Trump's Last 70 Days

Barring the unlikely, Donald Trump has 70 days left as President of the United States. The shot clock for Trump's time as Executive-in-Charge is approaching zero, but time has not fully expired. There remains enough time for President Trump to hit a game-winning three and walk off the court cloaked in glory.

Prior presidents have used their last bits of lame-duckery to waste time, steal White House property, and pardon friends. This is the minimum of what the talking heads expect Trump to do. Today's NY Times is full of hyperbolic examples, including an article headlined "Trump Still Has 70 Days to Wreak Havoc Around the World."

President Trump should flip the narrative. Trump can aim higher, bigger, and bolder. He can define history in a way that most presidents cannot by seizing on a specific opportunity this election has revealed. What follows is a proposal for creating a golden legacy.

 

During the last five years, the mainstream media has persistently attacked Trump as a racist. No amount of denial was enough. They perceived Trump's refusal to be yoked with white guilt as a critical disqualifying characteristic. Refusing to bend-the-knee to those in the burgeoning racial grievance industry was expected to cripple Trump's ability to expand his popularity.

 

And yet, in a shock to many, Trump made massive inroads with minority voters.

 

If we demographically divide the US into Male or Female x White / Black / Hispanic / Asian, during the 2020 election, the only demographic that Trump did not improve on his 2016 numbers with were white males. 

 

Read that again.

 

Trump improved with every demographic except straight white males. He improved with Asian men, black women, and nearly every other combination you can think of. He also doubled his support from LGBT voters. If you were not aware of this shift, you can be forgiven. This fact is so disconcerting to the mainstream media that they worry merely reporting on it will breathe life into it. Why it happened is not overly relevant to this essay. The fact that it happened is what matters. This creates opportunity.

 

Trump and Republicans did the unexpected: they made gains with people Democrats believe they own. This begs the question, "how do Republicans hold the ground and ensure more people see the broadness of their tent?"

 

Republicans are the party of individual rights. For a long time, and to the permanent shame of our country, those rights did not fully convey to certain groups, and, in the 1960s, Democrats pivoted from antagonists of minorities to defender of them. With Democrats staking out ground as protector of minority rights, Republicans allowed themselves to be painted as the opposition. Republicans have constantly rejected this claim but could not seem to rid themselves of its shadow. In an era of BLM and "kids in cages", it would seem to be stickier than ever.

 

Yet the 2020 election revealed a shift. To Democrats' amazement, Republicans expanded their base across nearly every group. Democrats ceded moral high ground by shifting from a party of minority protection to a party that uses a hierarchy of group identities as a tool of oppression. With Democrats increasingly focused on labeling and sorting people by skin pigment, gender, and sexuality, a window opened for Republicans.

The ultimate minority is the individual. If you protect individual rights, you inherently protect minority rights. There is no predetermined hierarchy in a society that values the inherent worth of all individuals equally, even if their circumstances differ. What Trump seems to have tapped into is the reality that many members of minority groups do not want to be measured by their skin pigmentation. They want to be measured by their abilities, their contributions, and the content of their character. In sum, their individuality.

 

This brings us back to Trump's last 70 days.

 

How will history brand Donald Trump?

 

Academics are the authors of history and academics hate Trump. They will label him a divisive race-baiter. To establish a different brand, he must forcefully counter that narrative through action, not just words. He has to leave a legacy that refutes that accusation.

 

Trump and congressional Republicans should quickly introduce a criminal justice reform act. Let's call it the Federal Reevaluation of Enforcement Effectiveness Act - the FREE Act. The FREE Act will support states' rights, individual liberty, and overly penalized minority communities.

 

On recent social issues such as gay marriage, states led the way on changing the legal backdrop. The Federal government was never meaningfully involved in marriage and largely did not need to legislate on the matter. 

The drug crime situation is different. While states again are leading the way, there are strong federal laws and regulations that criminalize the actions of many individuals that states view as non-criminal. Worst of all, unnecessary criminalization disproportionately hurts minority communities.

 

As of today, forty-three states have some form of legalized marijuana, with each election cycle further expanding acceptance. These states have either fully legalized it, decriminalized it, or allowed for marijuana for medical use. Increasingly, local police and prosecutors are not enforcing the few laws that remain. 

