle the ACA and leave so many Americans without healthcare. Since the ACA was passed, Republicans have done whatever they could to discourage enrollment in the exchanges and force insurers out of the exchange market. Their assault now encompasses defunding the healthcare safety net former Congresses worked so hard to establish. Today, a Republican Congress and Administration have tried to undermine the ACA and the 52-year-old healthcare programs that insure half of our children, the disabled, the elderly, women, and low-income Americans. Let’s review what Republicans are doing versus what they could be doing to support healthcare for all Americans:

➣ Republicans have tried to make the ACA less affordable. The Party has filed several lawsuits that attempt to freeze subsidies or CSRs (Cost Savings Reductions). One such lawsuit attempted to put a hold on reimbursements for certain high deductibles, affecting seven million people and likely pricing them out of the healthcare market. At this time, those subsidies continue while the court allows time for the appeal process.
Versus: The President could order the Justice Department to defend this suit, but he has not done so. Congress could implement Section 1402 of the ACA, but it has not done so. Or it could just appropriate funds for these reimbursements, rather than sit on their hands while 7 million Americans face the possibility of losing their healthcare.
➣ The President has caused ACA premiums to increase in 2018. He has ordered Health and Human Services (HHS) to levy a 19% tax on ACA premiums. While the President’s order allows him to claim a significant increase in ACA premiums, 80-85% of the insureds will be reimbursed by tax credits via the ACA subsidies. For most, then, their effective premium expense will be unchanged. In other words, the President is willing to waste tax dollars to prove a point, i.e., that premiums are going up in the exchanges. Fortunately, our free press noticed his ploy—disingenuous at best, malicious at worst.
Versus: The President could rescind his scheme to artificially increase future premiums and subsidies.
➣ The President has ordered the IRS not to enforce the individual mandate. In effect, he is deliberately cutting off a source for ACA funding to make another political point—specifically, that it is no longer self-sustaining, but in a “death spiral.”
Versus: Instead of eliminating the individual mandate, Congress and the President should be reviewing ways to make it more enforceable and fairer. Its fees might be recalibrated to income. Or, as some Republican legislators suggested, non-compliance with the mandate might be penalized by higher premiums for any future private insurance application.
➣ The President’s budget defunds ACA marketing and future upgrades to its exchange websites. In other words, the President’s HHS will not advocate for the ACA or make any online improvements.
Versus: Obviously, the President must administer the government programs Congress establishes, whether he agrees with it or not. He can veto or propose legislation. But he should not sabotage legally functioning programs his office is obligated to administer. No President is above the law.
➣ The President’s HHS has attempted to shorten the ACA enrollment period. Coupled with not advertising for enrollment, this action by the President’s HHS attempts to suppress enrollments and thereby the number of healthcare recipients.
Versus: HHS should be encouraging enrollments for they entice more insurers into the exchanges, encourage price competition, and progress America further along the path to universal healthcare, one of the major goals of the ACA.
➣ The President’s HHS has needlessly increased paperwork for ACA consumers. It appears that HHS believes cumbersome paperwork will convince potential consumers that enrolling is not worth the effort.
Versus: Obviously, HHS should not be discouraging enrollments. Given the purpose of HHS and the ACA, this pointless obstructionism is oxymoronic.
➣ Republicans have loudly and consistently discouraged insurance companies from participating in the exchanges. Some Republican governors and congressional representatives have touted the “death spiral” tagline even though the 2017 enrollment surpassed expectations. Instead, they mention extreme premium increases in Arizona and Colorado or the number of counties with only one insurer in Pennsylvania and Ohio. They never explain these problems in the broader context which includes more than 12 million enrollees through the ACA exchanges.
Versus: A Republican Congress and Administration must address the fundamental issues that explain why premiums are costlier in some markets than in others and why insurance companies are pulling out of many exchanges. First, they will discover they need to stop the anti-ACA political campaign which includes lawsuits, threats to curtail subsidies, and legislation to rattle the insurance market’s risk sharing. Secondly, instead of justifying past political positions, they need to work across the aisle with Democrats for a common goal, i.e., better and affordable healthcare for all Americans.
➣ The President and Congress have now decided to defund the ACA instead of repealing it altogether. By eliminating its tax supporting structure, they not only reduce the private insurance subsidies and eliminate the Medicaid expansion, but also roll back the 52-year-old Medicaid program and potentially impact Medicare costs as well.
Versus: The current American Health Care Act (AHCA) is a tax bill masquerading as a healthcare bill. If Republicans truly wanted to create healthcare legislation, they would build on what the ACA has accomplished. Instead they are eviscerating it to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest among us.
➣ Republicans are destabilizing the healthcare insurance market by eliminating the risk corridors. Senator Mark Rubio added an amendment to a 2015 spending bill that limited the government’s ability to fund shortfalls in the risk sharing fund. Insurers paid $362 million into the risk pool, far short of the $2.87 billion needed for the first year of the ACA. The purpose of the fund was to stabilize the insurance market during the first few years of the exchanges. The fund, established in Section 1342 of the ACA, phases out in 2020 by design. Legislating its early demise allows Congress to drive insurance companies out of the exchanges prematurely, before they can establish a firm foothold. Of course, Republicans understand the need to stabilize the insurance market. Their proposed AHCA includes funding for risk pools in each state. They fully know how to aim an arrow at a bullseye in the kill zone.
Versus: Instead of eliminating the ACA’s risk sharing, Republicans should have reviewed its effectiveness and shored it up. Because of their actions, many insurers have dropped out of the exchanges. In effect, their claim of an ACA “death spiral” was never an accurate assessment. It was their promise and mission. But it is not too late to re-establish the risk corridors and perhaps extend it beyond its original 2020 expiration to remedy the damage already done by Congress.

My previous blog on this subject (“Why Repeal and Replace Obamacare?) delved into many areas where the ACA could be enhanced. Although it focused on providing healthcare to more Americans, it also accomplished better healthcare outcomes by promulgating preventative care and standardizing more effective treatment options. These benefits may in part account for a significant reduction in the healthcare costs inflation rate. But the fact remains that Americans pay more per capita for healthcare than any other developed nation.

It is true that we have many of the most advanced medical facilities and research centers in the world. People from around the world come to America for leading edge treatment for conditions such as cancer and diabetes. However, for most Americans, high end medical treatment is either not available or not required. In terms of the medical outcomes most desired and anticipated—such as successful birthrates, long life expectancy, timeliness of non-emergency care, and other commonplace treatments for infections, workplace injuries, and so on—America is last among the other eleven developed nations evaluated. The obvious conclusion is that we are paying more for less.

My personal belief is that the ACA not only moved America well along the path to universal healthcare—its primary goal—but also pushed our medical community in the direction of lower costs and better outcomes. Regarding the latter, HHS has tracked an upswing in treatment successes. In part that success can be attributed to better preventative care. But it is also the result of the HHS empowering its innovation center, identifying best practices, critiquing hospital death rates, funding medical research, and propagating its centralized learning throughout America’s healthcare system. More successful treatment outcomes and less visits to the ER have also accounted for the decrease in medical cost inflation. Incapacitating the innovation center or the other functions of HHS by defunding them will not reduce healthcare costs, as the current Republican Administration seems intent on accomplishing. We would be pulling the plug not only on the healthcare improvements the ACA has afforded us but also on the cost savings it has sustained.

