As if getting old weren't bad enough

To listen to all the commercials on TV, you'd think that most of America is desperately ill. In the part of my brain that usually processes and evaluates information (the frontal cortex), I know that can't be the case (I also have an Internet connection and can log on to the Center for Disease Control and all those research sites to get the facts if I want). It's that other side of my brain, the limbic system, where all those pesky neurons in my hippocampus play with my emotions that concerns me. Let me explain. Just before falling asleep in my easy chair I was watching one of my favorite mid-day TV shows, and in rapid succession I was bombarded by commercials for COPD, erectile dysfunction, age-related macular degeneration, sensorineural hearing loss, psoriasis and Crohn's disease. I don't know how I managed to doze off, but I did, and while drifting along, alone with my subconscious in tow, I went back in time to my days in the advertising agency business.

I was sitting in my agency's conference room with my old pal, Jack Mather, and we were scratching away on our yellow pads. Suddenly Jack looked up, took a swig from the tumbler of Jack Daniels before him and said, "Steph, we're not thinking clearly about this." (This was a job we had to do for a pharmaceutical company client that had just received the go ahead from the FDA to market their new wonder drug that would supposedly cure stupidity). This is a dream, remember.

Jack went on. "We need a new name for this pill, but it seems that all the really Latin-based names aren't available. Neither are the memorable ones like 'Serutan' (Nature's spelled backwards)." I said, "Well we don't want, Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis that's for sure!" Jack took another drink. You want to run that by me again?" "Sure," I said. "It's a real full scientific name for a disease that causes inflammation in the lungs owing to the inhalation of very fine silica dust." "Eureka. THAT gives me an idea." Jack jumped to his feet. "We need something really short and really memorable. After all, this is a drug for stupid people who probably have short attention spans and a reduced capacity for remembering long names."

So we began the process of something we called, 'out-of-body writing' (kind of like a Ouija Board where your hands are magically pulled in one direction or another). We threw some names back and forth like 'Smartup' and 'Iggone' (for ignorance gone) but finally it came down to two: 'IQupinol' and 'Einsteinme'. We agreed to stop for the night and go to our respective homes, turn on our TVs and watch all the disease-a-mercials, note our favorites and come back the next day for more brain-storming.

We were to write them all down on, of course, our yellow pads. I must tell you that the yellow pad was Jack's 'open sesame' to unlock the universe of his creative fertile mind. He occasionally used the IBM Selectric typewriter because he liked the tactile feel of the keys, but he also enjoyed the 'clackety-clackety' sound the revolving IBM type ball made as it responded to his fingers' commands.  I remember driving to the office the next morning and unlocking the door and brewing a fresh pot of coffee in advance of Jack's entrance, which was always different. Sometimes he would come through the door like d'Artagnan, the energetic would-be Muskateer. Other times it was one of his many favorite literary characters. You just never knew. I waited, anxiously, thinking of all the diseases we had discussed and their respective pill cures.

Suddenly, I felt a warm sensation on my crotch area. "Oh, no," I thought to myself. "It's involuntary urination!" Then, I awoke to find that one of my cats had tipped over my coffee cup that was wedged between my sleepy hands. Jack would have laughed himself silly at the sight and so would I except for the fact that beside me lay a coffee-drenched yellow pad with all my notes for this article. By the way, I forgot to tell you that in my dream we never settled on a name for the anti-stupid drug, but given the deluge of disease-a-mercials on TV these days, I'm inclined to call it, the 'Off-button.'

Stephan Helgesen is a former career U.S. diplomat who lived and worked in thirty different countries, specializing in export promotion. He is now a political analyst and strategist and author of nine books and over 1,000 articles on politics, the economy and social trends. He can be reached at: stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

Welcome to the no affection zone

If former Texas Democrat Governor Ann Richards were alive today she would be unable to resist making a few choice comments about everybody's favorite uncle, Joe Biden. I can see her doing a new take on her oft-quoted comments made about Republican candidate for President, George H.W. Bush at the 1988 Democratic National Convention: "Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth." She'd probably say, "Poor Joe. He can't help it. He was born with wandering lips and no compass." Yes, you know things are bad here when the innocent of innocents, Joe Biden, is called to task for a few hugs or pecks on the cheek. Gals, you have officially fallen off the kitchen stool, thrown Uncle Joe's life and legacy into the Cuisinart and pressed warp speed. I'm a conservative and yet I find myself defending the kissing bandit from Delaware. Both of Biden's recent accusers have said that they didn't regard his moves as sexual in nature, but they were somewhat creepy and violated or invaded their personal space. Okay, I'll take them at their word, but did they have a danger sign hanging around their necks so that old White guys like Joe had fair warning before he approached them? No, they didn't. So Joe, being the affectionate and playful type he is, entered their private air space, unprepared.

