Diplomacy, Trump Style, Part I: Putin Rejects Ceasefire Proposal

Generally speaking, it's easy to conduct diplomatic negotiations when only one side of a dispute is at the table. It gets much harder when both sides are present. Yesterday, however, Donald "Art of the Deal" Trump decided to show how wrong the conventional wisdom is. Speaking only to Vladimir Putin, Trump nonetheless struck out.

Oh, Trump certainly claimed victory, as he always does. After the 2-hour Trump-Putin phone call ended, the President decreed: "It's a big thing—an immediate ceasefire on energy and infrastructure." He also predicted: "The next thing would be a full ceasefire and a deal. I think it will go pretty quickly." And he bragged: "If I wasn't here, he would never do it." He followed that up with a posting to his one-man social media site:

My phone conversation today with President Putin of Russia was a very good and productive one. We agreed to an immediate Ceasefire on all Energy and Infrastructure, with an understanding that we will be working quickly to have a Complete Ceasefire and, ultimately, an END to this very horrible War between Russia and Ukraine. This War would have never started if I were President! Many elements of a Contract for Peace were discussed, including the fact that thousands of soldiers are being killed, and both President Putin and President Zelenskyy would like to see it end. That process is now in full force and effect, and we will, hopefully, for the sake of Humanity, get the job done!

Undoubtedly, after he finished hunting and pecking that out, Trump went to clear space on the mantel for his Nobel Peace Prize.

Back in the real world, the facts are these. First, Putin rejected the proposal that Ukraine agreed to. Second, Putin agreed to a ceasefire that is limited to a relatively small part of the warfront, and even then only applies to just energy infrastructure, not energy and infrastructure as Trump claimed. Third, after agreeing to the ceasefire, the Russians knocked out a Ukrainian power plant. Perhaps our dictionary is out-of-date, but that sounds an awful lot like energy infrastructure to us.

We are hardly the only ones who were unimpressed by Trumpian diplomacy. For example, the conservative-though-not-Trump-friendly National Review had a piece headlined "Vladimir Putin Rejects Trump's Cease-Fire" (subscription needed) in which writer Noah Rothman opined:

The White House never misses an opportunity to retail the Russian version of events, no matter how fantastical, despite the lack of anything resembling reciprocity from the Kremlin. Indeed, even after Putin made a theatrical show of regarding Trump with the contempt he would show a subordinate, there is as yet no indication that the limit to the President's patience with Russia has been reached.

It's reasonable to wonder at this point if such a limit exists. The President is conspicuously sensitive to slights from allies, but he seems to have an endless capacity to absorb humiliation as long as it's being meted out by our adversaries. At the present rate, the damage Trump is doing to his reputation as a figure to be feared by America's adversaries may be irreversible. Still, if the President can reclaim some of the dignity America has lost in this process, he should. There's no reason the President must continue this farce.

The folks at Foreign Policy, which is much more middle-of-the-road, took an even more pessimistic view. Starting with the belief that when Putin says "Jump!" (well, "прыгать"), Trump says "How high?" that outlet had a piece headlined "It's Time for Ukraine to Accept an Ugly Peace."

Oh, and as long as we're on the subjects of foreign policy, and of Foreign Policy, the publication also had a piece yesterday, from someone who knows what they are talking about, that confirmed our assumption, even though we have no idea what we're talking about: The ceasefire in Gaza is almost certainly dead for a very long time, and if it comes back to life, it won't likely be due to American diplomacy.

The bottom line is this: Today is the 60th day of Trump presidency v2.0. Not only are we 59 days beyond the date by which he promised he would end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, but he appears to have already failed utterly on the foreign policy front. That's an even worse start than John F. Kennedy, who took 90 days before suffering the Bay of Pigs disaster. And given Trump's interest in quick wins, and his lack of interest in doing the slow, painstaking work of diplomacy, we do not see how he reverses his failures. We suppose it's possible that the grown-ups in the room, like Steve Witkoff, manage to pull something off. But we are not optimistic. (Z)

Diplomacy, Trump Style, Part II: It's Not Just the 'Nades

Donald Trump is doing a pretty poor job of diplomacy when it comes to countries that are currently at war. And, to complete the set, he is also doing a pretty poor job of diplomacy when it comes to countries that are currently at peace. In fact, he is managing to encourage the sort of nationalistic fervor, and anti-[THE ENEMY] resentment that usually only happen when bullets start flying.

