Incalculable damage will occur over the next four years, and it will take my kids’ entire lifetimes for us to dig back out of the hole we’ve put ourselves in. Okay, we know that. So let’s be clear-eyed and look at the world that is. I…am weirdly hopeful.

Data on trends across the globe show that inflation was high everywhere in the wake of pandemic-driven supply chain disruptions. The same data shows that incumbent parties lost major voter shares everywhere, in every election, all year. At the same time, exit polls show that the Republican coalition did not actually change much from 2020 to 2024. Trump objectively wasn’t a stronger candidate than before. There wasn’t a weakness in the Democratic campaign. There wasn’t even a weakness in polling. The deck was just stacked — with conditions set up by an underlying global susceptibility to shocks, reverberating through our interconnected economy for four years and counting, all in a disinformation environment where the misinformed drove the election result. People were frustrated, and it’s not clear the Democrats could have beaten the anti-incumbent headwinds.

(This is not meant to excuse people who “just wanted to send a message on the economy” from the fact that they necessarily overlooked Trump’s disregard of laws, his demonstrated misunderstanding of our system of government, his bullying attitude, his personal immorality, his hostile bigotry, or his odious social stances. Maybe they did so out of ignorance, in which case they were irresponsible about voting; or maybe they did so on purpose, in which case they were, and are, malicious.)

But I think the Democratic strategy now — beyond the day-to-day labor of backstopping a tilt into autocracy — should be clear. Let’s assume the next administration enacts everything from the Project 2025 playbook. That stuff is intensely unpopular and will create more major economic shocks, not to mention the countless immoral cruelties. The “Day 1” promises made during this campaign are likely to lead to higher inflation, if not an outright recession. So the path is simple: from now to 2028, make Republicans own everything. Swing back into power after they overextend. Then, use the clean slate provided by Project 2025’s scouring of government to offer a progressive counterargument that actually addresses the conditions of the working and middle classes in this country.

This is not to say there won’t be hard fights between then and now. I fully expect Republican legislators in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin to put forward acts saying, “We are making an administrative change to how our state assigns Presidential Electors. They are now all awarded to the Republican candidate who receives the most votes.” We are in an extremely challenging disinformation environment, where most Americans’ news sources depend on the whims of the ultrarich across the globe. There will be difficult tactical threats, bigotry, and violence that the next administration will create on a day to day level, not to mention drastic economic hardships. I grieve for the freedom, values, and capabilities that we’ve just lost. I think others have written plenty about that — here are some of the essays I’ve found helpful, for one reason or another:

• Teri Kanefield on the connections between authoritarianism, the ability to grasp complexity, and the experience of Pinochet’s Chile
• Waging Nonviolence’s ways to mentally prepare for a coming autocratic administration
• A.R. Moxon on how an opposition to fascist rule must differentiate itself from the devil’s bargains the autocracy relies on

Given all that, let’s say the coming administration is just as bad as it announces it will be. People are going to hate it. So I see an opportunity. If they’re going to tear the house down, we can build it back up. Better.

Let’s see the progressive answer to Project 2025.

This will necessarily involve some flavor of restoring things back to normal. There will have to be some clawing back of lost fundamental rights. But, in the vacuum left by eliminating government departments and burning regulations, let’s see the case for progressive solutions to problems. This should be easy: when polled head-to-head, Democratic policies have been more popular than Republican policies for decades.

If they repeal Obamacare, kneecap Medicare and Medicaid, and leave a Wild West of predatory health care middleman companies, let’s see the plan for a new single-payer health system. We can look at every country that has such a system for ideas. They’re all better and cheaper than what we have now.

If they cut income, corporate, and capital gains taxes to benefit a New Gilded Age oligarchy, let’s see the plan to go back to a Reagan-era tax code, or even earlier — when America was the economic engine of the world. Evidently the economy didn’t suffer or lack for innovation when the top marginal income tax rate was 90%.

If they deregulate corporate activity, let’s see the case for vigorous antitrust enforcement.

If they collapse Social Security, food stamps, and other welfare programs, let’s see the plan to implement universal basic income. There are plenty of successful pilot programs out there now!

If they pump guns into our streets, let’s see a requirement for proof of liability insurance with every purchase of ammunition.

If they deport tens of millions of workers while pining about declining US population, let’s see a plan to make legal immigration easy, as it was for much of our history.

If they try to make gerrymandering permanent, let’s restore the House of Representatives to its original ratio of representatives to population.

If they militarize the police, let’s see a new structure where public safety departments rely more on paramedics, social workers, and mental health interventions to perform rigorous threat reduction.