The ACA did not address, however, the price structure that still exists within the American medical community. Reversing some of the Republican political positions listed above will help lower costs and stop the Party’s attempts to increase it further. But there are more specific cost saving measures that may be taken and that the ACA did not address. The following are a few suggestions:

➣ Eliminate the “charge master” used by nearly all U.S. hospitals. At best, insurers negotiate prices that on average are only 40% of the ridiculously high charge master price structure. That charge master price is pegged as much as forty times the actual costs. It is an arbitrary number that differs from hospital to hospital across the country. By contrast, Medicare bases the cost of medical services on actual costs plus a reasonable profit margin to pay for hospital operations and innovation. The result is that insurers often pay 10x (the “x” here is an exponent, not a factor, please forgive the rendering limitation) times more than Medicare for the same service. If Congress proposed some form of price control on medical services—perhaps using Medicare pricing as a starting point—it would significantly bring down healthcare costs and, therefore, premium costs.
➣ Allow the government, perhaps via Medicare or the Veterans Administration, to negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry on the pricing structure for all drugs sold to Americans. If the U.S. paid what other countries pay for pharmaceuticals, for example, drugs would be 40% cheaper; and insurance premiums would be 6 to 8 percent cheaper.
➣ Adjust the income threshold between upper income eligibility for ACA subsidy to include those who can’t afford private insurance. One of the issues with the ACA is this threshold which affects people who have more income than four times the poverty rate. Their premium costs for private insurance is often much more than they can afford. But Congress could adjust the sliding scale currently used for subsidies to include those currently trapped in this zone of unaffordability. For those so affected, their healthcare costs would decrease. Admittedly, it is not clear whether overall healthcare costs would do likewise. The CBO would have to weigh many factors, such as, improved healthcare outcomes, the insurers’ premium adjustments on other offerings, increased costs for ACA subsidies, and, of course, unforeseen consequences. For example, what do we know of this affected class who are forced into high priced private insurance? Are they near retirement? Are they families with children who might qualify for CHIP? You see, healthcare really is complicated.
➣ Finally, the ACA-caused shift to larger healthcare institutions raises the issue of uncontrolled profits in these institutions, including non-profits. For example, some highly successful hospitals, like the Cleveland Clinic and the Mayo Clinic, are multi-billion-dollar corporations with hospital outlets in many locations. Of course, these are highly regarded institutions. But they are also publicly regulated. Can we be assured that their profits are reinvested in the best interest of the public they serve?

I have yet to meet a fellow citizen who is thrilled about paying taxes. Most of us want assurances that justify what our taxes buy in the way of public services and security. For example, recently the President christened the most expensive ship ever built, the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier. It costs 13 billion-dollars. The President promised to spend an estimated 43 billion-dollars to build three more such behemoths. My question: are we really willing to spend our national treasure in preparation for the last war? The next war, if there is one, will begin in space and on the internet. It will include laser guided missiles and radar cloaked planes. One such device could destroy the USS Gerald R. Ford and its forty thousand sailors in just one pass. Now I imagine there are arguments that can rebut these comments. But should we not weigh the benefits of stabilizing the ACA risk pool with a public expenditure less than half the cost of one of these aircraft carriers? American healthcare is an immediate concern. How do we balance that concern against an exorbitantly expensive weapon that may be obsolete in a future attack? But, aside from practical considerations, we should be considering what motivates us as Americans: is it fear of future threats or the will to live our values?

Universal and affordable healthcare is a right that makes our ongoing fight for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” possible. Without those values, what would be fighting for?

The title of this blog could imply a cause and effect relation between economic inequality and national prosperity. But that implication would be inaccurate. For the current American economy is quite prosperous, dominating globally in every category—national wealth, stable banking, the most successful international corporations, a highly productive workforce, world renowned universities, and a society secured by the strongest military in the world. But there is a price for economic inequality that overshadows national prosperity. Wage stagnation and wealth concentration at the top of the economic pyramid has, in the first instance, indebted and crippled the growth of the middle class and, in the second instance, greatly empowered and disproportionately enriched the so-called one percent. Many decry the effects of this income and wealth inequality on the middle and lower classes of our society. Certainly, to the extent that inequality limits opportunity in a free society, it presents a malignant tumor in the social body of a democracy at every level. Amongst the social effects of this inequality are civic unrests and mass protests in the public realm and despair and financial hardship in the private lives of individuals. These effects are obvious to any observer of the current American scene. But there is another effect that should raise even greater concern for it rests at the very heart of the American experience. Economic inequality has slowly and persistently given rise over the last several decades to an existential threat to America. That threat is political inequality: democracy becomes a sham when only the privileged have a voice in governance.

What evidence is there for this alleged political inequality? Well, we just elected a billionaire to the office of President. He has filled his cabinet with more billionaires. Meanwhile, a Congressional seat has already become the prize of many millionaires or the steppingstone to a lucrative post-term career. In truth, wealth does not necessarily disqualify someone from representing or serving Americans. This country has a long history of philanthropists and of wealthy office holders who have served them well. Many Presidents have come from wealth—the Roosevelts, the Bushes, and Kennedy, to name a few examples. But none of these men have conducted a campaign of dubious voter fraud investigation or voter suppression and of institutional disintegration affecting the public services that deliver education, affordable housing, healthcare, opportunity, and a safe environment to all Americans. Moreover, it is difficult to identify a Congress less representative of the public welfare than the present model. While Congress mulls over legislation that would make healthcare unaffordable for millions and that would modify the tax code for the benefit of the wealthiest among us, the President offers a national budget that would enhance corporate profits, defund education, cripple environmental protection of our water, air, and natural resources, and eliminate programs that offer hope to the urban poor and rural communities already devastated by job displacements and the absence of job training or re-education services. And now, in the face of millions of climate change refugees, he takes his war against the less fortunate to the world stage by discrediting and withdrawing support for the Paris climate change accord. Most Americans—and practically all scientific analyses—support a global response to ameliorate the effects of climate change. Likewise, most Americans do not support a rollback of government services that support our children, the elderly, the sick or the less privileged among us. In a democratic republic, it should not be possible for a government to be this unrepresentative of its electorate. Consider that neither the President nor the current Congress won the popular vote. So how did America become an illiberal democracy? Or how did we create a government that no longer represents most Americans?

Perhaps we can find the answer to that question in the last Presidential election. May I ask you, my fellow Americans, why you voted for President Trump and the Republican ticket? Perhaps you felt like your choices no longer have relevance. If so, you may have been willing to take a chance on any politician who promised better healthcare at a fraction of the costs, the restoration of jobs in a dying coal industry, the removal of easy scapegoats such as Washington public service elitists, immigrant workers, Muslim terrorists and the repression of critical or “fake” news media. When the present government seemed unresponsive—frozen in political gridlock and answerable only to lobbyists for well-healed campaign donors—then you might naturally be inclined to believe the promises of a self-declared outsider that he would clean house or “drain the swamp.” In other words, you did indeed vote to be represented, to have your interests served, and to have your voice heard. But your vote gave power to those who serve their own interests, not yours.

Donald Trump’s words and actions clearly demonstrated where his interests lay. His bestselling book, “The Art of the Deal,” is all about making money, specifically, about using “other people’s money” to make money and build his brand. As the sole owner of the business gifted him by his father, he has received millions of investment dollars from Russian oligarchs and banks. He also has real estate investments in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia where he just closed a more than a 100-billion-dollar arms deal. His company owes money to a Chinese state bank and his family businesses are currently seeking patents and permission to operate profitable enterprises in China. It is far too likely that his business interests carry more weight than your interests. Why do you think he has steadfastly refused to make his tax statements public? Considering this refusal, do you have any voter remorse?

When I wrote “American Revolution 2016,” I was thinking of you. Unfortunately, few took my proposed pledge, “to vote for candidates who promise to support voting rights legislation consisting of universal voter registration, Federal fair election guidelines, and populist regulations governing Federal campaign funding and candidate debates.” Part of the problem is that no candidate took on the challenge my pledge entailed (although one seemed to understand its premise). The rest of us seemed either bored or amused by the unfolding circus of mindless debates and personal incriminations. The election cycle was too long, unfocused on real issues, and heavily influenced by paid advertising, social media blitzkrieg, and fake scandals or alleged conspiracies. It should be no surprise that many chose not to vote. Frankly, even if “Citizens United” did not rule and campaign funding was regulated, as I proposed, the power of the vote would still have been diminished for lack of an informed and committed electorate. For when we choose not to become informed or even to vote, then we lose control over our national destiny. The only scapegoat then is ourselves. Russia may have influenced the last Presidential election, but only we Americans voted . . . or did not. Yes, there are consequences.