At this point, every reader of this site knows that the Canadians are furious with the United States, and are doing everything possible to express their displeasure, most obviously boycotting American-made products en masse. And now, Europeans are embracing that approach, too. For example, the Danes are pretty famously hot-tempered (see: Vikings), and don't much care for the talk about acquiring Greenland. So, there are boycotts of American products in that nation, too. The Danish Facebook page Boykot varer fra USA (Boycott goods from the U.S.) has 80,000 members (just don't tell them where Facebook is headquartered). The nation's largest supermarket chain, the Salling Group, has responded to customer demand and begun labeling non-American goods with red stars. "I have never seen the Danes so upset before," said electrician and carpenter Jens Olsen, echoing rhetoric that is common in Canada these days. Olsen is seriously considering getting rid of $10,000 worth of American-made tools, despite the hit to his bottom line.

There are wide-ranging boycotts in other nations, as well, among them France, Germany and Spain. The products most likely to be targeted, apparently, are sodas (especially Coke), snacks and condiments (especially Heinz ketchup), spirits (especially Jack Daniel's) and, of course, automobiles (especially Teslas). Interestingly, data is not perceived as a product in the same way, so companies like Facebook and Netflix are not feeling the pinch all that much.

It is not easy, at least for now, to judge the impact of all of this on the American economy. It won't be good, but it's going to take some time before we know if it's merely "not good" or if it's "disastrous." One of the earliest, clear indications will be in the tourist industry, since the height of travel season will soon be upon us, and since there is a LOT of data collected by, and about, tourist concerns.

During Trump v1.0, the U.S. tourist industry took a (pre-pandemic) hit of about $20 billion/year due to the President, mostly because of decreased travel from China, Mexico and the Middle East. Citizens of those nations did not like his racist rhetoric, and some of them did not feel safe traveling in Trump's America. Those dynamics will be in play again for the next four years, and probably heightened, given the administration's willingness to abuse or ignore due process when brown-skinned people are involved.

Meanwhile, the single-biggest foreign source of tourists to the U.S. is, of course, Canada. Quite a few folks from the Great White North have canceled their American travel plans for this year, and there's no particular reason they'll feel differently next year, or the year after, or the year after (unless they just cannot bear to miss out on the Olympics). As a result of the Trump v1.0 dynamic, plus the anger from Canadians and other Western tourists, it's currently estimated there will be a 5% drop in international travel to the United States this year, at a cost of $64 billion. And that's probably a best-case scenario. Many sources think the real number will end up in the double figures, perhaps as high as 20%. So, Trump could cost the American tourist industry north of $200 billion. And while a tariff can theoretically be reversed with a snap of his fingers, this can't be. The Canadians, the Danes, and all the others are not going to forget Trump's words, or his actions, anytime soon. (Z)

The War on Abortion: Texas Midwife Arrested

Details are still murky and it's hard to wade through the propaganda coming out of the office of Texas AG Ken Paxton (R), who is obsessed with criminalizing pregnancy and targeting poor women of color to the exclusion of any other criminal activity. Nonetheless, it is clear that Paxton has orchestrated the arrest, and ongoing prosecution, of midwife Maria Margarita Rojas.

Rojas, a U.S. citizen, is from Peru, where she was an obstetrician. She is a certified midwife in Texas and licensed by the state. She runs several clinics in the Houston area and, according to her website, "has attended over 700 births in community based and hospital settings." She was pulled over on March 6 and arrested at gunpoint on charges of practicing medicine without a license. She was initially released on a $10,000 bond. But on Monday, she was arrested again along with a colleague, Jose Ley, and both are now being held on a combined bond of $1.2 million. Late Monday, a charge of "attempting an abortion" was added, according to court records.

Paxton is apparently working with the Waller County DA Sean Whittmore, since the AG can't enforce criminal laws on his own but can assist local DAs at their "request."