If they propagandize and defund schools, let’s see a renewal of public education.

If they muzzle scientists, let’s see a plan for investment in American science and technology.

Let’s see public campaign financing, and all other money out of politics forever.

Let’s see reform of the judiciary, to prevent a partisan capture from ever again declaring itself immune to the law.

In short, let’s show that while Republican rule sets out to enrich a very few by exacerbating chaos, there are clear policy ideas to increase participation in our society, culture, economy, and government. Let’s show that one party is out to solve problems while the other causes them before our eyes.

When Vice President Harris moved up to the top of her election ticket, I recall there were a few news and analysis articles about how her new role would fit with her unsuccessful run for the Presidency four years earlier. One position I remember reading was that she’d struggled to articulate her values, other than saying that she was a problem-solver. The traditional news media seemed to think that this was a vague statement that told us nothing useful about Harris or how she might govern.

This election, more than anything else, is about what vision we, as a country and society, have for the role of government in our civic life. We should solve problems is exactly a statement of my values on the subject.

Harris’ opponent presents an entirely different set of values for the role of government in our lives. (Besides his immediately disqualifying attributes and behaviors.) He thinks government should pick winners and losers. Power exists for the sake of the powerful. This is why the ultrarich are cozying up to him: they figure that, if they establish positive personal feelings with him, they’ll be among the winners he chooses. The end result is a Russia-style oligarchy, enforced by the government choosing winners and losers in the most invasive ways throughout all of society: between political parties, media organizations, religions, genders, sexual behaviors, art, and culture.

This attracts people who imagine they’ll be picked as winners. I always have to remind myself that fascism is appealing: it says, in what seems to be a complex world with myriad problems, things are actually simple: the problems are Their fault. We just have to get rid of Them. It’s a classic bully’s attitude. Ironically, this feels good. It makes people feel like they have a handle on their problems. It can make people feel like they are pulling together to support their community. They can understand things easily. And they know what the solutions are: punch down, at Them.

It’s extremely Sith.

But does this actually address any problems? NO! A brief glance at history is all it takes to see that fact. A brief application of critical thinking is enough to reveal that there is no connection between violence to Them and any relevant change in the “winners'” lives.

Most unfortunately, it’s extremely hard to dig a society out of the deep hole that results.

I have a different vision. We should look at the world as it is, carefully assess the relevant options, and choose those that are likely to be most effective at generating the outcomes we want. Government should be a creative effort to move the world towards a better state.

Let’s solve problems! This is Harris and Walz. Let’s find out what is making our country so unequal, so divided, so difficult to deal with. Then let’s make targeted policy changes that help reduce those problems. Let’s invest in education. Let’s break up oligopolies. Let’s get money out of politics. Let’s make our health system more like the more successful and cheaper ones elsewhere in the world. Let’s intervene with those who fetishize violence before they before a problem, and make it harder for them to act out against others. Let’s prevent a changing climate from ruining our way of life. Let’s repair things that are broken, clean things that are dirty, and upgrade things that are old. For any of the Democratic Party’s blindnesses or failings, for any incrementalism or compromise, for all the difficulty of conveying a pithy emotional message in an increasingly complex world, they are the party that has an interest in solving problems.

While I strongly believe that this election presents no option at all, I think that Vice President Harris would be a strong candidate against any alternative — precisely because she’s a problem-solver. I’m an engineer: solving problems is part of my identity, and “we should solve problems” is exactly the kind of core value I can get behind.

Vote for Harris in 2024!

Now that the 2024 US Presidential election is determined as a rematch between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, I will say this:

In 2016, I never considered voting for Trump because I thought he was an ignorant, bigoted bully who lied about everything and was only running for President for his own personal gain.

In 2020, I never considered voting for Trump because he governed as an ignorant, bigoted bully who lied about everything and used the office of President for his own personal gain.

In 2024, it is now documented that Trump is a rapist, a fraudster, and an openly anti-Constitutional fascist who instigated an attempt to overthrow the US Government and suborned a major political party to the goal of ensuring that he escapes any accountability.

I want America to count my vote in 2028, and therefore, there is no other choice than to vote for Biden in 2024. Do I wish the situation was different? Of course! I’m a policy-minded, solutions-oriented person and I want to weigh different options to solve problems against each other. But anyone sitting things out or writing in someone more aligned with their principles is making an unviable choice that very well might condemn us all.

It deeply worries me that the media continues to feign equivalence and that self-described conservatives aren’t out on the streets putting their conservatism into practice by vehemently campaigning for Biden.