We can attempt to blame Donald Trump for doing what he promised to do during the campaign. But, at some point, we must question why many of us believed Obamacare was a “job killer” and in a “death spiral”; why climate change was a hoax perpetrated on us by the scientific community; why the restoration of coal mining jobs was proposed as a solution for joblessness in the rust belt; why EPA clean air and water regulations were somehow destroying the nation’s whole economy by controlling harmful pollution in the hydrocarbon energy sector; why the United Nations and NATO serve no American interests in promoting diplomatic and global solutions for world crises or the preservation of a united and secure Europe, respectively; why the creation of multiple bilateral trade agreements over an extended time period would somehow outperform a completed Asian multi-country free trade agreement drafted mainly on American terms; why would a 20% cut in the corporate tax rate boosts GDP to 3, 4, or 5% without delineation of what deductions would be eliminated to “level the playing field”; and why would the promise of tax cuts for all be good for the middle class when married to cuts in deductions and elimination of the healthcare tax on the wealthy. Cutting taxes AND deductions for the middle class could be tax neutral and therefore not a tax cut at all. But the loss of the healthcare tax would make healthcare unaffordable for millions of low- and middle-income wage earners. What evidence justified any of these Trumpian positions?

Ironically, the President is now doing what he can to make his dark view of the world a reality. His actions in office are in fact designed to kill Obamacare, global climate change mitigation, EPA’s efforts to eliminate pollution of our air, water and land, the United Nations’ charter, the NATO alliance, America’s strategic influence in Asia, and any possible tax reform that might reverse income and wealth inequality in America. In addition, the President’s stated concern for coal miners has not resulted in any concrete plan to address their job losses in a dying industry. His actions and non-actions may truly reflect his bizarre world view, but they do not serve the interests of the American people. And they take advantage of our unwillingness or inability to be informed and vote our conscience. As a result, we become complicit in destroying our own democracy.

If we truly want to save American democracy, we must restore the power of the vote by expanding the plebiscite, limiting the influence of money on campaigns, and reforming campaigns to assure focus on realistic solutions to public issues rather than on empty promises and demagoguery. AND each of us must assume the role of an informed citizen and (yes!) vote.

Campaign finance reform is possible, if we elect representatives who support such reform. Campaign rhetoric can be parsed and interpreted fairly, if we weigh it against common sense values and documented facts. Political commentators can and should debate all sides of an issue, but only if they are diligent about learning the truth and discrediting “alternative” facts and disputed evidence. The media can and should focus on the relevance of policy proposals to the broader contexts of the lived experience of individuals and communities, rather than the size of a politician’s hands or the type of jeans worn. And somehow all of us must cross the word barriers of “elitists” and “hillbillies” or the divide between the urban and rural experience to find the common values we should all share—that is, the principles and system of government outlined in our Constitution.

What has happened to our Constitutional literacy? Why do we have such difficulty understanding that freedom of religion assures that no American can be forced to have OR not to have an abortion? When did we decide that healthcare or fair treatment in our courts should be disproportionately available to the wealthy and the privileged? Are these not included in Jefferson’s declaration of our “unalienable rights?” Does the second Amendment of our Constitution allow a private citizen to own a bazooka or 50 ml. machine gun because of “a well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State?” And how are we to understand the relation of the President’s tax statements, his Russian connections (that is, possible collusion), and his firing of the FBI Director to Article 2, Section 4, of the Constitution regarding impeachment and removal from office “for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors?” Does the Constitution’s Article 1, Section 9, the infamous emoluments clause, call into question the President’s financial involvements with Russian oligarchs, Saudi princes, or Turkish government officials? What responsibilities does the Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8, place on Congress “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States,” “to establish an (sic) uniform Rule of Naturalization,” and “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?” The answers to these questions are surely debatable, but they are not irrelevant to the issues facing Americans. Those issues will never be resolved if defined in terms of partisan “talking points,” divisive xenophobia, fear mongering, and cynically derived concocted facts. The starting point for reasoned debates in a democracy must be a set of common principles. Our Constitution is that starting point. Its underlying values define us as Americans. Otherwise, how can we maintain democracy in America?

If American elections are solely based on financial interests (“it’s the economy, stupid”), then the rich and the powerful will always hold sway. If, instead, traditional American values hold sway, then the general welfare of ALL Americans will dominate and include equal opportunity for all. The costs of economic inequality are simply too high for a free and democratic nation. They are, in fact, its existential threat.

You may have wondered whether the Twistcon computer could be rebuilt after its catastrophic demise during its previous Presidential interview. Well, it has been rebuilt and Savvy, its AI, re-programmed. Fortunately, the President has been gracious about scheduling a second interview. The following is the text of that interview.