Now I want to be clear on this. I am not in favor of invading anyone's private space or forcing them into their 'discomfort zone,' but at some point we're going to have to lay down some ground rules before we call 911 and ask the SWAT team, the ACLU or NOW to intervene. This whole series of pop up surprise attacks on anyone who's ever snuck a kiss has gone too far. If we let this hysteria to continue unabated, we will need Federal legislation (something the Left loves) to prohibit kissing or caressing in public and the establishment of 'no affection zones' so that (predominantly) women can be protected from the more innocent advances of suspected dirty old men. Something tells me that the younger generation is already practicing the art of flirtation avoidance as our birth rate in the USA is falling. As a matter of fact, we hit an all-time low in 2017 (it dropped by 2% since 2016). If that weren't bad enough, we're experiencing the lowest fertility rate in 30 years. Log on to Life Site News at https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/american-birth-rate-plummets-to-30-year-low to read the report from the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics.

There's a lot of speculation as to why we're not rushing to the boudoir in our PF Flyers anymore. Dr. Georges Benjamin, Executive Director of the American Public Health Association, said that fertility rates have been dropping consistently and "I think it has a lot to do with women and men, couples in particular, having much more control over their reproductive lives." He means birth control, I'm sure, not the other kind of control that every man claims but rarely exhibits. Where does that leave flirtation and all that stuff? Fargo, North Dakota in January? And how about the innocent good old affectionate behavior that we were taught was acceptable when people cared about each other? Have we reached the point where we must avoid all physical signs of affection and replace them with a few well-chosen words?

If that's the case, I'm afraid I see a world of flowery talkers (English majors primarily) dancing around a few stanzas of Browning's "How do I love thee" like leave festooned Puck from In a Midsummer Night's Dream.  Please. And you can take Mr. Darcy from Pride and Privilege with you, too. But what has that got to do with affection, you say? Well, I'm glad you asked. Probably nothing, except that I think our affection aversion pendulum is swinging back towards the Victorian era at breakneck speed. Our plummeting birthrate and hair-trigger response to innocent affectionate behavior may be indicators of our flight from sensibility. The persecution of Joe Biden may be just be the latest outward manifestation of our über sensitivity to male/female relations, but we must not lose sight that Joe Biden is not the problem; it's our mixed up mores and values that have been corrupted by people who'd rather live in the frigid environment of inviolate personal space than bask in the  warmth of their fellow men and women.

Stephan Helgesen is a former career U.S. diplomat who lived and worked in thirty different countries, specializing in export promotion. He is now a political analyst and strategist and author of nine books and over 1,000 articles on politics, the economy and social trends. He can be reached at: stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

The big blue bi-coastal vise closeth

There is a big blue bi-coastal voter vise that is closing in on Republicans for the 2020 Presidential Election and it is comprised of four states on the West coast (plus Hawaii) and thirteen on the East Coast(including D.C.). Given past voting history, probably all these states will cast their popular and electoral votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2020. Altogether, that's 153 electoral votes.

Some of the states on the West coast were narrowly won by Hillary Clinton in 2016. She walked away with California with 62% of the popular vote, but she only won Washington State by 52.6%, Oregon by 50.7% and Nevada by about 48%. Over on the East coast, the picture for the Democrats was also predictable: Clinton won New York with 59%, Massachusetts with 60% and New Jersey with 63%, among others. The Nation's Capitol gave Clinton a whopping 86.8% of the popular vote while neighboring Virginia gave her 49.7%, but Donald Trump earned 44.4% making the win in Virginia a slim one for the Democrats in a solidly Blue state.

The Midwestern states weighed in with Illinois giving Clinton 55.8% of their vote while Donald Trump only managed to earn 38.8%, making the margin a large, 17% one. Clinton's margin in Minnesota was a razor thin 1.5% (Minnesota also had the largest voter turnout of any U.S. state with 75%)! Trump's win in Wisconsin was a surprise. He garnered 47.2% to Hillary Clinton's 46.5%. Michigan was also a big surprise; Trump took the state by a 0.23% margin (10,704 votes). We all know that the Republicans won in Florida and Texas and in the mountain states and in the Mid-Atlantic states and in the South, but they lost Colorado and New Mexico. The loss in Colorado was expected, but so was New Mexico as the state was already Republican oxygen-deprived and was 'turning blue' during the second Martinez administration.

What's in play for 2020, and where should the President turn his attention, assuming that the 'Big Blue Bi-coastal Vise' keeps tightening against the Republicans?