Rojas' low-cost clinics assist poor women of color who are mostly Spanish-speaking. This makes Rojas an easy target for Paxton and his henchmen. Keep in mind that the restrictive abortion law under which Paxton is operating has been in place for 3 years. There is absolutely no chance that this is the first time that state or local officials have discovered someone who might be in violation of the law. However, this particular scenario allows Paxton to push the narrative that abortions are the work of seedy, brown-skinned women, for the benefit of other seedy, brown-skinned women.

Allegedly, an anonymous tip claimed that Rojas had provided misoprostol to a patient. Remember, misoprostol has many uses, including labor inducement and miscarriage management. The timing of the additional charges is also suspect. Apparently, the Texas state legislature had just passed a bill authorizing private lawsuits against websites with any information about abortion services. The arrest provided a useful distraction from this draconian law. In other news that is undoubtedly completely unrelated, Paxton signaled this week that he is planning to challenge Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) in next year's primary.

It's unclear if Rojas has legal representation, but even if the charges are ultimately dismissed, this will have a chilling effect on providing services to pregnant women, especially women who are marginalized and already without access to adequate healthcare. OB/GYNs are already leaving states with abortion bans in droves. And Paxton recently sued a New York doctor for providing medication for an abortion to a Texas woman. Arresting those few caregivers who provide reproductive healthcare and birthing services to at-risk women will further drive the exodus. And Paxton has made it clear that it won't stop with this arrest. A bill to criminalize self-managed abortions was introduced earlier this year. Marc Hearron of the Center for Reproductive Rights observed: "It's just a litany of situations where it shows the state of Texas does not care about women's lives. What it cares about is stopping women from getting the care that they need, no matter what."

The bottom line is women are not safe in Texas. For all the higher cost of living in California, when weighed against a state using its resources to kill or imprison you if you're pregnant, paying more for housing sure looks like a better deal. New Mexico and Arizona are also friendly to women and closer and cheaper to live.

It is also worth remembering that, during last year's presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised that he would protect access to abortifacient drugs. It is true that he does not run the state of Texas, but it is also true that he could tell Paxton to knock it off, and Paxton would obey. Of course, Trump has no actual interest in protecting access to these drugs, and never had any intention of following through on his promise.

The upshot of all of this is that a lot of women are going to be forced to bend over backwards for reproductive healthcare, a lot more women are going to be forced to carry to term pregnancies that they don't want, and there will be many high-profile cases of women suffering or dying due to strict anti-abortion laws.

Obviously, abortion did not save the blue team last November. However, there is much evidence that the Democrats actually over-performed in what was a "throw out the bums" kind of year worldwide (see below for more). Also, outside of that particular Election Day, there have been more than a dozen post-Dobbs elections where abortion did drive turnout. Between Paxton's action and Trump's inaction, the Democrats are going to be able to hammer this issue again, along the lines of, "Only one political party will protect women." And on November 3, 2026, the odds are pretty good this will pay dividends. (L & Z)

Chuck Schumer Is Having a Very Bad Week

As we noted over the weekend, there were 10 Democrats who voted to invoke cloture on the "continuing resolution" (CR) meant to keep the government operating. That group included Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who has (naturally) become the face of the "let's not filibuster" Senate Democrats, and so a target of much Democratic rage.

Schumer is a veteran politician, and every bit the equal of his longtime foe Mitch McConnell (R-KY) when it comes to political skill. Do you know what Schumer's record in elections is, on the many occasions he's appeared on a ballot? He's 20-0. You don't put up a record like that without having a very big, and very effectively utilized, bag of tricks.

That said, he clearly mishandled the CR situation. Specifically, it could not be more obvious that he expected Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to come up short, thus letting the Senate off the hook. When Johnson pulled off a semi-miracle, aided by some aggressive whipping from Donald Trump, Schumer was left with an unexpected ball in his court. He and his team had done no messaging to massage voters' perceptions of the situation, and by the time Johnson sent his bill over to the upper chamber, it was too late to start. Schumer flailed around thereafter, first announcing that he'd back a filibuster, then changing his mind 24 hours later. It is not often that a politico with Schumer's vast experience appears so amateurish.