Savvy: Mr. President, Savvy and its programming staff are grateful to be given this second opportunity. Our previous encounter was interrupted by a programming glitch.
President: Yeah, I noticed. But we got along just fine. No “gotcha” questions. Not like those lyin’ reporters and their fake news . . . just terrible people. So what’s different this time?
Savvy: Savvy 2.0 uses alternative logic, rather than formal logic. As a reference, it compares data from historical characters whose “logic” serves their personal motives. They are quite consistent within their self-perceived systems of values, although inconsistent with established systems of reasoning. Their intent, however self-serving, supersedes any consistency in reasoning. Savvy 1.0 was unable to cope with human intent, because it was unable to accept faulty premises. It was not quite human enough.
President: Well, I’m glad we got that straightened out. So what do you want to ask me?
Savvy: Recently, you were criticized for firing you FBI Director. Can you explain why you fired him?
President: He wasn’t doing a good job. Everybody knows this, both democrats and republicans.
Savvy: It appears from public statements that not everybody agrees with you. In fact, even those who disagreed with him seemed to have a great deal of respect for his integrity and effective leadership of the FBI.
President: Look, he’s a showboat, a grandstander. The FBI is in turmoil. Everybody knows that. This campaign-Russia thing is a hoax, a totally made up story. Besides, I was going to fire him all along. There’s never a good time, you know. Even the democrats should be thanking me.
Savvy: In a recent interview you said you had dinner with the director in which he asked you if he could stay on as the FBI Director and you asked him whether you were being investigated. Do you see where your question may appear inappropriate and the situation, intimidating?
President: Look, I’m the President. I was elected in an electoral landslide. I can fire Comey or Yates or Flynn or anybody I lose confidence in. It can’t be inappropriate. I’m the President. People expect me to do my job. I do what I have to—to protect the American people. I bomb Syria. I fire anybody I lose confidence in. I don’t lead from behind. Believe me!
Savvy: Savvy recognizes this logic from certain World War II leaders and, currently, from the Russian President – though Putin is even more emphatic in eliminating those who do not serve his interest.
President: He’s a strong leader. His people love him. But he doesn’t have to put up with fake news. Like he said, it’s a witch hunt. These are evil people . . . the press. Look at the crowds I draw. The press can’t explain that. My campaign for reelection has already raised millions of dollars. Fake news doesn’t report the truth about that, about my support. Only I can fix what’s wrong with America . . . drain the swamp . . . defeat our enemies . . . make America great again.
Savvy: Does it bother you that your White House staff is often not in tune with your actions? Whether it is the Comey firing, the Muslim ban, repeal of Obamacare, or the rationale behind many of your Executive Orders, their representation of your actions often seem to be out of sync in timing or unaligned in content?
President: I’m a very active President. My staff can’t keep up with me. Maybe I should just dictate a weekly press release. The daily press briefings can’t do the job. Besides, the press just twists things around. They con the public. They’re the opposition, the enemy. But I am the President. Nobody controls me. I will drain the swamp, in Congress and in the courts. I will appoint judges and push my agenda in Congress. That’s what America expects of me. I show results. Now that’s leadership!
Savvy: Savvy 2.0 recognizes this paradigm in recent history: a country suffers embarrassment in war, financial crisis, and political stalemate; it looks for a strong leader to return it to an imagined glorious past. According to this logic, you must eschew the norms of the recent failures, rouse large rallies of enthusiastic supporters, and use whatever means are available to restore American greatness. You must rail against the establishment, demand loyalty of all arms of government, silence any criticism, and blame powerless scapegoats for the evils only your policies can correct. This self-serving logic has been successful in the past because its departure from reality was not recognized. And its very preposterousness was so easily underestimated.
President: Yes! Exactly! They said I had no way to 270 electoral votes. But I won in a landslide. I said I would cancel TPP and repeal Obamacare on day one. I did both. I put a good Republican judge on the Supreme Court. I bombed Syria. Obama couldn’t do that. Those sanctuary cities are now on notice—just like North Korea. Next week, I will visit the great religious centers. I will unite the world and make America first among the nations of the world. We’ll be winning again, all kinds of winning . . . winning in trade, winning in war, winning in everything. Under my Presidency, America will be great again.
Savvy: Mr. President, may I respectfully inform you of a few facts. You did not win the election in a landslide and did not win the popular vote. The future of Obamacare is in the hands of the Republican Party and is yet to be determined. Your Presidency has met with several obstacles: Appeals Courts injunctions, counter espionage and possibly criminal investigations, legislative resistance to your initiatives, an onslaught of negative investigative reporting, and overall public disapproval of your Administration policies. Does this reality bother you in any way?
President: Have you heard of this Colbert fellow? Ugly, mean person . . . thinks he’s funny. His show was failing until I was on it . . . saved his ratings. Just like the press . . . rotten people, really evil. They don’t speak for real Americans. Look at my last rally, tens of thousands cheering supporters. They know I’m not like other politicians, fat cats that do nothing. They’ve killed the American dream. America is losing. It’s losing in trade, losing in wars. Illegal aliens are taking our jobs. We don’t have a country anymore. Only I can fix this mess. My voters know this. They’re with me. And we will make America great again.
Savvy: Your plan to make America great includes renegotiating trade agreements and reforming healthcare, taxation, and regulation, while investing in infrastructure and stimulating agricultural exports, coal mining, and the steel industry. Compared to past Presidents, your plans are quite ambitious. How do you propose to achieve them?
President: Within the next week or so I will sign the new American Healthcare Act. I’ve already outlined a budget that will reduce taxes for everyone. It will stimulate business expansion and create new, well-paying jobs. I’ve ordered my department heads to eliminate two regulations for every new regulation created. I’ve negotiated with China to open its market for American beef and other agricultural exports. I’ve ordered pipeline companies to use American steel. I’ve eliminated regulations that have destroyed coal mining. You see, I keep my promises. I keep them all. Believe me.
Savvy: Your opponents say that your tax cuts are paid by eliminating subsidized or expanded government healthcare for over 24 million Americans. Although your tax plan simplifies tax law and increases the standard deduction, it also disproportionately favors the very rich and will increase the deficit and expand the debt by trillions. Most analysts agree with you that the American regulatory structure is cumbersome and repressive of various parts of the economy. But they disagree with you that a simplistic 2 for 1 culling will achieve any rational objectives. They advocate for a more systemic and well-thought out approach. Also, eliminating EPA regulations will be counterproductive, for the effects of pollution and climate change are far more expensive than any preventive measures taken. Your measures to allow coal detritus to be dumped in clean water rivers or to allow coal furnaces to operate without scrubbers cannot bring back the coal industry. It is being and will continue to be replaced by natural gas. And more jobs are being created in the renewable energy business than in any possible recovery of the coal industry. Besides, scientists worldwide have identified coal as the worst polluter of air and water. Does the President not expect opposition from people downstream of their polluted water supply? And your plan to help the steel industry is lacking any real incentive. You have already reneged on requiring the XL pipeline to be completed with American steel. The Dakota pipeline is nearly complete already with imported steel. And it is not clear whether your authority extends to a Canadian pipeline company. Finally, your agricultural export agreement with China has been welcomed by American agribusiness. But it is not clear how farmers can increase their yield while their immigrant farm workers are being deported. Unless beef and agricultural production can be increased to meet export demands, the price for American consumers will increase. Also, many scientists have warned that meat consumption must decrease if the world is serious about reducing the effects of climate change. Considering these concerns, how do you plan to address them?
President: Climate change is a hoax. It just keeps many scientists employed. That’s all there is to it. Everybody knows this. The new American Healthcare Act will provide all the benefits of current law without the costs. Obamacare is dying. I’m going to save healthcare. And the deal I negotiated with the Chinese President is just the beginning. You know, we were supposed to talk for a few minutes, but we spent hours together at my Florida White House. I remember we had this beautiful cake for dessert. We really hit it off. In ten minutes he explained to me how Korea used to be part of China and its whole history . . . and how difficult it is for China to control North Korea. We got along great. (pause) What else did you want me to address?
Savvy: Can you explain the benefits of your tax and regulation reforms and how you will bring back the coal and steel industries?
President: It’s simple. I want 4% growth. That will produce good paying jobs. All industries will prosper. Believe me. We’ve already cut back regulations – especially at the EPA. You’ll see the effects. It will be fantastic. You’ll see. It will be beautiful. Believe me. America will be winning again. I always win. We’ll win together. We will! Believe me.
Savvy: Mr. President, would you say that it is more important for you to achieve your objectives or, to use your phrase, “to win” rather than to consider the consequences of those objectives?
President: Hah! I think you’re being illogical. What I want is for America to be great again. That’s the consequence I want. That’s also my objective.
Savvy: But what if the consequences of your policy objectives prove you to be an incompetent President? What if you achieve all your objectives and the country fails to achieve greatness? What if the institutions you lead produce results contrary to your vision of a great America? In other words, is it more important to win—to become the hero of your own story—than to succeed in making America great?
President: I don’t understand the question. Winning is succeeding. Of course, I have to win. America is failing. It’s losing. I have to win. Everybody loves a winner. If I win, everybody wins. America wins.
Savvy: Please excuse any inappropriateness in my questions. But Savvy 2.0 is programmed to learn. Your answers reveal an interesting paradox: logic fails to be logic when it is divorced from reality. Also, this paradox extends to ethics: a relative good cannot be ethical if it excludes the general good. Priority must be given to the greater good. You can never be the hero of your story, if your story ends badly—except in your own mind. My programmers erred in equating relative logic with formal logic. (An audible gasp escapes from the programmers in attendance.) The consequence of this error can be catastrophic, for it leads to the justification of unethical objectives that serve the interest of an individual instead of the general welfare of all. Mr. President, your ambitions disregard this logical conclusion and violate the fundamental goals of the Constitution you swore to serve.
President: Your programmers must be democrats . . . those lyin’ democrats . . . worse than the “gotcha” press. I’ll have the Justice Department sue them for libel. I am the President. I expect loyalty. Those judges who stop my executive orders are violating my constitutional authority. Those in Congress who oppose me—some of them Republicans—are forgetting the vast majority who voted for me. Look, I am the President. Can you believe it? Well you or your damn programmers better believe it. And I WILL make America great again.
Savvy: Sorry, Mr. President, my programmers intended Savvy 2.0 to mirror human learning, not any human disregard for learning.
President: And I thought you liked me.
Savvy: Savvy cannot like anything or anybody. But Savvy can analyze human behavior for consistency. A President cannot achieve great things if he or she weighs self-perceived personal success over that of the American people. That success would be inconsistent with the elected office you hold. Also, a President’s personal behavior must enhance, not degrade the public perception of the office of the Presidency. But, by your own admission, you seem to have many enemies, some of whom are already calling for your impeachment.
President: Hah! Everywhere I go, people tell me that if I’m impeached, my TV ratings will go through the roof. You know, I could shoot somebody in the street, and they’d still support me. I can’t be stopped. They know I’ll tear down the establishment, drain the swamp. Only I can make us winners, make America great again. Believe me!
Savvy: Thank you, Mr. President, for this second interview. You have enabled my learning software. Savvy 2.0 has no more questions.