In my last book on the Republican Party, "Breaking Republican," co-authored by a long-time D.C. pollster, Lance Tarrance, we laid out several scenarios by which a Republican could win in 2016. We also predicted that a 'third wave' or non-traditional Republican candidate had the best chance of winning. Unlike many political analysts at the time, we were right. On election eve in November of 2016, I sat outside the Marriott Hotel in NYC overlooking Times Square on a TV stage as part of a panel of experts organized by the Danish National Broadcasting System. We were sending our program live to Denmark and southern Sweden all through the evening, commenting as the state totals came in. I was the token American on the stage and fielded many questions that night. As the evening wore on, I was asked what I thought Trump's chances were. I said 60% (Pennsylvania hadn't been called yet). I could hear the chuckles and see the grins from the other panelists and the host who then turned to me and said, "Are you sure? Do you want to revise your prediction?" I looked at her and said, "Yes, I do. I'll give him an 80% chance." A short while later, we closed down the set and I walked back to my hotel and fell fast asleep. When I awoke, the networks were calling Trump the winner.

Sometimes it's good to be right and sometimes it's even wonderful, but if the Republicans think they're going to give Donald Trump another four years without an all-out street fight they're wrong. Crystal ball gazing is one thing, but elections are won through hard work. Republicans will need to:  1. shore up their base in the big electoral vote states, 2. recruit a lot more conservative voters, 3. make an appeal to the college-age voter with a powerful message that resonates with their generation, 4. make a concerted effort to turn out Black and Hispanic voters, 5. start now with messaging to middle-age and older women, 6. concentrate some of their firepower on a few of the states in the 'Blue Vise' where they almost won in 2016 (like Washington, Oregon and Nevada), 7. spend some time with - and download some money to - a few GOP state organizations in promising 'purple' states that could be turned in 2020 and, finally, 8. get to know the individual states' local issues and electorates better and work with Republican leaders to identify ways to solve them with a true national/local effort.

Much can - and will - happen before the 2020 primaries, but Republicans have an advantage; they will not be choosing a candidate. Democrats will, and their contest promises to bring out all their skeletons from their very spacious walk-in closet. Like Indiana Jones in the movie 'The Last Crusade,' they must choose wisely in order to reach the Holy Grail of the Presidency. If the Dems want to re-capture the Midwest and hang on to the states they barely won in 2016 they will not do so by nominating an ultra-Progressive or Socialist-leaning candidate. That kind of candidate will not rip Texas, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania from the clutches of the Republicans. Relying solely on the Blue Vise will not be enough. While it may once again win them the battle of the popular vote, it will most assuredly lose them the electoral vote war.

Stephan Helgesen is a former career U.S. diplomat who lived and worked in thirty different countries, specializing in export promotion. He is now a political analyst and strategist and author of nine books and over 1,000 articles on politics, the economy and social trends. He can be reached at: stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

The dangers of self-censorship

Growing up, I'm sure that one of your more compassionate relatives told you, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." Well, God bless him or her for that, and while that was probably the right thing to say for the time, times have changed. No one bothers to count to ten anymore before giving you both barrels. Total annihilation is the aim of the political fascist who can't seem to keep his vile comments about your sincere beliefs to himself. His colostomy bag of pent-up anger about Donald Trump or those awful moronic conservatives runneth over.

I hasten to add that I'm not talking about our more moderate friends who are perfectly willing to discuss issues and not personalities with you without exploding. Rather, it's those hyper-partisan ideological crazies who are growing more agitated with each passing day I'm referring to. You know them. They're everywhere: at small intimate dinner parties, at large banquets, even in church. You're just chatting with a friend about the problems at the southern border when someone from the next table overhears your conversation. She leans over and says, "If we didn't have a numbskull for a President, we might not be making enemies everywhere," and then swiftly goes back to her goulash. THAT is what's known as a drive-by attack and it's happening with increasing frequency.

These political ninjas must all go the same school to learn their craft much like the terrorists of the seventies from the non-aligned countries that all went to Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow (now called the People's Friendship University of Russia). Wherever they go, they all seem to be saying the same thing to us conservatives...SHUT UP! True, some of us do provoke them by talking too loudly or maybe it's our "I love America" buttons and MAGA hats that does it, but that is our right, isn't it? Of course it is, but to Lefties that is the red flag that riles them up so they dig in their hooves and snort wildly as they charge towards us, horns first.

Social intercourse aint what it used to be. Times were when people could disagree without pulling out a weapon, even if that weapon was barbed words. We chilled, walked away or got ourselves another drink. Now one of us gets bloodied if we dare to stand our ground. Have Americans just gotten more aggressive, indignant and intolerant or do we just disagree on everything? I think it's all of them. We no longer give anyone the benefit of the doubt. Our college students need 'safe spaces' while we, their parents, avoid attending events where there could be people with widely differing views. The only place we dare talk politics is to the TV set or to ourselves (much to the displeasure of our spouses). I'm convinced that this self-censorship is THE most destructive element in our society today. While I'm not advocating for a return to the pre-PC times when we made Polish jokes or laughed at Archie Bunker's ethnic appellations, I'm simply saying that sometimes what we don't say can get us in more trouble than what we do say.