One of the US Congress’ items of business for the end of the year is passing the National Defense Authorization Act. This funds the US military budget, and the act always draws immense bipartisan support, even despite a few ancillary culture-war issues injected into it this year. Here are three things about this act I wish citizens and journalists were more aware of.

One, US military spending is scored on an annual basis — unlike in any other area of policy funding, where the Congressional Budget Office scores spending and revenue over a 10 year timeframe. What this means, practically for us citizens, is that when you see that the NDAA authorized a military budget of $860 billion when the Democrats were advocating for a $2 trillion infrastructure investment not so long ago, those aren’t really the numbers to compare. You should multiply the military budget by 10 to put them on the same footing: $2 trillion infrastructure investment vs. $8.6 trillion military budget, both over 10 years.

Two, there’s a constitutional reason why Congress has to re-authorize military spending every single year. The Framers, fresh off living through an experience where their own government had an army oppressing its own citizens, wanted to build a system of protection into the US Constitution to prevent their new government from being able to do the same. Traditionally, 1700s European governments did not maintain “standing armies,” instead they raised armies only when needed for defense (or attack), and sent the soldiers back to their civilian lives when the conflict was over. It was extremely unusual for the British government to be keeping soldiers active all the time. The Framers viewed a government keeping a standing army in peacetime as having only one purpose: to use force against the civilian populace, as they experienced in the decades leading up to the American Revolution. So, they built what they thought was a poison pill into the US Constitution: they forced Congress to vote every year to re-authorize the military. Surely enraged citizens would oust any Senator or Representative dumb enough to keep voting for a military in the next election? This worked for a while: there was no “US Army” until the Civil War; the country relied on individual state militias for its defense.

Three, in its entire history, the Pentagon has only ever conducted one financial audit, in 2018, which it failed. I bet when I say “they failed an audit,” you imagine that they couldn’t fully match up expenditures against incomes on all their balance sheets — you know, something down in the details. But, in fact, the problem was more that when auditors asked Pentagon departments for their incomes and expenditures, the answer they got was, “We don’t understand the question. You expected us to keep track of what and what?” The Pentagon apparently has no concept of the idea that it’s funded by US taxpayers and is supposed to be a good steward of that money. Worse, the Congressmembers and Senators who represent us are unwilling to force corrections to the US military system, because of its role propping up jobs in their states and because they fear their opponents would attack them as not sufficiently supportive of “the troops” if they don’t pour endless piles of cash into military development programs.

I worked on military programs for a portion of my career. Once, assigned a duplicative, mind-numbing analysis project that nobody could ever express any purpose for, I decided to exercise my creative abilities by coding up some labor-saving tools so that I could accomplish the purposeless work quickly and then devote more of my time to more interesting and valuable projects. However, I then got in trouble with my boss for not spending the full amount of hours I’d been assigned on the project. When I pointed out that I’d accomplished the required work, my boss told me that the most important thing for our project was to spend all the (taxpayer) money we’d been assigned that year, because otherwise we’d get less money the next year. I quit that job.

Congress could probably cut the US military budget in half without affecting troop levels or readiness at all. The current funding levels are unconscionably wasteful in peacetime. And reducing them would do more to reduce the size of government than any other ideas anyone has put forward in my lifetime.

Two interrelated opinion pieces appear in today’s New York Times. The first is an essay by David Brooks about how the economic growth of the 21st century compares unfavorably to that of the heady 20th century. The second is the Editorial Board’s argument that data does not support the idea that automation is responsible for recent economic malaise.

Brooks’ piece resonated with me because I hold the opinion that, regardless of your position on regulations, taxes, the environment, or public policy, a nation simply cannot grow forever. Whether we are talking about population size, economic output, available resources, or territorial holdings, there is simply a fundamental limit to what is available on the Earth. I think we are starting to see these limits reflected in our growth path, as Brooks writes. Extractive industries provide a good case study: I don’t think we’d have deep-water drilling if shallow-water drilling remained lucrative, and I don’t think we’d have the economic case for fracking if the easy-to-reach resources were still as worthwhile to get. Similar principles are going to apply to any resource or population.

The notion of the Earth being finite seems to bother economists. If our population does not continuously grow, then our output doesn’t grow. The United States’ trajectory through the 20th century was predicated on the idea of continual growth, which spells trouble if we try to carry that path forward. This is where the editorial comes in: In order to succeed and provide for our citizens in the 21st century, we need new policies.