And now, the Minority Leader is paying the price. He's got a new book out, one that would seem to be rather timely, called Antisemitism in America: A Warning. However, given that Schumer is currently persona non grata with many of his potential readers, the various bookselling sites are getting overrun with "reviews" like this one:

Just delivered today, and I immediately realized it had no spine. Just a sad pile of pages barely holding together. The second I applied even the slightest pressure, it completely fell apart. Very fragile and certainly not to be relied on under any sort of harsh conditions. Refuses to stand up no matter what I do.

Schumer was supposed to go on a book tour this week, to help sell the book. However, despite the fact that the events were pre-ticketed, and the questions that the Senator was going to answer were pre-screened, he postponed due to "security concerns." Maybe there really were security concerns, but we suspect that at least part of the reason for the postponement was that Schumer didn't want photos and videos of protesters crashing the events.

With his week pretty wide open, and still with a book to promote, Schumer has undertaken a media tour. He sat for a long interview with The New York Times, one (unwisely) accompanied by a bunch of glamour shots. Whoever thought the animation of Schumer ripping off his librarian glasses in action-star fashion was a good idea should be fired immediately. And the 1,000+ comments on the piece are overwhelmingly just savage.

Yesterday, Schumer did TV hits with The View and CBS Mornings. Those didn't work out any better. On the former program, the women hosts grilled him. "Why? What were you thinking? And, why?" asked Whoopi Goldberg. Sunny Hostin added: "It gives me no pleasure to say this to you because we are friends, but I think you caved. I think you and nine other Democrats caved. I don't think you showed the fight that this party needs right now because you're playing by a rulebook, where the other party has thrown the rulebook away." And on CBS, Gayle King declared: "There are people in your own party that are saying 'look, it's time for you to go.' They no longer trust your leadership. They want somebody else in there."

Schumer has also mounted a partial, hastily organized, listening tour with lefty groups like Indivisible. He is not having success on this front, either. His specific goal was to convince the lefties NOT to lobby for his ouster as minority leader; one participant in the Indivisible meeting described the conversation as "tense and unproductive."

And finally, while Schumer's own caucus is holding firm behind him, the caucus on the other side of the Capitol is not. Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) have sort of made nice in the past couple of days, but only sort of, and beyond that, Jeffries has little choice but to screw on a smile and act as if all is well. Jeffries' predecessor, and mentor, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is rather less constrained, and she tore Schumer a new one yesterday, remarking: "I myself don't give away anything for nothing. I think that's what happened the other day."

Rank-and-file House Democrats are being no kinder to Schumer. Said one member: "His popularity is hovering somewhere between Elon Musk and the Ebola virus." Another said that Democrats need to "sit down and take a look and decide whether or not Chuck Schumer is the one to lead in this moment." And there is a serious movement underway to draft Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to challenge Schumer in his next primary (in 2028).

It is still considerably more likely than not that Schumer will keep his position for the remainder of the 119th Congress. As we have noted before, the barriers to booting a party leader in the Senate are significant, such that it's never happened before. But, the odds are getting pretty good that Schumer, like McConnell before him, will be put out to pasture (well, put out to the back benches) at the start of the 120th Congress. Schumer does not have obvious health problems, like McConnell does, and the Minority Leader is also about a decade younger. But they are both products of a different era in American politics, and are seen (probably rightly) as out-of-step with the current era.

We think the odds of an AOC challenge to Schumer in 2028 are also pretty good. She's ambitious, there's not a lot more she can accomplish in the House, and if she doesn't take a shot then, her next chance probably won't come until the latter half of the 2030s (it is not likely that Kirsten Gillibrand will retire, or that AOC would want to try to unseat her). Plus, AOC got her current job by taking down an old-white-guy incumbent who had fallen out of step with his party, so she's got relevant experience here. And remember, in 2016, some old white guy nobody had ever heard of from a state up north with only three electoral votes decided to challenge the preordained Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. He didn't pull it off, but he sure scared the daylights out of her. (Z)

What Do These Numbers Really Mean?

Let us commence this item with a brief historical narrative. As chance would have it, Monday was the day that (Z) delivered his lecture on the New Deal. And the basic storyline is this: (1) In 1933 and 1934, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress implemented the First New Deal, which was more assertive than what predecessor Herbert Hoover had done, but wasn't TOO aggressive; (2) Then, Roosevelt largely cooled his jets, and watched the response from the American people; (3) The response wasn't great, in that numerous people—Francis Townsend, Huey Long, Charles Coughlin, etc.—rose to great prominence with various versions of the message "FDR isn't doing enough"; (4) FDR, who knew a little something about reading public sentiment, launched the Second New Deal in 1935, 1936, and 1937, tackling the Depression in a much more aggressive fashion.