Principled Republicans know that drug crime is and should remain a states' rights issue. Republicans have an opportunity to stand on principle and magnify the overwhelming will of the people by fully relinquishing that power back to the states. 

 

If the Republican party could define its own brand, it would be something like "limited government, states' rights, and individual liberty." All three apply to the FREE Act. 

The FREE Act would remove marijuana and natural psychedelics (e.g., mushrooms) from DEA drug scheduling. Despite their fairly benign natures, both are currently classified as Schedule 1 drugs, lumped alongside heroin, meth, and crack. This characterization has contributed to the mass incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders and disproportionately harmed minority communities. We now know that marijuana and natural psychedelics are far less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco. They are also largely nonaddictive.

 

The FREE Act should also pardon and expunge the records of any current or prior non-violent Federal offenders related to these drugs. Likewise, President Trump should consider providing mass pardons to many additional non-violent drug offenders. This is a chance to bring the Republican brand to minority communities, and dramatically improve the party's image.

 

While I am personally for limiting federal spending, it is important to acknowledge worries about recidivistic behavior and offer a helping hand to those returning to society. To improve transitions back into free society, the Federal government should include funds for treatment and education programs that are made available to any state that likewise decriminalizes marijuana and psychedelics. Further, it should provide funding to states for investment in skills development and education for newly released citizens. Those released as a result of this legislation would also be eligible to receive a one-time incentive payment of $2000 after a period of non-criminal behavior (e.g., 6 months with no criminal charges unlocks a $2000 cash payment, which is much cheaper than keeping them in "the system"). The overall idea is to provide a social onramp that improves the odds of successful societal re-entry.  

Moral Republicans can comfortably acknowledge mistakes that happened under their watch, even if not their fault, and seek to rectify them. Supporting a soft landing for those released can be part of a healthy reckoning.

 

When Joe Biden becomes president, Democrats are extremely likely to pursue criminal justice reform. They will receive support from many Republicans (especially more Libertarian-leaning senators, like Rand Paul) and will easily pass reasonable legislation.

 

The question for President Trump and congressional Republicans becomes, "who gets the credit?"

 

Even if many Republicans support reform, some are likely to oppose it. If Republicans wait for Democrats to draft and propose reforms, only to have some in the GOP vote against it, Republicans risk undermining their newly expanded base.

 

By allowing Trump to lead the charge now, Republicans can change the narrative. Practically speaking, Democrats cannot fight against the FREE Act, lest they completely undermine their brand. Democrats will support this legislation allowing Trump to finish his service on a unifying, bipartisan note. With Democrats supporting it, the fact that the FREE Act will easily pass both houses allows Republicans who are deeply opposed to safely vote "no" without actually blocking progress. On the other hand, Republicans in purple states can safely support the legislation, with the knowledge that they are broadening their base and undermining Democrat talking points. Even Republicans who are on the fence can support this from a principled 10th amendment / states' rights position, saying "look, I'm personally against drugs, but, like abortion and marriage, this is not a Federal issue. We want a small Federal government that stays out of your home and your business. You and your community should decide what's right for you." This language also appeals to Libertarian-leaning voters, whose refusal to support Republicans made the difference in the recent presidential election.

 

Importantly, Trump and Republicans would forever mortally wound the ability to label them racists, having passed one of the most significant laws benefitting minority communities in history. He would be remembered as laying the groundwork for reuniting small children with their fathers and returning incarcerated young men to their moms. Thousands upon thousands of (primarily) men have been unnecessarily locked up and separated from their families. By providing funding for education, skills training, and positive incentives, Trump will also be remembered for investing in those communities.

 

The reality is social mores have already spoken on this issue. The dominos are falling, and a Biden presidency will get this done. Joe Biden wants to pass criminal justice reform if for no other reason than to erase the stain of having his name attached to awful crime legislation from the 80s and 90s. Likewise, Kamala Harris wants 2024's voters to forget that she aggressively prosecuted nonviolent drug offenders with a rare fervor. They understand that sweeping criminal justice reform is their path to absolution.