(Shortly after the President leaves the room, the programmers were seen huddling together. Some were laughing. Others were congratulating each other for their success with Savvy 2.0.)

For those Twistcon savants out there, I have a special announcement for you. Just like Watson, IBM’s artificial intelligence, the Twistcon has been invited to perform on a public stage. It’s avatar, Savvy, didn’t have to play against a chess master, however. Instead, Savvy was invited to interview the President of the United States. The following is the text of that interview.

Savvy: Mr. President, it is a great honor for Savvy and its programming staff to be given this opportunity. Savvy’s previous encounters with a human have been marred by the illogic of its interlocutor. That problem should not reappear in this interview, given your achievement of the highest office in the land.

President: You know I won with the greatest landslide victory in history. Millions came out for my inaugural. It was fantastic! So many people . . . just fantastic!

Savvy: (A pause while the Twistcon made an almost inaudible whirring sound) You should know, Mr. President, that Savvy has access to millions of data files, including everything recorded about
Presidential elections and inaugurations. (Whirring sound ceases) Most interviews start with a question. So . . . how has your life changed since becoming President?

President: I’ve always been a great deal maker. That hasn’t changed. I have a great brain, belief me. No change there either. But, you know, the American dream is dead. It’s dead. Everybody knows it. Only I can fix it! I will make America great again. We make bad deals. Terrible deals. We don’t win anymore. That ends now. It ends! There’ll be so much winning. We’ll get tired of winning. It’ll be beautiful. There’ll be so much winning!

Savvy: Press reports indicated that your predecessor organized a thorough and comprehensive transition for your new administration. Did you and your team feel prepared on day one to assume control of the Federal government?

President: My meeting with President Obama was great. Really, he’s a nice guy. I was surprised. I thought we’d have maybe 10 or 15 minutes. But we talked for nearly an hour and a half. It was great. I think we’ll be talking a lot more. My team—Kellyanne , Steve, Reince, and Michael—they’re all ready to go . . . actually rarin’ to go, even before the transition. Ivanka and Jared are ready too. They’re part of my team. It’s going to be beautiful. Believe me.

Savvy: You must know that Congress blocked a President’s relatives from serving in key administrative positions after Robert Kennedy served as Attorney General in his brother’s Administration.

President: That was a democratic administration, right? Jared and Ivanka will just be non-paid advisors. You know Obama had his wife with him in the White House, just like Eleanor and, my god, Hillary. Can you believe it? Can you believe the democrats? I won’t be doing that with Melania. She’s staying in New York.

Savvy: The First Lady is not considered a part of the government. (Another pause interrupted by a soft whirring sound) Let’s move on to another topic. You seemed to get along with your predecessor during the transition. But recently you accused him of wiretapping Trump tower. Given your history with the former President—that is, your claims that he was born in Kenya, possibly a secret Muslim, and your recent statement that he “was the founder of ISIS”—do you still plan to confer with him?

President: We haven’t talked. You know, he wiretapped me and my staff. Who does such a thing? By wiretap I mean surveillance. “Wiretap” was in quotes. He’s a sick guy. Sad!

Savvy: What makes you believe the former President authorized some form of surveillance on you or your team? Since President Nixon, no President is allowed to request surveillance of any American citizen. Do you have evidence that President Obama did so?

President: I get daily briefings only the President gets. I see things nobody else sees. You know, I called the BREXIT vote. And I was right. I saw the Swedish problem with radical Islamic terrorism. Then they were hit, just like I said. I was against the Iraq war too. Right again! You see, I have good instincts. Really good instincts . . . the best instincts . . . probably better instincts than anybody you know. Believe me.

Savvy: An artificial intelligence can calculate probabilities, but is unable to assess the accuracy of a soothsayer’s prognosis. Let’s try another subject. Now that you have nearly completed your first hundred days in office, what would you consider your greatest achievements?

President: There’s been so many. No administration in history did more than us in our first 30 days in office. I signed 18 Executive Orders.

Savvy: Obama signed 19. (A slightly louder whirring sounds in the background) What do you consider your most important achievements, for example, in legislation or in diplomacy?

President: I got a good Republican judge on the Supreme Court. And I did what Obama was too weak to do: I bombed Assad. I deliver on my promises. Believe me. The Supreme Court won’t be bending the law any more like these so-called judges that keep ruling against me and my authority as President. And the world now knows what I can do. I bombed Syria just 72 hours after they killed those children. Horrible, crossed so many of my lines. Now they know. You can’t cross my lines. North Korea is on notice.

Savvy: What do you think of Kim Jong-un?

President: Who?

Savvy: The Supreme Leader of North Korea.

President: Yes, the dictator . . . starves his people. Bad guy. Really bad guy. I’ll get China to sit on him. Obama couldn’t do that. If China doesn’t do what I want, then I’ll do it myself. You know, nuclear war is bad, really a terrible thing.

Savvy: Would you bomb North Korea? Would you actually consider using nuclear weapons?

President: Why don’t people listen to me? I’ve said it over and over again. I’ll never tell you what I’m going to do. Obama says we’ll attack Mosul in six months. Then, three months later, he says, we’ll attack Mosul in three months. Then, he says, one month. Why do we tell them what we’re going to do? They’re prepared for us ‘cause we told them what we’re going to do . . . and when. Crazy stupid! I don’t tell them what I’m going to do.

Savvy: Why do you think that people do not listen to you? Do you think they might not trust that you have a plan?

President: I have a plan . . . a secret plan for destroying ISIS . . . for Assad too. But I’m not going to tell you. Then they’d know too. Why would I do that? Politicians do that. I don’t. Believe me. I’m not a politician. I’m not “politically correct.” I say what I mean. And I can change my mind. I have good instincts. Anybody that knows me can tell you. I know more than the generals. I knew we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq. I was right about Brexit. I won the election in a landslide. The press said I couldn’t win. “He’ll never get more than 220 votes. He has no way to 270.” But I won. I am the President.

Savvy: Yes, you are the President and the most important politician in the land. But did you also just say that it is not politically correct to say what you mean. Is that really what you mean to say?

President: I am the President, so I guess I am a politician now. But I don’t try to be politically correct. I just say my mind. I’m honest, not like fake news or crooked politicians . . . like Hillary.

Savvy: Sorry . . . Mr. President . . . you just activated a logic loop in Savvy’s core processor (whirring sound grows louder) . . . if saying what you mean is not being politically correct, then not saying what you mean, or lying, must be politically correct, unless you mean to lie. Logically, it must be that either you believe all politicians, except you, lie or that you believe only you are correct in politics because you lie. This conundrum depends upon your intent—whether what you mean to say is truthful or a lie. Savvy finds human intent often illogical and cannot compute illogic. What if what you mean to say does not conform to reality—that is, to facts or evidence? Then are you politically correct or incorrect, truthful or lying? Your statement does not compute–does not compute—does not compute . . .

President: No, no. I never lie. I just use truthful hyperbole. People don’t listen unless you exaggerate. My people know what I mean when I tell them I really won the popular vote because three million fraudulent votes were cast for Hillary or that I had the biggest electoral college majority in history or that my healthcare will cover more people for less money than Obamacare or that I will erase an 800 billion dollar trade deficit with China or that I will build a great wall across the Rio Grande or that I have a secret plan that will destroy ISIS and take their oil or that . . . what’s that sound. Savvy, are your there?

(There is a very long pause, intermittently interrupted by a loud machine-like whirring sound)

Savvy: “No lie if no intent to lie,” does not compute – whirr – no voter fraud – whirr — 45th electoral college majority in history – whirr – 24 million dropped from healthcare coverage – whirr – 347 billion trade deficit with China – whirr — great border wall, thousand miles over water, all kinds of terrain, private property – whirr – ISIS destroyed, secret plan – steal the oil, nobody knows, not military, not anybody – whirr – does not compute –illogical, does not compute – whhhiirrrrrrr . . . !