The United States’ economic policies over the last several decades have been basically Republican policies. (I want to explicitly draw a distinction between “Republican” policies – across-the-board tax cuts, cutting regulation, and increasing defense spending – and “conservative” policies – market-based solutions, revenue-neutral ideas, and the like – because they are very much not the same.) Somehow, the Republican party has managed to sell themselves to many Americans as the small-business-friendly, growth-promoting, income-increasing party that they are not, instead of the giant-multinational-conglomerate-favoring, uber-wealthy-CEO-catering party that they are. In a world where more and more people are gunning for fewer resources than they could have a half-century ago, those policies may be the exact opposite of what we need. So are we going to get the policy reforms we need under Republican leadership? Certainly not. My generation is going to inherit a world of rapidly rising income inequality (not to mention sea levels).  Because, I think people wanted to buy one thing when they elected Republicans last November, but they got a lemon.

The frustrating thing to me is that I believe the Democrats have it right, in terms of policy philosophy. Maintaining a strong economy in the future world is going to be about efficiency. We’re going to have to find new ways of going about our business so that we can make more with less. We’re going to have to find ways to incentivize building robust products that last a long time, instead of selling consumers on the idea of constant upgrades. We’re going to have to find efficient ways for society to reduce its overall costs while balancing individual needs, like all buying health insurance so we don’t pay more at the ER. We’re going to have to power our homes with home-grown renewable energy, not just because it’s good for the planet but because it’s going to be cheaper and more readily available in the long term. We’re going to have to go back to what we learned in elementary school: reduce, reuse, recycle!

And we’re going to have to figure out how to make economic growth out of that, as our population starts to shrink. That clearly requires policy changes. Blind cuts to regulations so that we can dump pollution in rivers won’t solve this problem; tax cuts that go mostly to wealthy corporate boardmembers won’t solve this problem; more nuanced approaches are needed. The solutions are likely carefully crafted, market-based plans involving a full portfolio of cuts, new regulations, and taxes.

Many of those will be conservative solutions.

(Probably, at this rate, ones put forward by the Democratic Party, like the ACA.)

A ray of sunshine here: At the state and local level, politicians are trying to solve problems. This involves recognizing what the problems are, and trying to implement a plan to address them. It also involves trying a new plan when the first one doesn’t work.

So, let’s watch carefully over the next few years: What works? What doesn’t?

And who put forward which ideas?

Donald Trump will fail as President.

Let me explain that statement a little, by defining what I mean by “fail.” Trump will fail to accomplish most, if not all, of the goals that he has publicly stated he wishes to accomplish. (He may, of course, accomplish goals that he has not publicly stated, like enriching himself by manipulating the office of President or severely curtailing civil liberties. But we can’t really know what those are, so I will leave them aside for now.) The reason is simple: most of his stated goals are flatly impossible.

Take, for example, his pledge to “unleash” the coal industry. He plans to do this by rolling back Obama Administration regulations. However, those regulations aren’t the reason why the coal industry was in trouble in the first place. Coal was in trouble because it’s too expensive. Natural gas is cheaper. Even wind and solar are getting cheaper than coal! The only way to “unleash” coal would be through a massive campaign of government subsidies. Good luck getting Paul Ryan to sign up for that, Mr. Trump!

Or, for another example, look at Trump’s vow to put the US military “on display” by increasing the military budget to buy more ships, tanks, and planes. But the military development and procurement processes these days are decades long – so even if Trump doubled the military budget, it could be ten or twenty years before there’s any visible increase in American military capability!

Trump also says he wants to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States. He wants to do this by renegotiating free trade agreements. This won’t work at all, though – the reason why lots of manufacturing jobs dried up in the US is more because of automation than trade and jobs moving overseas. A terrific example is the Carrier plant where Trump claimed to save jobs from moving to Mexico. Part of the large taxpayer-funded incentive package Trump gave to Carrier was assistance investing in their Indiana plant. Guess what Carrier is investing in? Automation! If that automation cuts the need for more jobs than Trump saved, he produced a net loss for American workers.

I could go on, of course. There’s the infamous travel ban that doesn’t target terrorists, but instead targets terrorists’ victims. There’s his pledge to provide healthcare for everyone, which there’s really only two ways to accomplish: give it to everyone (a single-payer system), or require everyone to get it and give them assistance if needed (Obamacare). His promises regarding GDP growth or budget-balancing don’t square with any projections, assuming he cuts taxes the way he promised. His rhetoric and stated goals are populist, but his policy proposals and cabinet appointments are corporatist. A wall along the Mexican border will have to traverse rugged mountains and sovereign Native territory, and there is no way for the US to get Mexico to pay for it.

He’s simply not going to do any of the things he wants, because he cannot. But I think patriotic Americans need to fight against him whenever we can anyway.

