2020 Questions

The title is a double allusion.  It is alluding to the last election and a referral to the popular optical phrase, "Hindsight is always 2020".  Regardless of what the final outcome is vis-a-vis the results as seen today and what, if any, will come out of the protests and lawsuits by one party, the possible resolution is a scenario out of view for the moment and probably dire.  

Regardless, we have some questions  into what could have been, why, and what could have been done differently by the administration to remain in power. Let's take a look back, shall we? 

There are a few "why" questions that needed to be asked.

1. Why did a once popular media star and host of one of the most successful reality TV shows went into deep and profound disfavor in the eyes of the entertainment industry that he was part of immediately after winning the presidency in 2016?  For one thing he defeated another media favorite, darling of Hollywood, married to another media icon who happened to serve two presidential terms whose charisma was unscratched despite a sex scandal while in office that captivated the nation. The 2016 victor dashed to smithereens a much awaited made-for-Hollywood fairy tail - the election of the first woman president in the USA. The entertainment media's disdain for the "impostor" was immediate and unforgiving and their resolve was unified by one theme -  they will not, they cannot allow his re-election.  The president-elect at that time could easily have opted to charm his way back to the entertainment elite.  But he did not. And to add salt to the gaping wounded pride of Hollywood and its satellite moons on TV, talk shows and producers, he turned to his newly discovered supporters - the middle and lower class, the blue collar workers and those who reside along the Midwest and central corridors of the country and pretty much abandoned both East and West Coast. Perhaps he was forced to because even his manner of speaking and "locker room" talk did not match the polish and politically correct elocutions of those in the airy upper crust.  Furthermore, he literally and figuratively found religion by embracing the equally responsive Evangelical group. He opted to step on the political land mines of abortion, immigration, fervent nationalism over globalism and vocal abhorrence toward extreme liberal social agenda.

2. Why did the mainstream news media decide to overwhelmingly and unabashedly tip the balance scale of fair and neutral coverage of the news to just one side? The once unelected keeper of democracy's greatest asset - free and transparent press - became a solidified platform from which to launch a barrage of daily negative press against the administration. A generally viewed 92% negative coverage has never happened before towards any administration. What happened? Hardly unnoticed was a degenerative symbiosis between news and entertainment. That critical line that used to be a clear demarcation between them was blurred in some instances or simply erased. A news anchor is almost indistinguishable from an editorial commentator; a journalist, even a field reporter, engaged in political punditry or irreverent display of argumentative or combative questioning in every administration press briefing. Negative news about one side was either covered lightly or completely ignored while amplified or overemphasized for the other.  Even today, it was the news media that rapidly declared the winner of a close election despite the lack of a yet to be announced official results.  Why the rush?

3. Why did the high tech industry - born out of the bowels of modern capitalism - turned on a president who is an unapologetic promoter of the free market system? One would think that the landscape on which the industry is deeply rooted in is the same as that which a capitalist administration was cultivating would be a common ground. So, why the animosity? 

The area of business for high technology products had become the battlefield for nationalism versus globalization.  The demand for smart phones, laptops, hand held platforms and all related accessories had not only become global but so is the need for them to be manufactured as cheaply as possible.  The one crucial phenomenon that cannot be ignored is that the high demand for it is  at places where cheap labor also resides.  In other words, almost two and a half billion people in China and India are consumers of these devices because they are affordable and manufactured predominantly in one of the two.  The birthplace of the high tech industry that is concentrated in the Silicon Valley of the U.S. depends on that cheap labor for its business because to insist on manufacturing them in the U.S. will make those products cost at least three times what it is today.  Apple, Motorola and other U.S. brands must make their products as cheaply where Samsung, Huawei, LG, etc. are made. 

So, what is wrong with that?  Labor is as much subjected to supply and demand as consumer goods. As soon as the new administration started to rail loudly against China's trade and monetary policies, the friction begun.  The new administration and the President personally deemed that China's monetary and trade practices, exploitation of cheap labor, technology piracy, are not fair, thus violating the western definition of the free market.  The administration insisted that while the U.S. must comply with strict labor laws, stringent manufacturing rules and regulations, such encumbrances do not affect foreign manufacturers, especially China. There lies the conflict between U.S. nationalism and globalism. 

The high tech industry did not much like that the administration was bashing the very source of cheap labor and one major market sector.  The industry that created the social media that seemed attuned to political correctness as a means to elevate the human experience  also seemed to close its eyes to the lack of human rights in what is still a communist regime in ruling its people but adheres to capitalism in conducting its worldly business. That is what the current administration insists as unfair and detrimental to the human experience.

4. Why did the sports industry also turned its ire against the president who was one of its preeminent patrons? Why did some star athletes suddenly become advocates for human rights?  Why and since when did sports franchise owners become sensitive to human rights abuses.  It is once again about the business of market expansion.  There is enough talent among U.S. players but take a look at this phenomenon.  Yao Ming was a 7-footer from China and national sports hero there.  His skills were all right but still not at par with similarly built human cranes among U.S. players in terms of basketball prowess.  When the Houston Rockets hired him, viewership in China shot up to the upper atmosphere.  It helped all the sports-related manufacturing industry as well.  99% of athletic shoes and apparel are made in - you guessed it.  Sale of basketball shoes went up in a place formerly known only for making them. 

Major league baseball teams had known this phenomenon for decades.  Players from South America and Japan were a source for talent.  But can you tell how many of them really performed to Hall of Fame levels or even had the longevity of U.S. players.  Fernando Valenzuela did extremely well but only for a short number of years.  However, these imports help tremendously in promoting the game and increased international viewership.  The NBA and the Hockey league knew too well that by bringing in import players increased the TV market in places never once imagined.  Basketball, like baseball, was largely an American sports but look at how basketball is now a European staple when hockey or winter sports are not in season.  The NFL a few years ago started playing a handful of games in London and Tokyo.  Someday, watch when one NFL team hires talented, fast and agile Sumo wrestlers as line backers.  The Japanese viewership of American football will promote one trans-Pacific surge of a game even hardly understood in Asia for the moment.

Nothing wrong with any of the above, really.  Where it is wrong is when sports athletes in the U.S. focus on police conduct here in numerous but not major routine incidents but turn a blind eye on harsh labor conditions where Nike shoes are made or where human rights abuses are systemic, ignored and hidden from world scrutiny. It is significantly glaring when used to criticize the administration because of its international policy for fair play.

As the saying goes, "Go and check where the money is".

These are all 2020 hindsight.  These are the things to watch.  Notice how protests and city riots stopped and disappeared like a wisp of smoke?  Statues of dead people are safe once again. Kneeling during the National Anthem will stop and basketball courtside BLM slogans will disappear.  Twitter and Facebook censorship will cease and once again the mainstream media elites will do frequent sleepovers at the Lincoln bedroom in the White House.

Such was a short career for a non-politician's foray into the political forest and swampy Washington D.C. We can keep our hopes up but we will not hold our breath for a different result after all the lawsuits and plea for recounts in some of the places lose momentum and time. All we can say is, "Good Luck America".