 

Trump and the Republicans have a chance to steal that thunder from Democrats, while aligning themselves with our inevitable future, and doing so for principled reasons. Trump has a chance to use his final days to go down in history as a re-uniter of families. He can be remembered as a champion of states' rights, minority communities, and individual liberty. Doing this will strengthen the long-term health of the GOP, allowing him to leave office a hero who broadened the tent and future-proofed the party. It is also the right moral action.

 

Time is of the essence. This is straightforward legislation and can be passed quickly:

• Constitutionally, states retain the authority to maintain their own laws and regulations
• Federally decriminalize marijuana and naturally occurring psychedelics 
• Remove from DEA schedule 1
• End Federal banking restrictions for businesses in these industries
• Pardon and expunge records for any current and previous non-violent offenders of these bygone laws
• Provide a safety net to improve transitions
• Block grant funds for states to educate and provide treatment
• Block grant incentives to states that decriminalize and choose to release non-violent drug offenders
• Block grant funds for skills training for citizens with expunged records and other former criminals, to reduce recidivism and improve the economic and social health of their communities
• Provide direct monetary incentives to citizens who maintain non-criminal behavior after release

 70 days and counting. If you are President Trump, there is no time to waste. Do the right thing. Broaden the tent. Write your own history. 

 

Godspeed. 

 

 

Author Notes: 

1. It took a lot of hunting to find articles that talk about the change in demographic voting behavior. Examples of discussion of Trump demographic shifts are CNN voters shift, Brookings scrambling bases, Asian American support, LGBT support, and an example of the shift.
2. Link to map of the United States, color-coded by current policy on marijuana.
3. On a personal level, I support decriminalizing nearly all drugs at the Federal level. I don't propose that in the FREE Act because I think "hard" drugs like heroin are a more challenging discussion and this opportunity is timebound. Because they are generally safe and non-addictive, marijuana and mushrooms are easy to federally decriminalize, allowing states to create their own rules. Start with the simple, and go from there. Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Herd Immunity is the Goal: What is the Most Important Question in the World?

What is the Most Important Question in the World?

There is a great deal of talk about Herd Immunity. Social Distancing absolutists poo poo it as Pollyannaish: "let's just all go inside for 30 days and kill this bastard once and for all!" 

Unfortunately, mass quarantine won't work. It flattens the curve, but doesn't get us past the pandemic. We will be trapped inside for a year, which would be certain to make the cure worse than the disease, as the global economy implodes, destroying the lives not just of those that die, but of those that live.

Many of the social distancing absolutists do not understand the unbelievable power of compounding. Even those that do appear to think we should treat all people as equally risky - "everybody go inside!". Both of those are terrible underpinnings for making rational decisions.

Those that follow me on Twitter know that the number of “Cases” of CV19 is a terribly misleading statistic, because it depends largely on self-reporting and testing breadth. 

Unlike Cases, "Deaths" is an extremely reliable number. While Deaths is not perfect (due to its lag and the fact quality of treatment impacts it), Deaths is objective, comprehensive, and easily measured. It helps us understand what is really happening in the world. 

According to this article in the WSJ yesterday, the number of Deaths in the US “quadrupled” in the past week. In Spain, the article mentioned that Deaths jumped by “a third” in one day (from ~1,000 deaths to 1,326). Both of those are staggering growth rates. While the growth rate differences are wide, in both cases we know it is very high. These differences make sense, because growth in Deaths will vary by geography depending on the quality of care available, how “seasoned” the ill are, overall population health and age, social response, population density, quickness to diagnose, etc. Different growth rates are to be expected. 

33% growth per day is horrifying. It implies more than a septupling (7x) every week or so. If that you think that sounds like a lot, it's because it is! 

Using Spain’s 33% daily growth as the benchmark, each infected person would lead to six new people infected each week (leading to a 7x - going from one infected person to that one person plus six new people). That does not mean the six people were directly infected by the first person. Rather, the people the first person directly infected went on to infect other people, and so on and so forth.

Why is herd immunity important? One might think that 20% herd immunity would only reduce the number of infections by 20%. One would be wrong. Welcome to the world of exponential math. Exponential up, but also exponential down. We will get into that in a moment.

I created a simple exponential growth weekly table below. You can see the Spain example in the top “0% Herd Immunity” row below. I set that row at approximately 33% growth per day. 