The first reason to resist Trump is because, though he may be a snake oil salesman, he’s a good salesman. He knows how to use your own brain against you. His administration appears to be on a concerted campaign to gaslight us – to get us to question the veracity of any information presented to us by anyone other than the administration itself. They invent fake terror plots, fake definitions of words, fake counts of people, fake reasons why the President can’t disclose his business dealings, and fake historical events. This process isn’t benign, and it is insidious. Removing references to Jews from the Holocaust, for example, has long been an anti-Semitic tactic.

So, we must constantly be on our guard. We cannot assume that the administration has our best interest in mind. We cannot even assume that what they say is accurate. We have to carefully screen their statements against facts available from reliable sources, and we have to defuse their gaslighting with knowledge of how they are trying to manipulate us. (Seriously, read that article!) We have to resist. If we don’t, who knows what they will try to sell us on?

The second reason to resist Trump gets back to my definition of failure as failing to accomplish his stated goals. I am quite sure that Trump has unstated goals. If he didn’t want to hide anything, why would he keep insisting against disclosing his tax returns, for example? Unfortunately, there’s no way to know for sure what those unstated goals are. But we can probably get some idea by looking at the stated goals of his closest advisers. Steve Bannon, for example, apparently said that he wants to bring the entire American system “crashing down,” and he has been explicit about his desire to curtail civil liberties, especially for non-whites and non-Christians.

Even if Trump fails to do the things he campaigned on doing, he can do a lot of fundamental damage to civil society in the meantime. The confusion over enforcement of the Muslim travel ban illustrated perfectly how, even if the Administration’s orders are unconstitutional, unethical, and flagrantly immoral, they could ram them through for some time before the courts could catch up. (The legislative branch of government has yet to do so!) Voting restrictions on minorities or the poor, more travel restrictions, profiling by law enforcement, permit and grant awards, and other avenues allow the executive branch of government a great deal of power. Therefore, we must fight back: we must challenge his orders in the courts as rapidly as Trump signs them, we must pressure our representatives to stall Trump’s legislative agenda and restrict executive power where it’s abused, and we must remember to keep our voices heard in all spheres of government. Remember, Trump lost the popular vote, and his electoral college victory hinged on the votes of 0.025% of the population – in an election when less than half of voters actually cast ballots. He has no mandate. His Republican allies’ mandates rest on gerrymandering. With such a weak base of support, there is an opening for us. We must seize it.

For the sake of all those too weak to fight back, all those who would be victimized by Bannon’s place on the National Security Council and Trump’s executive orders, we have a moral, ethical, and patriotic obligation to fight back. Because although Trump will fail, his failure cannot come soon enough for our communities.

Hey, Americans. I want you to know that I’m looking for a few things from my national leadership, especially the President.

1. Infrastructure investment. Doing this is how we will solve a huge number of problems: Want to create jobs? Advance American science and technology? Mitigate global warming? Fix broken bridges? Make the electric grid more robust to cyberattack? Then we have to invest in our highways, power systems, public transit, National Science Foundation, NASA, and data systems. This all takes concerted national effort and a lot of money, but the important thing about it being an investment is that the payoff is greater than the cost!
2. An end to the attitude of constant warfare that has pervaded American foreign policy since World War II. Most, if not all, of the foreign policy challenges America faces today are of our own making. We need to stop doing that! We could also save a ton of money in the defense arena. I’m convinced that the US Department of Defense budget could be half of what it currently is, and the US would suffer no loss to national security. (In fact, ending some of our more specifically provocative programs like drone strikes, prompt global strike weapons, or the recently unveiled B-21 would probably increase our national security, by de-escalating arms races and conflicts.)
3. A considered, logical, and data-based approach to solving our pressing problems. Issues like income inequality, racism, campaign finance reform, education, the national debt, immigration, foreign policy – or anything else, really – cannot be solved with a simplistically soundbyte-y ideologies like “build a wall,” “create jobs,” or “bomb them.” They are complex, multifaceted problems, and we know from history, science, or economics which solutions are more likely to work and which are not. We should use that knowledge. To give an example, if we want to reduce the incidence of gun deaths, studies show that the most effective way to do so is to reduce the rate of gun ownership. To give another, global warming is definitely a thing, definitely caused by humans, and definitely going to threaten our lives and livelihoods in the future: we should fix it, and we know how. In some way, a reduced role for ideology may help advance the other two points, too.

It would be nice to see more of these perspectives from the campaign trail. None of the Republicans have any interest in any of my points. Most of them actually seem to take opposite positions; to listen to their debates, I guess America needs less investment, more war, and more ideology. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton seems to be interested in items 1 and 3, while Bernie Sanders seems to like them all. If only Congress had more adherents to these ideas!