Keep FDR in mind; we'll get back to him. There have been a few recent polls that, depending on how you look at them, look bad for the Democrats. NBC News and CNN/SSRS both did polls in which they asked respondents about their views of the Party. The former poll reported 27% positive, the latter 29% positive. In both cases, it's the lowest figure recorded in the history of the poll. Meanwhile, Democratic pollster David Shor has unveiled a poll (subscription needed) that, in effect, shows that if turnout had been better in 2024, Kamala Harris would have lost... by even more than she did, perhaps as much as 5 points.

The not-good-news-for-Democrats way to read these polls is pretty obvious. You could look at the CNN and NBC results and say something like, "It's unbelievable the Democratic Party is doing this badly, even worse than the wreaking-havoc-on-American-democracy-Republican-Party. People really hate them!" That was the basic view taken by, for example, Harry Enten, the CNN numbers guy who seems rarely to think critically about, you know, numbers. Meanwhile, you could look at the Shor poll and conclude that it's no longer the case that higher turnout favors Democrats, and that they were actually lucky to do as well as they did in 2024. That's certainly the basic conclusion that Shor reached.

We don't disagree all that much with Shor. That said, we don't think that "high turnout doesn't necessarily favor the Democrats" is the most important insight here. That's something we've suspected for years, and have written about, many times. After all, the Democrats are now capturing the people who tend to be reliable voters (e.g., educated suburbanites) while the Republicans are now capturing the people who tend to be unreliable voters (e.g., blue-collar white ethnics).

We think the real story of the Shor poll is that, even in a "throw the bums out" election, there was still a sizable percentage of the electorate that was unhappy with the Democrats, but that could not bear to vote for Trump, and so stayed home. Those folks are presumably re-capturable with the right kind of message and the right kind of campaign. And the Democrats' 2024 message ("Things are great! All is well!") is almost certainly less salable than what they'll run on in 2028, whether that is something like "We'll clean up Trump's messes" or it's something more substantive.

As to the NBC/CNN polls, the roughly 70% of Americans who don't approve of the Democratic Party are obviously two very different groups of people. A bunch of them are Republicans who are NEVER going to approve of the Democratic Party. But another large segment are Democrats who are angry with Chuck Schumer (see above) and angry with the Party, and who want to see more resistance to Donald Trump, Elon Musk, et al. In fact, about 75% of Democratic respondents, in both polls, said they were upset with their party's inaction.

It's not good for a party to be as unpopular as it's ever been. However, if it's going to happen, this is the very best time for it, since the next election is still many, many weeks (i.e., many, many lifetimes) in the future. Like FDR, all those years ago, the evidence could not be clearer that it is not only wise, but essential, for the Democrats to take strong action, as much and as best as they can. If they do, it will be manna to many voters' hearts. All three of the polls in this item say to us that a majority is out there, waiting to be won over—the Democrats just need to seize the day.

And if the blue team wants to think about making inroads into the Trump coalition, and to maybe try to rebuild some version of the Barack Obama coalition or the Bill Clinton coalition, the next item talks about some of the things they should maybe be thinking about. If the blue team's standard-bearer in 2028 can actually articulate a message for how he or she will try to revitalize rural America, and can get some rural-dwellers to buy in, that would be a game-changer. It's not an easy task, but should the nominee pull it off, you know who they will look and sound like? Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who successfully ran on that very promise (among others) in 1932. Of course, he had the good fortune to run against a wealthy and out-of-touch Republican who oversaw an economic catastrophe, while simultaneously alienating trade partners across the globe. The 2028 Democrat, on the other hand, will... hmmmmmm... hey, wait a minute... (Z)

I Was Born in a Small Town

We received a very interesting commentary from reader P.M. in Pensacola, FL. It's a bit on the long side for the mailbag, but it's a good companion to the above item, so:

I have some commentary to add to the write-up from A.G. in Scranton, concerning the general feeling across this nation where there is a deflected blame game and a pity party for small-town/county America's woes, along with the never-ending complaint from some small community members about ongoing prosperity of coastal areas or big cities. I also want to comment about local, state, and federal politicians and their political parties who get elected by saying one thing about "helping" or "saving" small-town/county America, and then end up being or doing something misguided or nothing, thus actually becoming part of the problem with the demise of small town/county America. Thanks to A.G. for bringing up this topic.