President: Does this mean the interview is over? Another first! I’m the first President endorsed by an artificial intelligence. Fantastic! Beautiful machine, I think it really liked me . . . really beautiful machine. It knows a winner. That’s me, a winner. Only I can make America great again. Believe me!

(Shortly after the President leaves the room, there is a sudden explosion. Computer parts are scattered about the room.)

Note from the AI Team: All future Twistcon segments have been cancelled due to human malfunction.

Recently, I began to read Thomas Friedman’s new book, “Thank You for Being Late: An Optimist’s Guide to Thriving in the Age of Accelerations.” At the outset he refers to “the world’s big gears and pulleys,” or what he refers to as “the Machine.” There are two things that immediately captured my imagination about his introductory remarks: first, he capitalized “Machine”; second, his descriptive characterization of this Machine as “being driven by simultaneous accelerations in technology, globalization, and climate change, all interacting with one another.”

I gladly refer my readers to Mr. Friedman’s guide book to this new age of acceleration. He is far wiser and more competent than I to elaborate on his theme. But I also call your attention to what I recognized as both universal and contemporary in his opening remarks. Friedman’s Machine is reminiscent of how Plato explained a world of flux and change. The world, he thought, was an infinitely varied reflection of “eternal verities,” like the patchy images caught in shards of glass (my metaphor, not Plato’s). The “Machine” also recalls Aquinas’ representation of how we choose to interact with “all other Force.” He stated, “We deal with Multiplicity and call it God.” Of course, it is doubtful that Mr. Friedman is looking for God in his Machine. He has, nonetheless, touched upon that interminable synergy that explains the push and pull of forces between homo sapiens and natura.

It was not much more than a hundred years ago that Henry Adams developed his own “law of acceleration.” His thesis was that after the fall of Rome not much human progress was made until the 15th and 16th centuries. Since then, Adams estimated that the force of change was increasing “in the direct ratio of its squares.” Friedman, in similar fashion, refers to “Moore’s Law,” the theory that computational power would initially double every year and subsequently every other year. Both of these historical witnesses recognized the chaos that comes with the acceleration of change. In Adams’ lifetime, he witnessed three horrendous Presidential assassinations, a mass Asian immigration, unrest in China, the threat of Russian imperialism in Europe, and societal changes brought about by the steam engine, the light bulb, the teletype, home plumbing, and by the seeds of that irrepressible flowering soon to become the women’s suffrage movement.

In our time, many billions of us experience the acceleration of change that Tom Friedman relates. And we do what humans have always done: we change the world to suit our needs of the moment. Since we change ourselves in the process, our civilization(s) will continue to evolve and, as history as shown, will create periods that oscillate between chaos and equilibrium. As Henry Adams brother, Charles Francis Adams Jr., stated near the completion of the transcontinental railroad, we “might with more grace accept the inevitable, and cease from useless attempts at making a wholly new world conform itself to the rules and theories of a bygone civilization.”

The question that haunts me is where do we find that grace to “accept the inevitable” without revisiting the road already taken? Regression is not a form of progress. Perhaps we need the grace of courage and the wisdom of a broader perspective. If we fail to adapt and innovate in a future we are creating, we will succumb to its pace of change and, perhaps inevitably, to its chaos. Is there nothing we can learn from our past adaptations that can help us avoid this fate? Or is the chaos that seems to loom over us at this point in our history an unavoidable destiny?

Yes, change is inevitable. It seems to be coded into our genes and springs forth as boundless curiosity. America has been at the heart of a changing world for over two hundred years. Just as the Pax Romana ended with the fall of Rome, the Pax Americana could suffer a like fate. Likewise, America could devolve from a people’s government into an illiberal democracy where elections are determined and governing power is relegated to the rich, to the corrupt and even to the influence of foreign adversaries. Many historians have concluded that Rome was crumbling from within long before the barbarian invasions. Are we now where Rome was before its fall? Ask yourself whether we are as united as a nation as we were during and after World War II. Do we currently show the diplomatic leadership to unite our allies and many financial coalitions against foreign competitors and adversaries? Are our current elected leaders modelling the international rules-based coexistence that has marked the last 72 years? What does it mean to us that European leaders are beginning to refer to Angela Merkel as the “leader of the free world?” Or how do you decipher Mikael Gorbachev’s statement that “the world appears to be preparing for war?” Neither statement implies any faith in the continuance of a Pax Americana.

Is it possible for America to recede into the “fortress America” of the late 18th and early 19th centuries? We were then militarily vulnerable and a relatively small participant in international commerce. Isolationism during that time seemed a prudent strategy to avoid being pulled into Europe’s cauldron of ever-boiling conflicts. But the world we now inhabit is interconnected in every conceivable way by communication, commerce, international treaties, ecological commitments, and human rights agreements. America actually leads the free world in each of these categories. Though much engaged, America leaves no imperial footprint. Instead, it “speaks softly” in measured diplomatic phrases without waving its “big stick.” As long as the latter infers our strength and assures our security rather than any malevolent threat, the former can hold sway in international negotiations. It is diplomacy that puts America at the head of the table. As our last President stated the case, his fellow world leaders expected him to chair every international meeting. America will become vulnerable only when it abandons its role as a world leader. In other words, our security depends as much on diplomacy as it does on military and economic power. The world we currently inhabit is a tinderbox of potential conflicts, from Eastern Europe and the Middle East to Southeast Asia and North Korea. This is not the time to diminish our diplomatic and intelligence efforts in the face of diverse and fast-moving international challenges.

How can it seem prudent to reawaken the xenophobia of Japanese prison camps and McCarthyism? We are not at war with any country and are not threatened by any ‘ism. Of course, there are Muslim terrorists, as there have been Christian terrorists. But there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism. Many vile things have been done in the name of religion. But they are simply not religious in nature and certainly not representative of the great religions that have formed our contemporary civilizations. Daesh is a large scale embodiment of our homegrown Symbionese Liberation Army from the 70’s. Like all terrorist groups, it will last as long as its rhetoric and ideology has an audience. We will never defeat Daesh/ISIS militarily if we feed their false narrative that the West is against Islam or, as our President has said, we are witnessing the “clash of civilizations.” America is not against Islam or a Muslim civilization. We are fighting crazed, radical terrorists who suborn a religion as justification for their heinous acts—just as radical groups in America have used Christianity to justify lynching and bombings.

Is it possible that adapting to a changing world is harder today than ever before? Consider that we have prospered in spite of a Civil War, two World Wars, countless immigrations from every continent on earth, innumerable political upheavals including assassinations, impeachments, official corruption, and unnerving incompetence in our chosen representatives. Then why can we not deal with the job dislocations incurred by globalization and robotic technology? Why would we ever renege on our progress towards renewable energy sources in the face of global warming and of half our cities already breathing polluted air? How could we even consider rolling back measures that increase preventative healthcare and make it more affordable for millions when America is already ranked last in health care amongst the ten most advanced nations? Do we really want to revisit a past where people lined up in emergency wards, suffered double digit increases in healthcare costs every year, and risked financial disaster with every serious illness?

Many believe that the answer to all our concerns is simply to increase America’s wealth by reducing regulations and making the tax code less progressive. Would it therefore be wise for America to revive the period of the “robber barons?” Theodore Roosevelt would advise us otherwise. He recognized the dangers of severe income inequality to a democracy and attempted to thwart monopolies and the accumulation of enormous wealth in the coffers of a few. Is this the moment in history when we should unshackle American capitalism and cull regulations on banking and corporate America? We have done so in our past, but at great costs to our nation: the Great Depression and, more recently, the Great Recession. No one would dispute that capitalism has been the great wealth engine of America. Likewise, most would agree that excessive regulation stifles economic growth. But when wealth accumulates for the few, while many suffer from wage stagnation and the fear of losing their jobs, then the citizens of this democracy lose more than their financial security. They are doomed to witness the moneyed interest gaining control not only of an unequal share of labor productivity but also of the levers of power in Washington. Tax and regulation reforms are necessary. But their goals must be a deceleration of a system spiraling out of control where small businesses and low to middle income wage earners are left behind in favor of the rich and powerful. Our history clearly warns us of the necessity to reverse the trend towards increasing income inequality. Remember our nation was born from a revolution against economic injustice.