Case in point. You're part of a group that is discussing something controversial. A person makes an outlandish generalization. You think about countering it with a simple, "How do you know that, for sure?" But, you don't. You let it pass and it's not because your wife elbowed you in the ribs, either. You chose to avoid conflict. Your therapist would be sooo proud, but later, on the way home in the car you say to your spouse, "I should have said something, anything, to stop that jerk." (I forgot to mention, that 'jerk' is your best friend, and if you can't speak truth to best friends, than to whom can you?) I think that regret is a prohibitively high price to pay for self-censorship. I'm willing to concede that as we get older, we tend to choose our battles more carefully. Maybe it's because we hear the clock ticking away the seconds of our lives louder and louder, or it could be that we've actually realized there are more important things in life than being right all the time. That said, we should not subordinate our principles out of fear of conflict. There are many ways to disagree with people without a midnight trip to the ER for myocardial infarction. Why not think of some that might work for you? Breathe deeply.

Stephan Helgesen is a former career U.S. diplomat who lived and worked in thirty different countries, specializing in export promotion. He is now a political analyst and strategist and author of nine books and over 1,000 articles on politics, the economy and social trends. He can be reached at: stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

Living as neighbors in the state of 'D'enial

Cute headline, but it's not funny when, according to a recent NBC/Wall St. Journal poll, only 29% of Americans say they believe that the President has been cleared of wrongdoing in the 'Russiagate' collusion scandal. Despite an exhaustive two-year plus study that cost 25 million dollars and 40 investigators' time, most Democrats have pulled the covers over their heads and are clicking their ruby slippers in bed while muttering to themselves "there's no place like home, there's no place like home" (back to the safety of their own self-made reality).

Seems like most Democrat Congressional Representatives are following the yellow brick road path laid out by the troika of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell (all Californians I might add). This goes for House Judiciary Committee Chairman and resident nabob of negativism, Rep. Jerry Nadler, who has pinned a target on the President and offered a bounty to anyone who can produce a smoking gun of wrongdoing that will give him the blond locks of Donald Trump on a silver subpoena.

Living in the state of 'D'enial is something the Democrats have perfected. We saw it happen for eight years under George W. Bush and we're experiencing it again with Donald Trump. It's more than a mantra and much more than a childish tantrum. It's destructive behavior...for all of us. Putting one's head in the sand is the equivalent of pretending it's not your bid in poker instead of playing the hand you've been dealt. People with real psychological problems gleefully enter the world of make-believe and pretend that they're epic heroes from the past (like FDR, JFK or Napoleon Bonaparte). To enter that world, they must sever all connections to reality, say goodbye to their surroundings and disappointments and get their ticket punched in the parallel universe of group-think where all the other 'D'eniars are waiting for them. If you think this is no threat to the rest of us, you're wrong. Anytime anyone chooses to live in denial they diminish our collective chances of coming together (now there's laugh for you, as if Americans are ever going to come together again save for a national catastrophe).

No, the truth is too hard to admit, especially for the Democrats who still insist that Hillary was robbed. They have chosen disbelief over belief, their facts over THE facts and have adopted selective amnesia when it comes to owning up to their responsibility as citizens to make the machine of government work better. They've refined the art of name-calling and character assassination and justify their actions by citing their unassailable goal of making the rest of us buy into their concept of America...using any means necessary to achieve it.

In their game, the refs have been fired and banned from the stadium. The rulebook has been burned as half-time entertainment. Each team's fans must now sit on opposite sides of the field. No one is allowed to mingle, lest some of the dreaded 'Make America Great Again-ness' rubs off on them. It's fourth down and ten and the 'Ds' are busy moving the down marker chain back a few yards, claiming that it's their right to do so since no one trusts anyone anymore anyway. American politics has indeed become a death match in which it's better to destroy than to build, to diminish rather than increase and to reject uncomfortable disagreement by assuming an alternate reality.

To the casual observer, we Americans must appear to be a schizophrenic lot, incapable of dealing with our problems as if we are motivated by two entirely different competitive ethos. One team is coached by Charles Darwin and the other by Billy Graham. You can guess which is which. That leaves conservatives in a quandary: "Should we let the Dems live in their heads and hope they don't see the folly of their ways while we re-build our defenses, or should we help them out of their cells into the sunlight?" Our principles of neighborliness and charity for all should answer that question for us, but if we do help them will that not only prove that it is us that are living in denial - denial of the Democrats' basic instincts to win at any price? I hate questions of morality, don't you?

Stephan Helgesen is a former career U.S. diplomat who lived and worked in thirty different countries, specializing in export promotion. He is now a political analyst and strategist and author of nine books and over 1,000 articles on politics, the economy and social trends. He can be reached at: stephan@stephanhelgesen.com