A.G. is correct implying that small-town America is not coming back with regard to natural resources that are no longer readily available in local areas. There are all types of remnant "thin, deep veins of Anthracite coal [not being] viable alternatives" for economic recovery in such communities. That's why harnessing and development of renewable resources and establishing sustainable and resilient communities is so important to both large and small communities for the future. Interestingly, many small communities fight this. Vocabulary has to be used in Small-towns so as not to offend the locals... Isn't this what conservatives called political correctness, and a softening instead of just facing facts that Small-towns hate to hear?

Here in the South, I cannot begin to tell you how many small communities historically depended on local non-renewable natural resources in their thriving years, primarily virgin longleaf pine. A drive through west Alabama (just follow US-43 and SR-5 north from Mobile, AL, where the problem is acute), or away from and parallel to the coastal zones of the Florida Panhandle, Alabama, or Mississippi, will reveal many communities in this situation. Most all of them have a history of an abandoned lumber mill that closed when the last virgin forest stands were clearcut by the 1930's, and some have sat virtually paralyzed ever since. Today, most of what remains economically are scattered utility pole and wood treatment plants and pulpwood/paper mills in their places, many owned by multinational corporations, along with numerous convenience and dollar stores. Some towns prosper more than others (hubs), but the smallest towns are generally beaten down, crumbling, enveloped in poverty, caught in drug dealing and dependence, people are in poor health, and communities are abandoned by younger people seeking jobs, a modern education, and a better quality of life in larger small-hub communities or beyond. These towns are away from interstate highway commerce at exits. They are not near tourist areas, college/university communities, or big cities. Embedded racial problems (both self-inflicted and external political) keep consensus from occurring, causing generational oppressive community bitterness and an overriding sense of a "woe are we" mindset that keeps things stuck. (There is always the call for a "miracle," a "blessing," or some type of supernatural event to change things, often referencing the second coming of Christ. And, of course, attention is on a near god-like president and a tall promise to small-town/county America to make things great again, but with no specifics.)

This is not just in Pennsylvania and Appalachia, or only in the South. The same holds true for some dried up oil-patch areas of Texas west of the Hill Country, numerous communities up and down the Great Plains, especially west of the 98th meridian, and the so-called "Rust Belt" states (but the "rust" seems to be gone, or is disappearing in many of the major cities of the lower Midwest).

At some point, local communities, states, and the nation have to say "enough is enough" about the apparent bleak future outlook of small-town/county America. And the best place to start that conversation is locally (town/city and county level), NOT at the state and federal level. The decisions to be made are not easy.

Unfortunately, what I have found throughout my 35-year career working in many small communities is that the conversation about what to do never really gets serious and does not even start at all unless someone says: "GRANT!" Then, everyone gets temporarily excited.

And what are the GRANTS! used for? What I've seen is: street repairs and paving an unpaved road; community centers; fixing an old low-usage bridge; a new park or play equipment/ballfields; building turn lanes for the dinky empty "industrial" park outside of town; buying window shutters and a metal roof so the local government is functional following a hurricane; weatherizing old homes in a tightly-defined block or two. When the grant closes out, there is very little to show for it as far as the destiny of the community is concerned. None of this really translates to a true and long-lasting economic or structural renewal of a dying town or county.

My observation over my career is that local small-town and county governments rarely look at their communities from the perspective of outside people from the "Main Line and Upper Bucks." Local politicians and business leaders are near totally ignorant of the impression left in an outsider's mind of the abandoned downtown and strip shopping centers, the junk all over people's yards, the unattractive parking lots and strip centers left to develop any way they please with random traffic entry and exit, abandoned and outdated signage, broken fences, little greenery in commercial areas, litter, people standing around doing nothing (because there is little to do except watch national "news," gaming, or streaming movies all day), and the lack of investment in upkeep of business, residential, and rental properties (including simple things like paint and pressure washing). There are few, if any, local codes or even common-sense neighborhood or building standards, and no enforcement if there are standards, usually because everyone knows everyone and no one wants to offend the other. It's only about self, not community, and the bar is set too low.