Importantly, Deaths are on a lag to initial infections (Cases). If you make a table that has 33% daily growth, and we assume the Infection-to-Death lag is 12 days (that’s an educated guess), that means Deaths are somewhere in the 26^th day and infections are in the 38^th day (i.e., it arrived in Spain around February 12). If we assume Spain began with a single true Patient Zero, which is a bad assumption, that would imply ~38,000 infections currently, 3.4% of whom are dead now but more of whom will die over the coming week.

My guess is there are many many more infections than that. It is much more likely that there were multiple Patient Zeros that returned from China or other countries with CV19 (not necessarily all arriving at the same time - some earlier, some later). In that case, there could be many multiples of 38,000 actual infections in Spain. All else equal, I view that as a positive (it implies lower Mortality Rate and future higher herd immunity). Also, the real growth rate may be higher or lower - but we're using 33% per day for these purposes.

So, we have no idea how many Cases there really are. But we do know the number of Deaths and we know that Deaths is going to keep growing dramatically, as the social distancing didn’t begin en masse until the past week. Recall Deaths are a lagging indicator. If we assume social distancing causes Cases to plateau and then decline, Deaths should plateau around 12 days after Cases, which gives another week of exponential Deaths growth. 

Unfortunately, 7 days from yesterday, if the 33% growth per day continues, over 9,000 people will have died in Spain, with 2,200 people dying on the last day alone (a septupling'ish from the 330 people that died yesterday). If, at that point, the curve has flattened, then it will continue at 2,200 Deaths per day for a period. The virus will work its way through the quarantine over the subsequent 2-3 weeks, declining rapidly throughout.

But what then? If even one person unknowingly remains infected and at large, when people go back out into the world, won’t we just start over again? Yes. 

This is why we care about Herd Immunity and compounding. 

If Spain is going to max out at 2,200 Deaths per day, and we assume a 1.5% Mortality Rate, we could assume that there were also 147,000 new Cases per day (12 days prior) that were leading to those 2,200 deaths. If one Patient Zero would have led to 38,000 new Cases per day, to get to 140,000 Cases per day, it actually requires about 14 Patient Zeros (don't put too much weight on that number). Let’s also assume that yesterday, Spain shifted from exponential growth to linear growth based on Social Distancing (i.e., the number of new Cases per day flatlines). Its new Cases would stabilize at 147,000 per day, then begin to decline rapidly. 

If we assume the linear growth for the next 2-3 weeks averages half that max growth, then 147,000 * 21 / 2 = 1.5 million additional new Cases during that period. This would be in addition to the over 500,000 people that were infected before the end of exponential growth, giving the world around 2.0 million infected Spaniards.  Spain has 49 million people and unfortunately only 2.0 million will be immune (most of whom won't even know they are immune). 2.0 million is around 4% of the Spanish population. 4% does not provide the necessary herd immunity to cut the transmissions down dramatically. Crazy as it sounds, Spain may have achieved 25%+ if Social Distancing measures had waited another week (my math becomes even less sciency as the number of Cases grows to very large numbers, because some benefits of Herd Immunity would slow down the contagion rate along the way and small changes in growth lead to big differences in ultimate outcome).

Why does herd immunity matter? Each person that gets infected and recovers becomes immune. These immune people begin to break the chain of contagion. Those immune people are protecting the rest of us - silent heroes.

Two Scenario Examples: 

1: Zero Herd Immunity: assume you personally would have given the infection to two people, and then they do the same, so on and so forth;

2: Same as #1, but the herd is 50% immune

In Scenario 1, after you get infected, you give it to two people. Then they each subsequently give it to two more people (you + four people). In Scenario 2, you try to give it to two people, but one of them is immune. So only one new person gets it. Likewise, the one new person gives it to one additional person (you + two people).  Take it two steps farther and it’s You + 16 People vs. You + 4 People.  Another step, You + 32 vs. You + 5.  You + 64 vs. You + 6. Hopefully you get the point.

So, a 50% herd immunity doesn’t reduce the number of new infections by half, it reduces the exponential factor by half, which reduces infections exponentially. It basically breaks the chain. Barring an effective treatment, this is the primary path to saving lives. We must get herd immunity up while also protecting lives on the journey. 

This becomes the most important question in the world today: how do we get to maximum herd immunity with minimum Deaths?  My next post addresses that.