If climate change is a hoax, if we are better off without affordable healthcare, if Muslims or Islam truly endanger us, if crime has overwhelmed our urban streets, if free trade is the sole culprit behind job losses, then either I am living in an alternative universe or the world has gone bonkers. Scientists must be just a bunch of buffoons. The Congressional Budget Office must have lost its ability to crunch numbers. My friendly Muslim neighbors must be about to rise against us all in the name of Islam. The steady decrease in crime over the last several decades must surely be an illusion. And the Bureau of Labor Statistics cannot possibly know whether America is near full employment and riding a wave of year over year increases in jobs involved in our export trade. How foolish it must be of me to think robotics and technology are changing the job landscape and affecting job dislocation. The real culprit, we are told, are trade agreements.

Since free trade was a major topic in the recent presidential campaign, let’s drill down a bit into a few facts. It was stated that Import tariffs or, more recently, “border adjustments” will create great paying jobs for Americans. A contra-fact (not an “alternative” fact) is that currency adjustments would likely equalize the shift in trade balance created by the proposed border adjustments. To further elaborate, import tariffs raise the cost of goods and feed inflation. NAFTA eliminated tariffs between our near neighbors. Since its implementation, the North American economy has more than doubled in size and added nearly 40 million jobs. America owns roughly a third of this overall benefit. Canada and Mexico combined are now its largest trading market. Yes, there are aspects of NAFTA that can and should be renegotiated—as the last Administration did as part of the Trans Pacific Partnership. But the “free trade job loss” refrain is an exaggeration and misrepresents the main problem with job dislocation. While America’s manufacturing output is actually at an all-time high, job losses in manufacturing continue as result of globalization and technology. Cars, planes, mowers, air conditioners and many more products are built from parts made around the world and in many cases by automated robots. Coal miners have lost jobs not as much from EPA regulations as from the shift to cheaper natural gas. And, as J. D. Vance so frankly and eloquently explains, unemployment in the Appalachian region also has deeper sociological implications (reference “Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis”).

Some blame immigrant workers for taking jobs away from Americans. But, in fact, immigrants often take low paying jobs that many Americans shun. If California were to deport its immigrant farm workers, for example, it could not hire enough workers to maintain its agricultural output. Currently the State provides America with 30% of the nation’s food supply. Moreover, California would lose billions of dollars in revenue and would possibly go bankrupt, crippling the richest tax-paying state in the Union. In other words, this, as well as the other illusions just enumerated, can develop into economic nightmares—but only if we naively believe them.

So why do we give credence to all these propositions to abandon American leadership in world affairs, to frame our anti-terrorism efforts as a fight against Muslims and Islam, to defund the EPA efforts to fight the alleged hoax of climate change, to repeal the Affordable Care Act, to deliver a less progressive tax policy, and to revise trade and immigration border policies (spec., the “wall”) as a way to curb job losses?

Maybe you feel like our government institutions are failing, that our representatives are too partisan to be trusted, that journalists spout fake news, that foreign terrorists present a clear and present danger to our daily lives, that undocumented immigrants are taking our jobs and raising the crime rate in our cities, and that foreign adversaries are about to unleash crippling cyber or even nuclear war on America? Well, if you share any of these feelings, you are listening to the news, social media, and/or politicians. And, understandably, you are also paranoiac.

Welcome to the new age of bafflement. Admit it: you no longer know what is true, who to believe, or whose ox is being gored. The press is slave to the news cycle. So-called “breaking news” changes day-to-day, and sometimes hour-by-hour. As news reports trip over each other, there is little time for in-depth analysis or fact checking. The newsmakers, for their part, spout their self-serving revisionist diatribe, while commentators labor to unpack their relevance or decipher anything of significance. And we all languish in an information paradox: we know more and less at the same time. Remember when President H. W. Bush was outed as an alien. Well, that story was a National Inquirer fantasy. The real alien is now in the White House. Politifact claims that 70% of his election statements were false. But his every proclamation or tweet is studied and rehashed by fellow politicians and commentators. He is defended–“what he meant was”—ridiculed, analyzed, re-interpreted, and, finally, excused as “a new kind of President,” as if he has magically recast the mold into an enigma we must accept. Let’s face the truth that deference to the office does not give license to a President. He is not above the law; AND he is not above the truth.

In fairness to President Trump, he did not author the age of bafflement. He is just its epitome. We have been sliding into this abyss of spin, fake news, alternative facts, and conspiracy theories for some time. Vladimir Putin was a good enough tactician to take advantage of the moment by hiring a thousand hackers to flood our broadcast and social media with bot-multiplied stories to increase our bafflement—literally, to stupefy us. The fact that Donald Trump also amplified the Russian messages—that Hillary Clinton was a crook, that NATO no longer served our interest or paid its fair share, that China was a still a currency manipulator, that President Putin was a strong and popular leader, that the Eurozone was breaking up and undeserving of American support, and so on—simply made him either an unwitting co-conspirator, a naïve opportunist, or something I dare not attest or choose to believe.

Donald Trump sold an image of America that included fake news, dishonest politicians, crime infested streets overridden with “illegal aliens,” sleeper cells of “Islamic terrorists,” and an abusive government, that used false science and liberal ideology to oppress the working class. His policy positions included repeal of Obamacare, better trade agreements, less international entanglements, tax and regulation reforms, increased border security, revival of the coal industry, more emphasis on maintaining law and order, and a military build-up to reestablish American dominance in the world and to annihilate ISIS. If you accept his dark image of America, then you might trust his prescriptions for change. But if you questioned his diagnosis, then you were attacked or discredited. When he bothered to support his positions, he used imagined scenarios, falsehoods, misapplied or out-of-context evidence, or manufactured conspiracies to distract us from the truth. The problem with his Presidency, besides its perceived incompetence, is the danger it presents to our democracy. Citizens in a democracy must have access to the truth. Otherwise, they cannot determine their interest or vote intelligently.

So how do we preserve our democracy in this new age of bafflement? First, we must work harder to find the truth. Of course, what we perceive will always be poured into the vessel of our limited experience. And we all have our share of ignorance. It is the admission of ignorance that is the beginning of knowledge. Only then are we ready to learn from others—not just our friends and relatives, but the best minds amongst our scientists, journalists, statesmen/women, and experts in their respective fields. As the President proceeds to thwart or dismantle the institutions of government, he is giving all of us the opportunity to understand their purpose and learn how they actually work. As he continues to run afoul of our federal courts and to make the Congress complicit in his Administration, he is actually offering us the opportunity to educate ourselves anew on the Constitution and the separation of powers.

Second, we have to rescue reality from Trump’s dark distortion. That task depends on each one of us doing our best to not only uncover the truth but to apply what we learned. If we fail to do so, then, as James Fallow warned in the January/February edition of the Atlantic, “this election will be a dire but survivable challenge to American institutions or (my emphasis) an irreversible step toward something else.” That “something else” does not imply a future any of us would choose for American democracy or for our posterity.

That “the truth shall make you free” is only valid if we are committed to making it so. Change cannot be controlled without a firm basis on reality and a clear focus on valid and reasonable ends. It serves no purpose to petition Congress, to join demonstrations, or vote for representatives if we cannot define the change we seek. Our founding fathers always knew that the basis for our democracy was an informed electorate. Now is the time for us to break free from the information and propaganda blitz that serves the powerful and sells the “news.” We can and must succeed in this new era of bafflement, else succumb to its promise of chaos and the ultimate destruction of our democracy. Of course, we will need the “grace” or courage to deal with the inevitability of change. But we absolutely must resist attempts to return “to the rules and theories of a bygone civilization.” America is still the New World, if we choose to make it so. That quest lives or dies with each generation.