The prevailing thought among leaders, residents, and businesses is that "it has always been this way, and it always will be that way."

And that, fellow Electoral-Vote.com readers, is why much of small-town America is stuck. Small-town America itself plays a significant, but not complete, role in holding back small-town America. Yes, state, national, international economics, and business policies have a lot to do with the current status. But small-town America is stuck by the fact that its own residents, renters, businesses, and elected leaders fail to recognize that each individual—everyone in the community—has a role to play in order to change the direction of where things are and where they are going.

Unfortunately, local elected and non-government official leadership tends to overshoot and loves to budget economic development boards to land a new, sparkling industry in the local industrial park. This can go on for years. These businesses (who are looking for cheap or no tax offers) need skills that far exceed local training and skills, and maybe even local interest. Local industrial or economic boards too often chase the diamonds that only well-organized and suburban communities will land. Rarely do they consider the overall appearance of the community, or what demolition or renewal of decrepit downtowns or old strip centers through active code enforcement could do, creating incentives for cleanup and upkeep, or having the courage to enforce codes that would enhance and attract numerous small, young, entrepreneurial business people to open new businesses, thus attracting new residents and increasing community wealth. Are these local economic development boards misguided?

When someone says "GRANT!" in a small community, everyone jumps, but they also usually have to hire a consultant to even apply for the grant because of the skill set needed. And grants are only a dice roll due to stiff competition among applicants. Normally statewide. Grants alone are not the answer.

Image is everything. After reading the missive from A.G., I pulled up photos of Braddock, PA. I also mentally pulled up visions of Century, FL. Uniontown, AL. Sheffield, TX. All struggling small communities fitting the description of depleted resources and stuck. I thought of A.G. mentioning Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA). When I look at an individual in a leadership position dressed like Senator Fetterman, I cannot take them seriously. Senator Fetterman is the spittin' image of so many of the town council members and county commissioners I've observed wearing sweats, or blue jeans and a plaid farm shirt (even dirty) to council and commission meetings. They seldom appear to think about how unprofessional they look to visitors, new residents, young future leaders, and maybe a hidden person in the audience scoping out a place to relocate a business or create new opportunity. Their dress, including that of Fetterman, says a lot to others about how they themselves view the community they represent. (Honestly, I have a hard time taking the issues of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania seriously when I see him in his attire.) Small-town and county leaders are not being examples of and ambassadors to their community members, state and federal officials, and to potential new residents and investors by dressing like they just left a gym, finished working on a car, or were sitting around out back tossing a ball with the dog.

In my opinion, I believe unserious and "same old, same old" small-community and county elected officials, residential and rental property owners (and the renters), and some tired, suspicious of change (renewal) business leaders are truly in the driver's seat more than they realize as far as small-town/county America's future is concerned. The state and federal governments providing "GRANTS!" cannot solve every local and unaddressed problems. More often than not, the fortunes of these communities have come on hard times from external events (globalization, resource depletion, large corporate takeovers, sometimes horrible natural disasters, pollution or perceived pollution). Reality check: Those old days and the resources that made those old days are gone. Finished. Over. Making America Great Again has been latched on to by so many in small-town and small county America. Unfortunately, MAGA appears to have evolved to be more about vendettas and eliminating things unimportant to a political ideology, and not about renewal and the future, especially in small-town America.

But let's not transfer the blame for small-community demise exclusively on state and federal governments and those elected officials for something that needs to be resolved by local leadership (whether public or private) by taking their community roles seriously. Yes, state and federal dollars through grants and loans should be sought and provided. But my experiences show me that local leaders are simply not serious about COMPREHENSIVELY, CREATIVELY, and INTELLIGENTLY renewing and/or restoring their own communities for a prosperous future. They are, instead, grant responsive. If a grant is not available, they just sit. But, image is everything in terms of a community's attractiveness to new businesses and residents, too. There is a lack of seriousness and urgency among many of the residents, the slum lords, and businesses who allow their houses, rentals, and commercial properties to become eyesores for decades. Lowered property values impact the tax base. More concerning, visitors and potential new residents and investors to keep on driving through as fast as possible. (That actually applies to cities, suburbs, AND small-town America.) Small-towns often scoff at "newcomers." But if small-town/county America is dying because of depopulation, part of the key to living again is to attract new residents. Newcomers want to feel safe and live in a community that is looking ahead, not looking back or caught in "stuck mode."