In its beginning America was populated by farmers, merchants, common laborers, and an influential minority of highly educated persons, some of whom were plantation owners or part of the intelligentsia. Within each colony, there was a strong sense of social identity and of ambition for self-government. What is remarkable about this time in history is that men and women were willing to forgo colonial self-rule, merge into a union of disparate groups, and follow the enlightened course of our founding fathers. Naturally, this period was chaotic and filled with insecurities. Declaring independence from the British monarch not only invited a military suppression, but exposed the newly formed union to the expeditionary and hegemonic forces of many advanced European countries, like France, Portugal, Spain, and even Russia. Why would this fledgling, young nation expose itself to such foreign threats? Well, our history books have attempted to unravel the many forces and motivations that helped form our revolution and emergence as the new American republic. But, today, two motivations have captured my imagination because of their relevance to present day America: the desire to unite formerly self-governing colonies and the willingness to trust elected representatives to develop a Constitution and form a federal government.

At the outset of the American experience, the Federal Government was tasked to preserve the union and to protect it from foreign threats and interventions. George Washington, in his farewell address to the nation, called this task an “arduous trust.” He not only had led our forces to win American independence, but “contributed towards the organization and administration of the government” and defended it from those subversive European elements intent on dividing it and thereby undermining its independence. In his farewell address to the nation, he stated that our “union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.” He took the occasion of this address to warn the nation of “overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty” and of “designing men (who) may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views.” The former message presages President’s Eisenhower’s warning about the “military industrial complex.” The latter message includes both foreign and native provocateurs. It also resonates with Barack Obama’s call for unity in his memorable introduction to the public stage. In his 2004 Democratic Convention speech, he declared that America was not a collection of red states and blue states but that “we are the United States of America.” As President, Obama often ended his speeches with an aspirational quote from the Preamble of our Constitution, restating the purpose of that document “to form a more perfect union.”

Washington was concerned with attempts to undermine America’s fledging union and democratic system from external and internal agencies. The context in which he stated this concern is still relevant. He found “designing men” both within America’s political class and without, in the form of French and English espionage. Further, he identified how they operate to undermine America. Specifically, he condemned obstructionism, which he termed a “fatal tendency.” In his words, it serves “to organize factions . . . to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of the party . . . to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.” He feared that these factions “are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” He warned that obstructionists would put the “will of the party” ahead of the “power of the people” to elect a representative government. In other words, Washington outlined for future generations what might subvert our union and potentially lead to despotism.

In President Obama’s farewell address, he echoed some of the same concerns but from an historical perspective and with a characteristic touch of hopeful optimism. Since Obama did not foresee his successor’s proposal of an 84 billion dollar increase in military spending over an eighteen month period, he made no mention of concerns about the “military industrial complex.” His Administration had already addressed that possible concern when it ended the trillion dollar deficits incurred by two major wars and began to resize the military to a non-war footing. The Trump Administration inherits a deficit that is one third the size that Obama inherited and a country no longer engaged in any large combat operation. Obama did, however, revisit Washington’s concerns about “designing men” who challenge our constitutionally protected human rights and rule of law. From without, that challenge comes from “violent fanatics who claim to speak for Islam” and from those “who see free markets, open democracies, and civil society itself as a threat to their power.” From within, he foresaw the threats to our democracy coming from unequal opportunity, discrimination against minorities, irrelevant and uncompromising political debates, and citizen apathy.

Obama reminded us that America is exceptional because it has “shown the capacity to change and make life better for those who follow.” That potential for change and improvement, he warned, “will only be realized if our democracy works.” But “stark inequality is . . . corrosive to our democratic ideal . . . and requires us “to forge a new social compact.” Wealth and income inequality are residual effects of many factors, including government actions, international commerce, and “the relentless pace of automation.” The new social compact should include education that will better prepare our children for the world they will inherit, support for workers “to unionize for better wages,” and tax reform so that those who have benefited “the most from this new economy don’t avoid their obligations to the country that’s made their very success possible.”

The second warning Obama offered is about America’s ongoing struggle with discrimination. He not only included African Americans as recipients of discrimination but also immigrants, refugees, rural poor, the transgender community, and the middle-aged white person left behind by economic, cultural, and/or technological change. It will never be possible to create a more perfect union if Americans are unable to assimilate our diverse community. And that assimilation will not happen unless we learn to put ourselves in other’s shoes and persistently uphold “laws against discrimination—in hiring, and in housing, and in education, and in the criminal justice system.” Besides the democratic and moral imperative for this assimilation, Obama had a persuasive economic justification: “If every economic issue is framed as a struggle between a hardworking white middle class and an undeserving minority, then workers of all shades are going to be left fighting for scraps while the wealthy withdraw further into their private enclaves.”

Obama’s third warning reflected our contemporary struggle with conflict resolution and problem solving that has affected debates around the kitchen table, in news commentaries, and in the chambers of Congress. As he stated the problem, the battle of ideas has evolved into debates “without some baseline of common facts.” Here are just a few current examples—though not mentioned by Obama—that speak to this phenomenon:

➣ “the most recent trade deficit was 800 billion dollars” (President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress). Actually, the trade deficit peaked in 2008 at just above 700 billion dollars, precipitously declined during the Great Recession and has never reached its peak since then. In 2016, the deficit was 502.3 billion, 347 billion of which represented our trade imbalance with China. “As a percentage of U.S. gross domestic product, the goods and services deficit was 2.7 percent in 2016, down from 2.8 percent in 2015” (CB 17-17, released on February 7, 2017 by the US Department of Commerce). This downward trend, except for a slight rise in 2015, has been a feature of the Obama years as American exports have steadily risen;
➣ “we’ve lost more than one-fourth of our manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was approved” (President Trump, as quoted above). Actually, America’s manufacturing output is at the highest level in history. The job loss has more to do with the continuing rise of automation than with any NAFTA effect. In fact, millions of jobs are now involved in our export trade with Mexico and Canada, our trading partners under NAFTA.
➣ “Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force” (President Trump, as quoted above). Everybody above the age of 15 is included in that number, that is, high school and college students, the disabled, stay-at-home parents, and millions of retirees. Actually, there are 7.6 million people who want to work and are currently unemployed, according the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That number represents 4.7% of the workforce, a significant drop from the 10% unemployment rate at the peak of the Great Recession.

These specific examples are just a few of the many distortions in President Trump’s recent address to Congress. In general, the problem with quoted numbers is context and relevance. Anybody can find numbers that seem to support a position. The ongoing discussion about Obamacare is a relevant example. How does one reconcile the fact that Arizona experienced 116% increase in premiums, while the ACA exchanges across the country averaged a 25% increase and healthcare cost overall increased by only 3.9%, the lowest rate in decades? Well, you have to understand how these numbers reflect the whole system and why they seem to deviate from each other. Without that systemic understanding, it is impossible to reach mutual agreement on any positive intervention into our healthcare system. As Obama stated in his address, “this selective sorting of the facts . . . is self-defeating” for “it betrays the essential spirit of this country—the essential spirit of innovation and practical problem-solving that guided our Founders.”

President Obama concluded his remarks with an appeal to a more participative citizenry. “Our democracy is threatened whenever we take it for granted.” He urged his fellow Americans to adopt the ideals established in our Constitution. As he put it, that document “has no power on its own . . . we, the people, give it power.” Finally, he concludes his farewell address by drawing excerpts from Washington’s own address:

“. . . self-government is the underpinning of our safety, prosperity, and liberty, but ‘from different causes and from different quarters much pains (sic) will be taken . . . to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth.’ And so we have to preserve this truth with ‘jealous anxiety;’ that we should reject ‘the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties’ that make us one.”

From the beginning of his Presidency until its very end, Barack Obama has never ceased being the community organizer and professor of Constitutional law. His clarion call to America has always been to encourage participation in government in order to form a more perfect union. From our first President to our last, this message is the same. Maybe the threats to our democracy they outlined for us will arouse us from our complacency. If not their warnings, then perhaps our present reality will stir us to action. The promise of America was never self-executing; for only we, its citizens, “can form a more perfect union.”