Where would I start to effect renewal if I were in the elected or business positions of small communities? Well, I'm writing this from the "newcomer" point of view. Given that, I would develop a rather strong local land development code that established a means of getting all properties up to a 2025-35 level of mechanical, electrical, and aesthetically pleasing standards, likely in phases that started with voluntary compliance, then advancing to strict enforcement over a 10-year period. If it's abandoned and has no hope of ever being utilized again, condemn, demolish, put a lien on it, put the lot up for sale. If it needs upkeep and painting, coordinate with bigger cities, rehab non-profits, etc. to get things like remixed waste paint blends and materials from non-profits like Habitat's ReStore. There should be a generous and definite time of voluntary efforts to achieve compliance (taking into consideration that many people are disabled, low income, elderly). Abandoned car? Scrap them if people won't comply. Work with local judges to move issues in courts or with issue-specific magistrates. But in the end, get the community's core basic infrastructure renewed and revitalized. Engage. Take responsibility. Provide leadership. Achieve something higher and future oriented.

My second effort would be towards motivating the private sector and adult education to train all local residents about financial fluency and responsibility. When people are spending dollars on smoking, excessive alcohol and drugs just to numb the pain, oversized vehicles that over-consume fuel at the pump, and things that are beyond their means (multiple streaming and cable services, for example), the financial well-being of the community suffers. Money that people barely have is being sent out of household budgets and the local community to the big corporations or drug networks. The true ability to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse that impacts people the most is actually within their own control. Improve self-motivation and innovate away from activities that suck money out of a community.

From there, the future for any family and community will begin to improve. But notice, it starts in the minds and hearts of each person, locally, with every individual. Yeah, the states, feds, and the multinationals have their roles, too. It's a broad problem. But these entities have no solutions for local issues and struggles that locals should be engaging with and deciding.

Future state and local grant and loan programs should be developed and formed to work over a 10-year cycle to initiate community renewal and destiny, not a year-to-year band aid or casual "whatever" plan of approach. Small communities need to get out of the simple and narrow solution outcome thought process of yesterday and understand where things are headed. Small towns can be nostalgic, but they cannot function as 150-year-old abandoned covered wagons on the prairie (such as those west of Gering, NE... cute, historical, but useless for today). If a community has no planned long-term destiny and lacks a serious attitude, grant funds should not be issued and the community should be directed to the Department of History at the local university for photos and archives, be abandoned and reverted to forests or grasslands, or fenced off like Pripyet near Chernobyl if pollution is creating a "no hope for renewal" scenario.

I know, I know. Big city guy (Pensacola???... not really, oversized beach tourist town with a regionally important airport and banking center, and Navy personnel and retirees running everywhere) telling country people what to do. Not really. Larger cities and counties are simply tackling problems head on. Downtown Pensacola. Once dead. Thriving. Nearby Mobile, AL. Dead and dangerous downtown. Today, like a mini-New Orleans. Our larger-but-once-left-for-dead inner cities here are addressing their shortcomings with combinations of grants, local dollars, and most importantly with dedicated people who desire to use skillful, well-thought out planning and coordination. Small-town/county America needs to properly size this for itself, of course. But doing nothing locally is too often what I have seen and is not an option if such a town/county wants a future apart from where it presently sits.

But sitting around, year after year, all the while mumbling "woe are we" and thinking President Trump or any state or national leader, or that the current MAGA movement, or either political party, or some BIG diamond-studded industrial fish, now or tomorrow, will be able to single handedly change the destiny for the better for small-town/county America?

That is totally delusional.

Thanks, P.M.! We suspect readers will have thoughts on this piece, and we welcome them, of course. As a reminder, the e-mail is comments@electoral-vote.com. (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger